It kind of hurts to know that Justice Antonin Scalia still hasn’t found a space in his heart for “homosexual sodomy.”
The Supreme Court judge hasn’t swayed much from the sentiment conveyed in the dissent he wrote in Lawrence v. Texas – the landmark court case that struck down the sodomy law in the great (though not necessarily in decision making) state of Texas. In 2003 he wrote that the other six justices were signing on “to the so-called homosexual agenda” which he alleged aims to eliminate “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” Scalia echoed that a point of view on the sexual behaviors of the man-for-man sect of the population during a recent event at the American Enterprise Institute.
Scalia was offering his assessment on various issues that he found easily solvable. Scalia said: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion.”
Then came “homosexual sodomy,” which he argued, “Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.” And like Lawrence vs. Texas, Scalia took issue with justices who try to apply the values of the Constitution with the ever-evolving world. Scalia states “the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.”
This isn’t exactly shocking news, considering he often employs that shtick about being a stickler for Constitutional literalism. He’s also the same person who said earlier this year, “There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy.”
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but if I went by the standard that for 200 years “homosexual sodomy” was illegal, I ought to be typing in shackles and consider myself 3/5 a person.
Since Scalia remains so vexed about the right for a man to sodomize another, I’d love to know what he makes of heterosexual sodomy considering it’s been on an upswing.
Make note: This is the only time I’ll ever be curious about Antonin Scalia’s thoughts on sexual matters.
How fun it must be to be Antonin Scalia and have a job in which you get to have flexible interpretations of legal documents that perpetuate your particular prejudices whenever it suits you.
Like most bigots with an aversion to labels that apply to them, Scalia stayed true to form in that Lawrence ruling, noting: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.” To him, the majority pandered to those pesky poking gays by providing an “invention of a brand-new ‘constitutional right.’” A right in which he believes was unearned and proved how the gay community is “impatient of democratic change.”
It’s pretty clear that he remains bothered, though he’d surely get it over it sooner if he realized that democracy was working then on the ‘what, what in the butt’ ruling, continues to now and would continue to work just fine if “traditionalists” of Scalia’s ilk wouldn’t be so obsessed with reversion.
If you needed any reminder as to how ass backwards this country is, look no further than a Justice trying to bring about a new debate over the old issue as to whether or not one has the right to use his ass as he so chooses to.
I get that with age some start to cling to the days of yore, but at one point does one realize that being so cyclical about certain cultural issues makes you look like a crock? Never mind, there’s an entire national political party themed around such a characteristic.
Even so, wouldn’t it be great if we could transport Scalia to the horse and buggy, witch-burning era of civilization he so clearly covets?
Or the closet thing available: A gig on FOX News.
Michael Arceneaux is a Houston-bred, Howard-educated writer and blogger. You can read more of his work on his site, The Cynical Ones. Follow him on Twitter: @youngsinick