True? False? Intriguing? An idea worth exploring? Let's see, if the courts aren't to rule on morality, they can look at gay issues through discrimination and not whether being gay is an abomination to some denomination's god. This could be good.
But when I tell you the person expressing the idea at the top of this post is Antonin Scalia, Justice of the Supreme Court, the debate gets more interesting. Scalia gave a speech at the North Carolina Bar Association yesterday. In his talk were references to homosexuality as an issue to be decided by the public, not the courts.
That prompts more questions:
Is Scalia just throwing bombs, being provocative? He's known for doing such things.
Is he signaling how he will vote in the marriage equality cases to be issued next week? Just what is he signaling?
Is he saying that the court shouldn't rule on "moral" issues at all? Does that imply he believes gays have no recourse to the courts?
Is he being realistic that justices are indeed not qualified to rule on the moral aspects of cases, that there is no demonstrably morally right answer?
What should a court do when a religion claims the moral right to bully gay people? From a statement Scalia said in 2003, as part of his dissent on the Texas anti-sodomy law, that Americans have a clear right "to protect themselves from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
Scalia was asked to apply those principles to the case of "Brown v. Board of Education," that desegregated schools.
Scalia said he would have voted with the majority on the case to create more educational opportunities for blacks. He added, however, that “a good result” doesn’t make for good law. Had the courts not interceded, he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.Eventually? There are many in the South who are even now working to make schools segregated.
Reaction by an audience member: Yup, Scalia is being consistent with earlier views. He's no friend to gays or progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment