Antonin Scalia is not happy about marriage equality. In his dissent, the 79-year-old justice channeled his inner six-year-old with an epic tantrum of bizarre metaphors, pissy language, and name-calling.
Oh, the drama! First, he called the ruling a “social upheaval” and the Supreme Court, in general, a “threat to American democracy.” Then he accused his colleagues of being “pretentious” and “egotistic” before comparing their thoughts to the “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” After that he turned his anger onto gay people wishing to get married. Boy, are we glad we are not in that workplace with Antonin barreling down the hallways, barking at everyone!
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'” Scalia quoted from the majority opinion before adding, “Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”
Hmmm. If we were to ask our nearest hippie, we’re pretty sure same-sex marriage would have been the law of the land starting sometime in the sixties.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
What do you think of Scalia’s scathing dissent? Has the grumpy old man become a caricature? Sound off in the comments below.
AtticusBennett
four of the justices just cemented their permanent place on the wrong side of history. that’ll be their legacy – bigots who opposed human equality.
hrnpip
He was a caricature long before this.
Chris
@AtticusBennett: In Brown v. Board of Ed, Earl Warren is supposed to have gotten unanimity by convincing his fellow judges that the only reason to oppose the majority is because they believed that segregation was right. He wrote his opinion to maintain that unanimity.
In this case, John Roberts argues that the decision should not be about what the court believes in; it is about whether the court should get involved in this matter. He as much as recognizes that he’s on the wrong side of history.
And therein lies the difference between someone who understands the unique role of the courts in protecting the rights of minorities (in this case, gay folk) and someone who does not.
bob5678
It’s very clear that the only person who is six years old is the person who wrote this article. Or at the very least, has the reading comprehension skills of a six year old. Antonin Scalia is on the right side of history (no pun intended). His dissent is a passionate defense of American democracy that is currently being destroyed by an activist Supreme court. It’s sad how Anthony Kennedy publicly denounced the majority decision in Prop 8 as hurting the political process in California and even stated in his dissent, “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around.” Yet, today, he decided to destroy the American constitution and go against his own beliefs. Scalia will be heralded as a hero who stood up to the activist court who wants to expand the size of government and increase the oppression the average American experiences from a brutal and increasingly despotic institution.
Shame on you, Kennedy.
Anyway, the author of this article is clearly illiterate. What Scalia meant by asking a hippie about the freedom of intimacy being abridged is that someone’s ability to be intimate with others is actually decreased by marriage because you have to be monogamous with one person if you’re in a marriage, as opposed to being single where you can be intimate with however many people you’d like.
Also, Scalia didn’t really attack gay people. His dissent is mostly rooted in anger toward the opinion and decision of the court rather than his disapproval of gay people or gay marriage.
Marriage is not a right and has never been a right and will never be a right to anyone. Marriage shouldn’t even be something that the government is involved with.
Bromancer7
Scalia is a disgrace to the robe and has been for the better part of almost 2 decades. He should be disrobed, disbarred, and banished to Fox News.
Daniel-Reader
His son must feel bad to have such a homophobic dad.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
He has clearly gone beyond any standard of conduct of the SCOTUS. The Justices are not supposed to spew hatefilled rhetoric, they are supposed to at least give an appearance of only being guided by the principles of the constitution. He and Thomas who’s wife is employed by a far right organization are disgraces to the robes……….
DarkZephyr
@bob5678: Go cry in your pillow. We won and you lost.
ProudLiberal
Ah, what a day. Not only am I now legally married to my husband in the state of MO, Dickwad lived long enough to see it happen. Good times.
breid
Marriage equality is still not fully embraced until polygamy is legal. How can anyone argue against multiple consenting adults (emphasis on adults here) entering into the bonds of matrimony? Today was a step in the right direction but we still have a long way to go for true marriage equality.
Pitou
@bob5678: “What Scalia meant by asking a hippie about the freedom of intimacy being abridged is that someone’s ability to be intimate with others is actually decreased by marriage because you have to be monogamous with one person if you’re in a marriage, as opposed to being single where you can be intimate with however many people you’d like.”
Actually, panty-waste, On not a single line of any marriage certificate does it question at all or state as a requirement that the union is to remain completely monogamous to each person who is being registered, or that either or both of you are not allowed any intimate contact with anyone other than the person with whom they are filling it out with. Because Scalia, or you, or any other person whishes to remain monogamous to their spouse, does not mean that every married couple in this country is required to do so.
Once I get married, were having a threesome/foursome or moresome and everyone gets to nut on that particular page of Scalias dissent. The Santorum can be wiped up with the rest of it.
Hows that for a Hippies opinion?
tricky ricky
@bob5678: are you Scalia’s priest son , the rabid anti gay rights loon? Scalia threw a temper tantrum. to avoid being seen as a religious nut job he went out of his way to discount the meaning of marriage. his dissent was pure and utter bullsh*t and he knows it. all of the dissents were. they were all written by catholic men. that is what makes Kennedy’s majority opinion so much more delicious, it was written by yet another catholic man, one who is bound to the constitution and the bill of rights and not church dogma.
pjm1
@bob5678: You say “Marriage is not a right and has
never been a right and will never be a right to anyone.”
The actual legal opinion states:
“Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is
protected by the Constitution.”
Seems marriage is a right under the U.S. constitution, despite what you might say.
gaym50ish
@bob5678: If the government were NOT involved in marriage, we would not even be having this debate. We called our relationships “marriages” long before they were legal, and couples were able to have ceremonies in MANY churches without any legal recognition.
