Up for Debate: Scalia defends comments

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 12:58am

What do you make of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's defense of past comments he has made on homosexuality and its morality?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

137 Comments on this post:

By: BenDover on 12/12/12 at 9:09

The Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment gives the fed's the authority over the states. Court should uphold the law and the law should be repealed to allow states to decide or replaced with another law like the Civil Rights act of '64.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 9:17

Let us never forget, Bill Clinton signed the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996....Bill lacked the caljones to veto the pathetic attempt by organized religion to dictate government policy. Clinton was a closeted theocrat?

As a progressive liberal, Bill Clinton is highly over-rated....he never lifted a finger to stop the expensive, discredited and counter-productive war on drugs, for example....and he signed off on numerous "targeted killings"....Bill Clinton let Defense, Israel & Energy call the ME policy shots....in some ways, Bill blew the job, regardless of the blow job.

And now his skanky wife may run for his old POTUS job....enuff already!

By: dargent7 on 12/12/12 at 9:17

Bud" Being an idiot is not an expression of "freedom of speech".
Homosexuality is in the DNA. Sexual orientation is not a learned behavior.
Scalla could not STOP his being "Italian" any more than a gay person could STOP his/ her sexual orientation.H
He's ignorany ( like half of all Americans)....plain and simple.

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 9:19

Ben there is no defense for rape and bestiality would be another form of rape. No rational quarrel for you on this point either.

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 9:26

Good morning d7. How is the weather in your parts. It is sunny and frost in on the ground here.

By: global_citizen on 12/12/12 at 9:27

If Scalia is signaling that he's already made his mind on the issue, and that no arguments could persuade him, he is not really a judge but a dictator.

By: BenDover on 12/12/12 at 9:27

Why 18 years old and not 21 Nemo? Why not 16 as an age of consent?

Do you disagree that society has a right to establish a threshold?

There are freaks who would make it 12; and they, too, would argue it's 'in their DNA' D'arge.

I'm gone guys. This is a losing argument for the reasons mentioned in my first post.

If you throw this law out though you'll be overturning a good deal of Brown and many other cases you really favor... and the Civil Right's Act of '64 will become vulnerable on the same grounds as well.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 9:27

Bud placed the following items in the same general category:

child abuse
poligamy (sic)
armed robbery

The fact that homosexuality and polygamy are victimless "crimes" seems to be of no significance to Budlight, or to Antonin Scalia. They lump all that together as "sin"...and they would make sin illegal in the USA.

Bud, you have SCOTUS potential....or preacher potential....now get the flock out.

By: global_citizen on 12/12/12 at 9:30

yogi, of course everyone knows that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage in any way, it will then outlaw heterosexual marriage and everyone will turn gay. No man will be interested in women anymore, nor any woman interested in men. It'll be a total calamity, won't it?

By: BenDover on 12/12/12 at 9:35

And besides, it doesn't matter anyway. This is one of the laws that Supreme Leader Obama and Commissar Holder have already decided to repeal this law by shirking their Constitutional responsibilities and not enforcing it; so who really cares what the courts say.

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 9:36

King David had 8 wives and one husband(Prince Jonathan) so why not polygamy? It's Biblical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Abraham married his sister. It's Biblical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The one thing NOT found in the Bible is a command to marry. It's not in the Decalogue, not in the Torah, not in the NT, nothing commands monogamous male-female marriage only.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 9:37

Mornin' Darge...good to hear your reports from the Left Coast...we are nationwide.

Global, well-said...Scalia is channeling Generalissimo Mussolini? Benito and the Pope got along just fine. The church got their cut and looked the other way on the Fascist oppression ....that get-along-go-along attitude, regarding corruption and oppression, is a time-honored Catholic tradition in Italy....dates back to the Roman Empire.

By: gdiafante on 12/12/12 at 9:40

Society also at one time thought that African Americans were 3/5 of a person...it stayed that way until men, not society, decided to pass the 13th amendment.

Obviously our society was not ready because it took another 100 years before it really began to treat them as equals.

Sometimes progress is painful and justice should be administered in spite of society. And really, in this case, I'd argue that society is better prepared to see homosexuals legally marry than it was to see black/women suffrage.

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 9:45

Same-sex marriages were once common.

The Tomb of Hercules was a popular wedding destination for same-sex couples in honor of Hercules and Iolus his long-time mate.

The Church both East and West had same-sex union ceremonies and rites as late as the early Renaissance period and in a few isolated spots as late as the 18th century.

Henry II and Louis of France were lovers, as were their sons Louis and Richard the Lion Hearted.
Jean, Bishop of Orleans was married to Ralph, Archbishop of Tours(12th century)
etc etc etc

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 9:45

Again Ben, you are talking about rape. It has been alread been established at what age of consent is and some states have different age limits on that. Anything below that age would be considered rape. There is a time when a child becomes of age and then there is a time when a child is mentally mature enough to decide for themselves. Some sooner than others and incase (I want mention who) others never each maturity.

Have a good day Ben. 

