Quantcast

«

»

Jun 26 2013

How Scalia predicted marriage equality 10 years ago

In light of today’s ruling, it’s important to note that Scalia himself predicted marriage equality all the way back in 2003 when they made the decision to make sodomy legal.

It should be noted that, now that California is included, full state and federal marriage equality is now in 13 states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, and California, and DC. These states and DC make up 30.5% of the US by population. Equality is coming.

This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.

[...] Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest”… what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

Full horrifying opinion here, where he says he’s got nothing against the gays, he just thinks they’re going to hell.

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    slc1

    As I opined on the previous post, I would beware of counting chickens before they’re hatched. According to a number of legal beagles, it ain’t 100% certain that the District Court decision applies statewide in California and I fully expect the opposition to try to limit it as much as they can.

  2. 2
    psweet

    Hmmm…. how would that work? Prop 8, if I remember correctly, was an amendment to the State Constitution. So the argument is that the state constitution applies differently to different parts of the state? And what does the state do if someone in the part not covered by the decision travels to the part that is, gets married, and then returns. Does the state recognize the marriage (since it is, by law, legal) or don’t they (since the state constitution outlaws it where the couple lives)?

  3. 3
    slc1

    Re psweet @ #2

    Let’s remember that the law is an ass. The argument is that Walker’s decision only applies in his district (the argument that it only applies to the plaintiffs is piffle). As a precedent, it should be noted that the commentary in the Dover case indicated that Judge Jones’ decision only applied in his Federal District, not statewide in Pennsylvania. I entirely agree with psweet’s arguments but that won’t stop the opponents from trying to limit Walker’s decision as much as they can. Their strategy now is to stall hoping something will turn up.

  4. 4
    Sean Sherman

    I thought it would have been humorous if Boies and Olson would have quoted Scalia’s dissent in Romer v Evans in the courtroom.

  5. 5
    Sean Sherman

    I mean Lawrence v Texas, I was incorrect.

  6. 6
    cactuswren

    I have to admire his endless repetitions of the phrase “homosexual sodomy”. At least he’s honest enough to admit that it’s not the act he finds objectionable, but who’s participating in the act.

  7. 7
    Amar

    whats up babe? also, this http://www.anony.ws/i/2013/06/29/u4z3.jpg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>