But the government IS involved in marriage, and it hands out benefits and privileges based on “marriage” that do not even apply to legal civil unions. That’s why marriage has said it is a “right” for gay couples. To insist that it is not is to label gays as second-class citizens and our relationships to be inferior to man-woman relationships.
Clark35
@tricky ricky: Is Scalia’s son gay?
OhHellNo
I could care less about the dissent of someone who abuses his authority, often sucks up to whatever side has the most money regardless of the law, and is basically anti-Constitution and anti-America. In a true democracy the Supreme Court would have oversight and both he and Clarence Thomas would have been in prison long ago.To quote my college roommate: “Fuck her.”
jason smeds
Antonin Scalia is an ill-tempered Italian who didn’t get his own way. Imagine being his wife and having to put up with hid odors.
o.codone
if this is about scalia, why did you put a picture of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the article? That undeniable bulldog face. C’mon baby, daddy’s got a treat, c’mon. Awww.
Cptn Ascot
It’s been a long time since I have been this overjoyed by 2, YES TWO!, SCOTUS opinions in the same week. After I read Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges I pulled up Bush v. Gore. It was enlightening seeing him so proactive in trampling State’s rights in that decision yet so confederate today. His rambling dissent read as though it was written by a petulant child presenting a sophmoric treatis for Mad Magazine. A once brillant (although archaic) legal mind has turned into a mean spirited caricature whining like a spoiled child just denied his dessert. Thank you, 14th Amendment!
Ps. I wrote this before I found your article. I think we have some common ground????
Cptn Ascot
Ummmm…@Bob5678,
Your very last sentence,
“Marriage shouldn’t even be something that the government is involved with.” is pretty much the point. Just add “PROHIBITING” to the beginning and you have summarized the majority opinion. Read what Scalia wrote in Bush v. Gore, completely incongruous with his dither of the day.
Realitycheck
Scalia is the old fashion generation that needs to die, just like Oprah said.
Realitycheck
@bob5678: Be ready for many more disappointments coming your way, this is just one of many wins for the LGTB community.
Redpalacebulleaglesox
For the second day in a row, Scalia throws a hissy fit from the Supreme Court bench. His unscholarly and downright insulting words, first directed at Chief Justice Roberts in the ACA case and then Justice Kennedy in the marriage case, show that he has no regard whatsoever for anyone’s opinion except his own. Compare his intemperate outburst against the Chief Justice’s dissent, which actually called upon those of us who welcome this decision to celebrate our victory. The Chief Justice showed his respect for the process and the institution of the Court, Scalia throws tantrums. Of course I disagree with the Chief Justice’s assertion that the Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage. Article VI says no religious test can be applied as a qualification for a public trust. Marriage is a public trust in this country because a license from the government is required. The Constitution also demands equal protection under the law in the Fourteenth Amendment. To deny certain people rights based on their sexuality violates the equal protection clause. Marriage confers certain rights that are unavailable to those who do not avail themselves of it, certain tax advantages, succession advantages, etc. To exercise prior restraint by denying certain people the opportunity to avail themselves of these rights by applying for the public trust of marriage is therefore unconstitutional. So says the majority of the Supreme Court. Scalia’s “dissent” is nothing more than an intemperate screed that says more about its author than it does about the law. He also forfeits any rights to being addressed as “Justice,” for he denigrates the other Justices with his petulance, ill-temper and childish rants.
Sluggo2007
Go home and twirl your pasta, Scalia. You are nothing but an ignorant cafone.
CivicMinded
@Redpalacebulleaglesox:
Thank you for a well reasoned and insightful post!
Redpalacebulleaglesox
@CivicMinded: My pleasure.
hyhybt
if you believe judges ought not decide things, the Supreme Court is not the job for you.
thomas prentice
Why did Justice Antonin Scalia use the alcohol/sexual term “jiggery-pokery” in his hypermaniacal dissent from marriage equality?
I first heard what was perhaps the antecedent term – “tokery-pokery” two or three decades ago from a guy who was definitely NOT a scholar of the etymology of English words. Heavy emphasis on the “NOT”.
It would follow logically that the more cumbersome but no less descriptive term “jiggery/pokery” would emerge to describe the alcohol-fueled American sexual culture which permeates the US far more widely despite the march of marijuana legalizing by renegade states.
Clearly, the term of art has NOTHING to do with the “jiggery-pokery” of British English cited by that noted cunning linguist, Dr. Antonin Scalia.
jpcflyer
Thug. Bigot. Sociopath.
Saint Law
@bob5678: I can’t be arsed to parse your gibberish.
It’s clear you’re distressed because you lost and that’s great. Great that we won and you lost. Because we really have won and you really have lost.
From a Winner to a Loser
P.S. Suck it up.
xxxx
Saint Law
Scalia is a shallow hysterical sophist whose self regard is surpassed only by his stupidity.
gayme1
@bob5678: Bobby – – you dickens you – – what are you doing reading gay newspapers ? ? Hoping to get some leading edge fashion tips ? ?
Good news – we gays will welcome you even when you’re just here to beat that same old dead horse – – so feel free to keep whacking away.
– – and do remember how important it is to accessorize to set yourself apart.
Best wishes
Sweet Brucie
gayme1
Would somebody please pop over to Scalia’s place and see what’s in him closet !
The poor dear may just need a good hug – – – –
Sweet Brucie