By: Blanketnazi2 on 12/12/12 at 9:46

Kosh is going to baffle them with facts! LOL

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 9:47

O! and of course King James(as in the Bible version) was gay. He met his first lover, Esme Stuart at his coronation at age 13. His most famous mate was Earl of Buckingham.

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 9:49

Please global citizen we don’t talk to that troll any more on this site. :-)

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 9:51

LOL Blanket.

Good point, Kosh. As usual.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 9:51

Family resemblance time:




It's in his blood.. genetics-related arrogance and conceit...Scalia can't help himself, he is a natural born A-hole....he might even be a native born A-hole, but I'll let the troll decide that point.

Reagan had the hots for Antonin Scalia...the Gipper's dead hand is still working it's way up the national rectum...in a tight fist....Italian style.....Scalia sez: "Piegarsi, diffondere le guance!"

Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling....a very warm smile, I'm sure.

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 9:56

global has a good point. My wife and I once talked about that once gays were able to marry that we would then have to get a divorce. Then we laugh at that ridiculous statement.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 10:00

Kosh...Richard the Lion-Hearted was gay?

Was he open about it...or was he Richard the Lying-Hearted?

Richard the Lion-Hearted was gay?....I never heard that said about the beloved Christian Crusader....and now, the required disclaimer: NTTAWWT.... (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That).

By: Blanketnazi2 on 12/12/12 at 10:04

NTTAWWT - another Seinfeldism!

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 10:05

J. Edgar Hoover was not gay, he just had sex with men, while in drag.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 12/12/12 at 10:06

Yeah, Nemo. That's totally different.

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 10:06

No soup for Loner...Two Weeks!!!

By: Captain Nemo on 12/12/12 at 10:12

I am always amazed that so many people that has told me the fact of life and still miss-quoted history and or does not know anything about it.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 10:14

In the Old Testament, we find the "justified" story of father-daughter incest...right here:


But that's not all...here's a list of the top six examples of incest in the OT:


Does all that Biblical OK for incest make it acceptable to the Scalians? If they are consistent, then it would follow that they are actually incest-friendly, right?

God the father impregnated a virgin, unmarried, Jewish girl w/o her pre-consent...but that Divine rape-justification stuff...the pagan-like man-God concept... is in the New Testament.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 10:21

Bn, I never watched an entire episode of Seinfeld...sure, I've seen bits & pieces of the show on the TV, in public places (bars, restaurants etc.) but I always clicked the channel knob past that show when in command of the remote....I simply hate comedy shows that rely on a laugh track to punctuate the supposedly funny lines...Seinfeld was the top abuser of the laugh track...in my humble opinion.

And here I thought that I was coining the acronym: NTTAWWT...now, I hear that Seinfeld already did...sorry 'bout that....(cue laugh track at this point).

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 10:26

Ben claims that BHO and AG Holder put DOMA in a coma....I agree, they did...now, for the lethal injection...Goodbye DOMA.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 12/12/12 at 10:29

Loner, they didn't use the acronym but they used the saying a lot when referring to someone gay.

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 10:35

Yes, everyone knew it. See the works of the historian John Boswell: Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe and Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality.

Correction: It was King Philip of France not Louis.

Boswell says that Richard's widow Berengaria of Navarre had to appeal to the Pope for her inheritance because no one believed Richard was married to a woman.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 10:36

I see, Bn, that's probably how the expression made it into the American vernacular...the writers of that show mimicked the general population, or was it the other way around?

Thanks for the clarification...I'd hate to think that I had plagiarized a Seinfeldism.

I may use the acronym in the future...there's no copyright on it...Jingle James is throwing that out there, gratis....feel free to use NTTAWWT when necessary, to cover one's @ss, after making a hasty homophobic comment.

By: gdiafante on 12/12/12 at 10:41

If you believe that two people began the human race, incest is a necessity. If you also believe that people have an internal sense of right and wrong, it's not a stretch to think that the female offspring didn't always play along. So what does that make it?

So the Old Testament God was ok with incest, rape, killing of women and children, human sacrifice and slavery.

But he loves you...lol

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 10:42


Was it intentional to mention G Julius Caesar? He was very into men: his enemy Curio once said of his promiscuity that he was "every woman's husband and every man's wife."

Curio also once tried to get Julius censured by the Senate becauseof his role in his affair with the King of Bythinia. It was the fact that Julius was taking the subordinate i.e. "catching" role and not the "pitching" role that was the problem. Romans always had to be superior as they were the rulers not the subjects. Make sense?

Of course Julius had wives and female affairs: he used sex as a tool against others. What better way to overcome an opponent than to cucold him?

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 10:52

Thanks, Kosh for the background poop on the Lion-Hearted holy warrior....his underlings went to the Crusades wearing anal chastity belts, according to ancient English rumors.

The Great Crusades...it was the Golden Age for locksmiths....the highest paid camp followers.

The Catholics must have had a change of heart after Lion Heart...they burned the leaders of the Knights Templar at the stake, for running an alleged homosexual cult. The Popes were finicky, back in the days of olde....the infallible ones flip-flopped on the gay thing....or so it would appear.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 11:01

Kosh: Caesar was bi..I heard that allegation before, NTTAWWT....but I threw his likeness out there for comparison with fellow-Italians Mussolini and Scalia...family resemblance?

Caesar was a bisexual predator...Mussolini screwed everybody....and Scalia wears a studded thong under his judicial robes....just sayin'.

Does Antonin Scalia top from the bottom? We'll find out, right after this....(cut to commercial break)

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 11:05

Hell, ethnic cleansing was actually a Divine Commandment, Gd....the Israelites wiped out or enslaved the non-Jewish residents of the Promised Land...it's well-documented in the OT....that's how and why US Christians support Israel's land-grabbing and apartheid policies today...it's the will of God, according to the bumfuzzled believers.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 11:15

War, ethnic cleansing, rape, incest, slavery, polygamy, stoning and other cruel, inhumane and criminal acts were all given a Divine Blessing by the writers of the Bible...today's fundamentalists still cling to the hate-based, race-based concepts of Judeo-Christianity....keeping the faith with the ancient war criminals.

By: budlight on 12/12/12 at 12:06

Blanketnazi2 on 12/12/12 at 7:57
This is an example of why I think government should be focused on being secular.

The government IS secular. The constitution states that the government shall not form a church: It states:

"Amentment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"shall make no law respecting establishment of religion" means they - the government can't form or dictate the religion or religious rights and beliefs of others. No on is saying you or anyone else can't be gay. People are simply not in agreement with your or others beliefs or life styles. That does not make either one RIGHT OR WRONG. It just makes us all DIFFERENT. And isn't DIFFERENT what diversity is about?

I don't like red lipstick; but if you do, so be it. I don't like cheap perfume, but if you do, so be it. I don't like anchovies on pizza, but if you do, go for it. We all have our differences. Now, let's stop fighting and figure out which things we agree on and can do something about.

How about starting with child abuse, murder, rape, incest, and other criminal behavior?

And Loner, the Bible was written in different times. I am sure the God that presides over me does not endorse rape, incest and all the things you mentioned. We are called to a higher order than that.

By: budlight on 12/12/12 at 12:20

And as far as I know, being Gay is not a crime, so can we all agree to disagree? Some day it might be against the law to marry someone of the opposite sex! I bet Loner, Capt and the ilk would agree that would be . . . . duh .. . . uh . . . different!

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 12:23

Bud used the reducto ad absurdum tool in her 12:20....like I said, she's got SCOTUS potential.

By: budlight on 12/12/12 at 12:34

Loner, you are almighty, holier than anyone else. I think you used the "reducto ad absurdum tool" in all of your postings. But hey, that's your freedom of speech. Now quit stepping on and dissing my freedom of speech.

Agree? Disagree? But do it respectfully.

My Gay friends know how I feel. AND I know how they feel. AND we are still friends. Friends who do not impose our views on one another and friends who do not judge each other.

They can speak their minds and I can speak mine -- without fear of whip-lashing from one another. Too bad you and your ilk don't get it!

By the way, I have a Christmas 1999 The White House Historical Association ornament for sale. It has Abe Lincoln on it. Anyone want to buy it? You libs would love it for your Christmas tree -- or holiday tree -- or whatever the new fad is! LOL

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 12:37

In a secular, non-theocratic society, offenses against God and offenses against humanity are two very different things...in the former case, we call it "sin", in the latter case, we call it "crime".

Criminal matters are adjudicated by judges in secular courts; matters regarding sin are adjudicated by sectarian clerics in their leadership councils and various inter-sanctums.

In a theocracy, there is no distinction between sin & crime....the Holy Men are the judges.

The US is sliding into Judeo-Christian theocracy; the DOMA is clear evidence of that....as are the perpetual holy wars.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 12:41

Budlight offers words of praise: Loner, you are almighty, holier than anyone else.

Aw, shucks, I'm only human, Bud...don't blaspheme....but, thanks for the adoration.

By: Loner on 12/12/12 at 12:44

BTW, Bud, I have no ilk; hence my username.

By: budlight on 12/12/12 at 12:52

Loner, those were not words of praise . . . mere sarcasism! But I'm sure if you were the guy who delivers the mail at my home, I'd be nice to you.

Loner - is someone of a misnomer for you. Since you choose to be one of the gang on CP; or the group; or the club; or whatever you call this. But you are a person who craves friendship and who will seek it at all costs.

The DOMA is clear evidence that the majority still does not believe otherwise. Simple! Fact!

I bet if we put it to a national vote and there were no DEMS OR Republicans differentiated, it would fail to pass gay marriage by a strong majority. But alas, that should not happen. I agree it is a State by State - States right issue.

By: gdiafante on 12/12/12 at 1:04

Yeah, Loner, it was Sarcasism.

Yes, I italianized that.

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 1:26

" I don't like anchovies on pizza"

Now THAT'S a true crime....or is it heresy?

By: Kosh III on 12/12/12 at 1:29

"I bet if we put it to a national vote...it would fail to pass gay marriage by a strong majority"

Just as segregation would have been supported in a popular vote; a good reason why basic rights should not be subject to a vote.

How does someone creating a stable private relationship harm you? I have never heard one credible response to that; it's always just personal opinion and opinion is not the basis of our constitution.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Equal rights for all.