Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Barney Clarifies: Scalia a Homophobe Because He’s Homophobic

scalia26

“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.” [HP]

EARLIER
&bull: Frank: Gay Rights Opponents AREN’T Homophobes
Calling Scalia a ‘Homophobe’: Too Harsh? Hardly.
Status Update: Barney Frank

By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 26, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 10 Comments
    • Dabq
      Dabq

      Keep on telling it like it is Barney Frank, Scalia is a homophobe, a racist and a misogynist and makes no qualms about it and has no business on the highest court in the land and his opinions speak for themselves and quite clearly at that about who he hates.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin (not that one)
      kevin (not that one)

      The truth is, Scalia actually enjoys the label. It IS true and he surely accepts it as a badge of honor.

      Why? Because Scalia is a patriarchal, hetero-supremacist, sexist, anti-gay, fascist scum.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BillyBob Thornton
      BillyBob Thornton

      I read the entire thing on Huffington Post. I find it reprehensible that a judge on the bench of any court, especially on the Supreme Court would not only be homophobic but actually use it as the ONLY basis for their decision!!!! What happened to impartiality??

      I realize that it’s important for the Supreme Court Justices to make their decisions and writings free from any threat of removal or disciplined, but this really shows how one who is presumed to be impartial can put the lives of supposedly free american citizens in jeopardy.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @BillyBob Thornton: Oh no. Scalia is a very principled jurist. He only derives his positions after evaluating the facts of the case before him against a textual analysis of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue, along with the accumulated precedents. This principled and logical process just leads him to whatever decision it leads him to.

      I’m being facetious, of course. Scalia is brilliant. He’s also a “patriarchal, hetero-supremacist, sexist, anti-gay fascist.” Unfortunately for him, even brilliance is not sufficient to make his many legal contortions seem consistent. In fact, he has flip-flopped numerous times on issues that should be constant. For example, his general position is that the Commerce Clause has been abused, and that it should properly only give Congress the power to act on genuinely interstate commercial activities. But when Congress tries to use that power to enforce non-commercial social policy that Scalia likes, he just turns around and offers a big hug.

      His opinions are perfectly written, and if you don’t think too much, you’ll be ushered along with the impression that he’s just following a logically consistent process. At the end of the day, he’s just another ends-justify-the-means jurist like the rest of the lot.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #3 BBT – I could POSSIBLY accept anti-gay bigotry based on religion as I think it is with Scalia if he upheld adultery laws, fornication laws, etc. with 10% of the fervor he applies to us. I don’t see him calling for invalidation of welfare laws – a huge percentage of cash & food stamp recipients are the never married.

      And leaving welfare out of it completely, a large percentage of hetero couples with children are not married either.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      It’s time to change the constitution to take away “lifetime” appointments to the Supreme Court. 20 year terms would still protect the original intent of the framers.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rogue dandelion
      rogue dandelion

      @Qjersey: or have more rigorous conformation hearings, i think scalia has always been the same hater- it is the senates fault for letting him through.

      Mar 26, 2009 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HYHYBT
      HYHYBT

      @Qjersey: Why?

      Mar 27, 2009 at 1:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #8 why limit terms? Becauase the framer’s never envisioned people being on the court for 30 or 40 years, living into senility etc. People seldom reached 80 & 90 when the Constitution was written.

      Mar 27, 2009 at 9:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greg
      greg

      A lot of countries have a mandatory retirement age for High Court judges — usually 70. Sounds like something we should adopt.

      Mar 27, 2009 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.