U.S. Rep. Barney Frank: Why I Called Justice Scalia A Homophobe

[marmar]

from HuffPost:




Rep. Barney Frank
Posted March 26, 2009 | 09:18 AM (EST)

Why I Called Justice Scalia A Homophobe



While responding to questions from journalists about my characterization of Justice Antonin Scalia as a homophobe, I realized that the fact that I made that comment in conjunction with a potential lawsuit about the Defense of Marriage Act created some confusion as to my basis for that characterization.

My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity. In those two virulent dissents, Justice Scalia denounced the court majorities not simply for finding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation in cases involving political rights and the right to private consensual sex, but he also made it clear that in his view sex discrimination is not only permitted by the Constitution but is very much in society's interest because homosexuality deserves to be treated with not only disapproval, but legal disability.

This comes out most clearly in his very vigorous abjection to the court's decision to block a criminal prosecution against two men who had consensual sex in the privacy of their bedroom. And it is made very vivid in the passage in which he affirms society's right to treat homosexuals unequally by citing other categories which deserves such treatment -- beginning with murder.

It is of course possible for reasonable people to differ over what the Constitution requires in these cases. But the point is that Justice Scalia goes far beyond simply denying that there is a constitutional right here and makes clear his support for the discriminatory policies based on his condemnation of homosexuality. This is best illustrated by the contrast between his writing in the criminal sodomy case and that of Justice Thomas, who in disagreeing with his colleague's view that the Constitution prohibits criminal prosecution for private consensual sex between adults, notes that he believes that the law in question is "remarkably silly" and notes that he would have voted against it if he was in a legislature. So while both Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia are in the minority upholding the right of criminal prosecution, Justice Thomas makes clear his disapproval of this as a matter of policy while Justice Scalia enthusiastically embraces it. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-i-called-justice-scal_b_179434.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Try This On For Size

From Scalia's opinion:

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct"

[RoyGBiv]

7. I just realized ...

Scalia is a shitty writer, even for a jurist. It's not standard "legaleze." It's the chicken-scratch approach to writing a legal document.

Sentences that begin with "To tell the truth ..." have no place in a legal opinion. Are we to infer that the preceding words were not the truth?

Jargon, double-negatives (or triple or quadruple), misplaced metaphors, and rhetorical trickery are the hallmarks of his opinions.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. Yes, he writes crappy opinions.

You can tell how smart a judge is by reading his/her opinions.

Back in the 80s I noticed that Sandy O'Connor's opinions were not terribly logical, nor well written.

We don't have an Oliver Wendell Holmes or Benjamin Nathan Cardozo warming the bench.

Or even a Hugo Black (former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, believe it or not)!!!

[TahitiNut]

5. Frank is right on the money.

Try reconciling those rationalizations by Scalia to Scalia's condemnation of "moral relativism" and stand as a strict constructionist. He's duplicitous and hypocritical.

[guruoo]

13. Looks like they've been

banned before???

http://www.google.com/search?q=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Duser_profiles%26u_id%3D128462&hl=en&filter=0

[msongs]

6. so if 50% voters plus One vote to exterminate your family, that's ok with you? nt

[RoyGBiv]

8. Yeah, sure ...

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals . . ."

I can dig up several comments from Jefferson Davis arguing that he had nothing against blacks and that the southern states did not attempt to secede over slavery.

[Bjorn Against]

10. You are full of shit, you left out the key passages that show Scalia's homophobia.

Here are some other quotes from Scalia's opinion which are obviously very homophobic...

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.

States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults "in matters pertaining to sex": prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography.

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196--the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest

As you can see in these passages Scalia repeatedly compares gay sex to bestiality, incest, prostitution and child porn. That is homophobic, and that is not all he says.

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

Yes, the "homosexual agenda" a phrase that tends to be uttered primarily homophobes who say things like what Scalia goes on to write about...

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home.

But after he says all of that crap comparing gay sex to bestiality, child porn, and prostitution and suggesting that we need to protect our children from the "homosexual agenda" by not allowing gays to work in our businesses or be scoutmasters or teachers, he says the words you quoted. I find it interesting that you leave out all of his preceding words and pretend like all he said was "I have nothing against homosexuals" when it was very clear by everything he wrote beforehand that he is a homophobe.

[Maven]

11. Actually, you're full of shit, and your defense of Scalia on this issue is both disgusting

and par for the course for you.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Well Stated, Rep. Frank

Sometimes Barney makes me so glad to be a resident of Mass's 4th congressional district.

[indepat]

3. It's a shame prudence dictates Representative Frank not tell Associate Justice Scalia

in a public forum what he must really think. :P

Edited to correct verb case

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Nothing that Fat Tony ever said will top the idea that you can execute an innocent person if you've

gone to all the trouble of convicting them in court.