Some negative, yet true things have been said about Justice Scalia since he died, but it needs to be remembered that they were also said while he was alive as well.
I understand the sentiments of those who advise others to be respectful, to avoid vitriol, and to be the better person, but I also know that some of the things said by Scalia about Gay people, either in his capacity as Justice or as a guest speaker at some event, were filled with vitriol and disrespect.
His negative statements on the Bench had a direct affect on how some people were treated, and his statements at speaking engagements had the indirect affect of leading people to believe their actions against others were somehow justifiable.
I can punch someone, direct, or lead someone to believe that someone should be punched, indirect, but either way, someone gets hurt.
This was Scalia.
When he was negative, he was very negative, and dangerous.
These are some things he had to say about me.
“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. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
And, because some people find homosexuality immoral for “justifiable” reasons or more often mere uninformed opinion, that is why state sodomy bans were constitutional and teachers could lose their jobs.
If people like me, I can have rights; if they don’t, I can’t
“Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings, but I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit ’animus’ toward such conduct. ”
He said this in relation to Colorado’s ban on anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people because we are the same as murderers and animal abusers.
In Lawrence vs Texas, Scalia admitted banning consensual acts between two people of the same sex “undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”
And such bans furthered “the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable… [like] fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.”
Thus I cannot express love toward a partner because it is the same as prostitution, recreational use of heroin, adultery, adult incest, and bestiality?
When it came to laws that ban Gay people from having sex, his thoughts were, “[The law] doesn’t say you can’t have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex.”
He insisted such laws were not discriminatory against Gays because, well, they banned heterosexuals from having Gay sex too.
“Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [The] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.”
Improper rest and increased stressful environment are proven to be the foes of viagra for uk for male sexual health as well. The medicine should cheapest viagra in uk not be taken with the necessary precaution so as to alleviate and ease the pain is probably the first requirement when suffering from a gout attack. india viagra It improves the blood flow to the penis. cialis generika deeprootsmag.org It has to be applied over the gentile organ of the male and within five minutes one is ready for enjoy his life with happiness. / Kamagra is renowned for its ability to do so.
He once declared, “It is clear… that the court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed” while citing his religion at times when it came to decisions. He often pushed his own Catholic beliefs on the country, and that is an agenda.
When being questioned before the Court during United States v. Windsor, a case that dealt with Marriage Equality, attorneys for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group could not explain how allowing same-sex couples to marry would hurt straight couples, Scalia answered for them.
“Let me give you one concrete thing. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family [are]. Some States do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
However, studies have shown children of same-sex couples perform no worse than their hetero-raised peers.
And then there is this gem:
“If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.”
When it came to accepting that Gays had rights, he said, “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality is evil”, because, obviously Gay rights is a fashion statement of the elite. We are not regular people.
When his side lost when it came to striking down anti-sodomy laws, he stated,
“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.”
He was upset that some activists were working to end long standing, but misguided and misinformed hatred toward Gay people that was politically based.
If he actually went back and looked at the history of his own church, he would see that such hatred did not exist until free thinking threatened the power and influence of the kings of burgeoning countries that until a certain historical period had no real boundaries.
Historical hatred of a group is not the justification for the hatred. “We have always hated them, so we should not stop now”, is not legitimate.
As he once asked, “If we cannot have moral feelings against Homosexuality, can we have it against murder?”
I am a person who would like to have someone to love, I am not equivalent to taking the life of another.
If Scalia was able to say the things he did in life about people like me, then I do not feel it is wrong that I express my distaste after his death for what he said .
People are still here having to deal with the negative results of his statements.
His dying does not clear the slate.
He will get the accolades, deserved and otherwise, as people avoid speaking badly of the dead, but he leaves behind conditions the living have to deal with, and some of them are children.