[personal profile] ganainm
Who else was surprised to see Judge Vaughan R. Walker quote Justice Antonin Scalia in his Prop. 8 decision? Scalia's no friend of same-sex marriage. Citing him in a decision like that is like citing Richard Dawkins in a sermon.

To me it looks like a legal poke in the ribs.

Near the middle of Walker's decision, he quotes Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas (2003), in which the Supreme Court overturned Texas's law against sodomy:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct . . . what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'?"

Scalia is not being agreeable here. Far from it: he is dissenting, bitterly and sarcastically. He has no problem with homosexuals, he says, but he also has no problem with laws against consensual acts, even in private, on the basis of "moral disapprobation." In dire tones -- just before the sentence Walker quotes -- he reflects on Canada's then-recent legalization of same-sex marriage and says, "Today's decision 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."

Back in 2003, Walker could not have known he would preside over the challenge to Prop. 8, so I'm sure he didn't read that and think, "Yes, it does!" But in writing his decision in the Prop. 8 case, he may have been delighted to find a virtual road map to the legalization of same-sex marriage laid out for him by one of its opponents; and he must have allowed himself at least a chuckle when he quoted Scalia's rhetorical question. He was seizing one of the enemy's guns and turning it against him.

Date: 2010-08-14 03:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cakmpls.livejournal.com
Thanks for pointing this out!!

Date: 2010-08-14 04:10 pm (UTC)
ext_85396: (Default)
From: [identity profile] unixronin.livejournal.com
Scalia is not being agreeable here. Far from it: he is dissenting, bitterly and sarcastically. He has no problem with homosexuals, he says, but he also has no problem with laws against consensual acts, even in private, on the basis of "moral disapprobation." In dire tones -- just before the sentence Walker quotes -- he reflects on Canada's then-recent legalization of same-sex marriage and says, "Today's decision 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."
"ZOMGZ0RS!!!1!eleventy!  This would stop us from TEH DISCRIMINATION against TEH GHEY!"

I have yet to hear any RATIONAL explanation from any opponent of gay marriage. It always comes down to fear, or "But then we won't be better than them any more", or "BUT GOD SAYS IT"S WRONG!" "Where?" "IN THE BIBLE!" "OK, where exactly in the Bible?" "[mumble, prevaricate]"

Date: 2010-08-14 06:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hitchhiker.livejournal.com
i missed that :) nice dig indeed

Profile

Gan Ainm

September 2010

S M T W T F S
   1234
56789 1011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 12:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios