Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  JUDGE NOT

SCOTUS Judge Antonin Scalia Equates Gays With Murderers

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Princeton University on Monday where he was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those banning bestiality and murder.

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia told Duncan Hosie, noting that legislative bodies can ban what they deem immoral. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia claimed he was not equating homosexuality with murder (though it sure sounds like it) but, rather, drawing a parallel between bans on both.

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,’”Scalia said. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia knew his argument was falling on deaf ears (or at least ears that could hear bullshit) and deadpanned, “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”

Later, Hosie said he wasn’t persuaded and that Scalia’s writings “dehumanize” gays.

The Princeton gig was part of Scalia’s book tour in support of Reading Law, though it came only days after the Supreme Court decided to hear cases that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8.

By:           Les Fabian Brathwaite
On:           Dec 11, 2012
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 56 Comments
    • 2eo
      2eo

      What an extremist lunatic, Scalia is NOT fit for public service, he has no moral compass and I find his lack of condemning paedophilia most disturbing of all.

      Only people in a ring won’t speak out against it.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 7:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alexoloughlin
      alexoloughlin

      What can one expect? He’s an Opus Dei member of an orthodox Catholic cabal. If the Pope told him to jump off a cliff, he would.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 7:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Scalia has worn out his welcome. He and NOM’s Robert P. George of Princeton need to go off into the sunset together and find another segment of Americans on which to bestow their special brand of oppression and animus. This man needs to recuse himself from any decisions involving equality for our community. He cannot be unbiased and it shakes my trust in our system. I believe that Citizens United was an attempt to line the bench with like-minded justices.

      If you have nothing to do this weekend, read Jeffry Toobin’s, “The Nine” and “The Oath” for interesting insight on the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas is one odd duck, a silly kind of man who is out of his league. Thanks Republicans!

      I have to go back to work now, so that I can pay taxes to a government that discriminates against us and doesn’t find me worthy of equality and the rights taken for granted by my fellow compatriots. Good day, Queertiers.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 7:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      This is why Scalia shouldn’t be a judge. He isn’t able to make a rational discussion.

      MURDER – effects others involuntarily. The victim is unable to continue with their lives. Their loved ones have lost them, and possibly their income.

      Gay marriage does not effect others outside their being upset that other people are not agreeing with them.

      FOX News has DESPERATELY beeing trying to hide this fact about Scalia. They have instructed their folks to say “One of the most respected constitutional scholars in the country” or “The brilliant constitutional scholar” most times they mention his name.

      They believe that if they can cement this view of him, it will help cover up for statements like this that are idiotic and not proper.

      Since Scalia has proven he cannot look at this impartially he should immediately recuse himself.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 8:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jack T
      Jack T

      Here is a justice that equates THE ULTIMATE criminal act with being gay & has prejudged any case coming before him dealing with issues of gay CITIZENS. He is beyond being an impartial interpreter of our Constitution, The Catholic Church has seen to that. Scalia has broken his OATH of office “… to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” How can you faithfully be a justice of the law when BIAS is already a part of the jurist?

      Equating murder with homosexuality shows that Scalia MUST recuse himself from the cases dealing with gay issues, since we already know no evidence will matter to him. The ACLU should send a request to Chief Justice Roberts to RECUSE Scalia. His words and conduct in possible court cases are already known before hearing any cases.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 9:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LaTeesha
      LaTeesha

      He’s my SFF. Stupid Fat Fucker.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LaTeesha
      LaTeesha

      Obeseity increases the risk of cognitive decline. Looks like Scalia proves it.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aidan8
      Aidan8

      Really strange, and telling, that he says he’s using reductio ad absurdam argument to prove his point; in this case, the reductio just doesn’t work. The learned justice can’t see his own straw man arguments… or just chooses to ignore.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spike
      Spike

      This is good stuff, will continue to push Chief Justice John Roberts to the center rather then extreme conservative right. No way he wants to be part of a majority decision, written by this clown that will be looked back 25+ years from now, while John Roberts is still on the court, as foolish and unconstitutional.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the other Greg
      the other Greg

      Scalia (Fox’s “brilliant constitutional scholar”?) is obviously the one resorting to the “reductio ad absurdum.”

      Dec 11, 2012 at 11:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BarLackey
      BarLackey

      This is something that angers me to my core. Do you honestly think – a justice who knows that marriage equality is the hottest thing before the court since Roe vs. Wade, would give anyone, on either side of the argument, an inkling as to how they might or might not vote?

      It is ludicrous to me that intelligent homosexuals will use anything that has even the slightest hint of sounding against marriage equality as a reason to go, for lack of better description, postal. Even if you read the statements posted here, which I am sure don’t tell the story in its entirety, it is clear as day that Scalia, is not making a commentary on sexuality, but rather how that we have used biblical allegories as a guidance to meter our moral compasses and legislate morality in our society (Hence the usage of sodomy, murder, and bestiality in the excerpt of his statement.)

      That said, the issue of marriage equality (at least from my neophyte eyes), much like many of the social issues fueling the culture wars are borne from those very same moral conundrums; prayer in school, abortion, and so on and so forth. Further, both sides will likely argue moral merit (who’s morality is correct) in their presentation to the court – which poses an interesting legal question to the court. Is the right to have a moral opinion, supplant the rights of others to be treated the same.

      So for those of you looking to recall Scalia, or any other conservative on the court for that matter, for having an opinion that may differ from yours – take a seat; they’re just doing their job. A job that clearly you – because you are not looking at it from all sides – are unfit to do.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greybat
      greybat

      @BarLackey: That’s nice. Thank you for sharing, Antonin!

      Dec 11, 2012 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rextrek
      rextrek

      BarLackey – U CAN COME OUT FROM UNDER SCALIA’S ROBE NOW – HIS BALLS ARE THOUGHLY CLEANED

      Dec 11, 2012 at 1:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • longpastdue
      longpastdue

      @BarLackey: Good show, I am happy to say I could not have put that any better…even if I had taken time to thoroughly edit and rewrite.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hermes
      Hermes

      @BarLackey:

      1. Do I think that a justice SHOULD give any such indication? No, absolutely not, its unethical in the extreme. Worse, I think, than you apparently realize. Do I think that Justice Scalia DID give such an indication? Yes, absolutely I do. Indignation does not change facts lad or lass. The post to which we are responding did not create the Justice’s comment, it simply reported on it. Scalia clearly did give a very, very, very (I could repeat that another hundred times and it would still not be enough times) clear indication of which way he will vote on any case involving gay rights.

      2. You are sure that the post doesn’t tell the whole story? Are you? Really? Sure!!! I see. Now, kindly provide some evidence to back up that claim. The Justice’s statement was clear. His argument was clear and even comprehensible, although absolutely non-applicable. He has made statements on homosexuality before – feel free to read his books and various statements if you doubt me. My favorite was when in writing a dissent in a 6/3 decision that favored gay equality, Scalia accused the majority of engaging in a culture war, calling it a “Kulturkampf” Yet what he was writing about was a SCOTUS decision regarding constitutionality for a state amendment in Colorado. You cannot have statements like that on someone’s record and pretend that they haven’t telegraphed their opinions. You cannot take arguments like his argument here and not acknowledge that his beliefs dictate his policy; rather than having it being dictated by an interpretation (even a conservative one) of the Constitution. The facts outweigh both your indignation and claims to the contrary by Scalia himself. it’s nice that Scalia uses “biblical allegories” and that’s fine as far as moral compasses are concerned, but NOT as far as constitutional law is concerned, not ever.

      Scalia is a very special case. He is a justice totally unfettered by the Constitution. He has consistently voted with his church or his party over the constitution in every case I can think of — it is extremely disturbing. The proper thing to do when you cannot look at a situation and judge it according to the merits of the Constitution is to recuse. He does not recuse. He does not recuse even when blatant conflict of interest is evident, neither does Justice Thomas. Both have even appeared as paid speakers, while SCOTUS justices. You may not think that to be disturbing, but I certainly do.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MACDONALDBANK
      MACDONALDBANK

      Scalia; should be sent to an insane asylum — and throw away the key!

      Being black, left-handed or being gay is just as natural. It is a sometimes rare occurrence to fall in Love and to hold that person in your heart and be loved in return … it is something that should be celebrated! If it’s between two guys or two girls — all the better. It takes even more courage to defend that LOVE!

      The evil writings in Leviticus 18:22 … against gays – depict: “P” … “priestly rules” & expanded by the pope; homophobes and religious frauds … to attack the gay community and never meant to apply to the public — but to priests.

      There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity and other religions. Our early human ancestors; on this earth … go back more than 6 million years … 5,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews. Christianity is basically a 2012 year old fictional cult.
      In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity!
      Christianity is a fantasy; which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world.

      It is written; so therefore it shall be? We are the chosen people? Such a wicked fantasy. To see the religious lunatics manipulate government and our lives is shameful.

      The pope and churches fully aware that Leviticus 18:22 applies to priests only … refuse to remove this stigma … maliciously persecuting gays. Kids are being bullied into suicide …!

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ken
      Ken

      Even if the Constitution is a dead document, Mr. Scalia isn’t reading it right. Morality is a function of philosophy or religion. To pass laws for the sole purpose of enforcing morality, the government has to take sides with one church against another, which the Constitution, dead or alive, forbids.

      Since Mr. Scalia has judged the case before the parties have even presented their cases, he should recuse himself. He’s not required to do it, but if he were a decent, honest man and a good judge, he would.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LHG82AD
      LHG82AD

      He should reprimanded and be forced not to rule on any civil rights cases. By his way of thinking laws banning interracial marriages should be legal as well as Jim Crow laws

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Atomicrob
      Atomicrob

      Recuse yourself, Justice Scalia, you’re already ruling on the case in the public forum.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ann Mason
      Ann Mason

      I’ll be very surprised if Antonin Scalia recuses himself from rulings on same sex marriage. Although he is now on record as making an inflammatory public statement about people who stand to be affected by those rulings, he’s too self-important to recognize when he has a conflict of interest.

      Justice Scalia was nominated by a right-wing Republican president, and he was confirmed by an irresponsible vote in the Senate. He isn’t the only Supreme Court justice to fit that description, either. We should consider this a national tragedy.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • quackman
      quackman

      That doesn’t sound like a “reduction to absurdity” argument against gay marriage. It sounds more like Scalia’s mistakenly assuming a use of the “slippery slope” fallacy.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • quackman
      quackman

      @quackman: *Or a fallacious appeal to equality between homosexuality and murder.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KentonForshee
      KentonForshee

      It isn’t a Judge’s duty to make decisions based on their personal ideas of morality, but rather of the Constitutionality of a given proposition. Can he have moral feelings against homosexuality? Sure, but don’t bring it to work. Justice cannot be blind if it ignores the Constitution in favor of personal moral feelings on the part of the Judge.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark Jenkins
      Mark Jenkins

      A Compelling argument- For why Justices should only be allowed to serve a limited number of term years- before having to retire (before dementia sets in) or be elected- not appointed.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • murphy0071
      murphy0071

      Justice Scalia is absurd in his logic and past opinions where he has asserted ecclesiastical law is equal to Federal law. His obnoxious assumption that our laws derive from the Christian Bible is patently false.

      Homosexuality is the result of various events during fetal development or later resulting from head injuries, surgical results, tumours, and viruses, etc. If Scalia were willing to read the scientific literature, he would find the Works of Gunter Dorner, “Hormones and brain differentiation,” Elsevier Press of some value along with thousands of highly professional peer reviewed articles in German and English. In utero, the Germans have perfected a technique to stop masculinization of female fetuses by using anti-androgenic drugs such as Cyproterone Acetate. For these fetuses, Lesbianism is impossible.

      For a detailed paper, “Sexual Orientation: Science and Society” email this author at dr.murphy@att.net. You will find almost 500 authoritatie references.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      I am no fan of Scalia, but fair’s fair. He didn’t actually equate gays and murderers, and the tag “judge not” isn’t a reasonable expectation of someone who is, by profession, a judge.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alterego1980
      alterego1980

      @Spike: It could go either way, but my bet is that Scalia won’t be writing any opinions on behalf of the SC, dissenting or otherwise. Roberts is smarter than that. I’m hoping that Kennedy writes the winning opinion striking down both laws. That would cement his legacy seeing as how he wrote the opinion striking down the homo sex = sodomy law in Texas and the gay adoption cases.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KentonForshee
      KentonForshee

      @hyhybt: Justice cannot be blind if it ignores the Constitution in favor of personal moral feelings on the part of the Judge. Equality under the law is a very simple matter, but complicated only when religion gets involved.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alterego1980
      alterego1980

      Queery, you may have your next douche of the week…

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Redpalacebulleaglesox
      Redpalacebulleaglesox

      US Constitution, Article VI, third paragraph, second clause: “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (capitalizations are as printed in the original) The individual named Scalia wishes to establish a fundalmentalist theocracy in this country. This veteran of over ten years active duty service in the US Army wil stankd in his way, even if it means I sacrifice my liberty or my life in that cause.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Redpalacebulleaglesox
      Redpalacebulleaglesox

      In my previous post, the last sentence should read, “This veteran of over ten years active duty service in the US Army will stand in his way, even if it means I sacrifice my liberty or my life in that cause.”

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Guillermo3
      Guillermo3

      @Aidan8: Waddaya mean,Aidan8?
      HOW could Scalias’s argument be any further-reduced to Absurdity?!

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michaelmouse1
      Michaelmouse1

      I suppose it will only be a matter of time before he’s found tapping his foot in a toilet stall in his fishnet stockings. How predictable these little j. Edgar Hoover types are – externalising their homophobia while wallowing In self loathing hidden sexuality. Can the last one out please flush the chain?

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @KentonForshee: How is that a response to my post, other than its beginning from the “reply” button? I agree fully, except the last few words because the notion that bigotry only intrudes because of religion is a too-convenient lie.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @alterego1980: THAT’S IT!! The naming thread! Are there any diseases that are the result of using a contaminated douche?

      (I’m still opposed to the idea of that thread in principle, but if you’re going to come up with such a name, that seems like a good direction to go.)

      Dec 11, 2012 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • billschatz
      billschatz

      Perhaps it’s time to rethink the notion of appointments for life. Think of the damage one man or woman could cause on a court where there is no recourse for removal.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 6:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @billschatz: There *is* “recourse for removal.” Just not for disagreement with their opinions.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GreatGatsby2011
      GreatGatsby2011

      The funny thing is that Scalia’s reputation for “questionable” rulings has become so prevalent that, at the law school my friend is currently attending, whenever a student absolutely bombs a paper because they misinterpreted a law or regulation they are said to have “pulled a Scalia”.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jerry12
      Jerry12

      How in the world did this BIGOT get appointed to what is supposed to be an imparcial group of lawers? Who was the moron that appointed him?

      Dec 11, 2012 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rand503
      rand503

      @BarLackey: You seriously think that Scalia hasn’t tipped his hand about the marriage cases? On the contrary, he recently said that gay cases are among the easiest for him to decide: Since gays were outlawed at the time of the constitution, they have no constitutional rights. “easy” he said. You must have missed his earlier harangues about homosexuality being immoral in his previous dissents, in which he said that it is part of the “culture wars.” And guess which side he’s on? Yup — he was vewy vewy angry that the court struck down the sodomy laws because he believed that sodomy, at least as practiced by gays, should be outlawed.

      YOu support the notion of morality judging, especially when based on the bible. I would love to see Scalia’s comments on the morality of eating lobster or pork — both of which are deemed immoral by the Bible, among many other things. Would he support the notion that legislatures can and should ban the eating of them? That courts could rule that you must marry your deceased brother’s wife? Reductio ad absurdem indeed.

      NOpe — both you and Scalia equate homosexuality with issues of morality, but it is no more a moral issue than eating lobster or pork. Murder, theft, adulterty, yes, those are moral issues. If you can’t understand the difference, you have no business in a court of law.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 7:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toren123
      toren123

      There are always people, like Scalia and Pope Benedict, who likely wish they had been born in the time of the Nazi persecutions or in the time of the Inquisition. Neither can think objectively; neither are able to think in terms other than black and white. Neither are able to live in ambiguity, where there are no answers satisfactory to everyone, and no decisions that will not hurt others. But then, neither of these men care, and it is precisely for that reason that neither should be in positions of responsibility where lives are at risk through their supposedly superior “moral” judgement.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 8:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Avenger
      Avenger

      I respect this man and support his position on the bench. The judicial system needs a judge who isn’t some phony, liberal activist. Scalia is great!

      Dec 11, 2012 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • msfrost
      msfrost

      @Cam: Impeach Scalia!!

      Dec 11, 2012 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dbmyers
      dbmyers

      @BarLackey: @BarLackey: It is ludricrous for you to claim that Scalia is looking at the issue from “all sides”. His homophobic bias is so utterly clear that he should recuse himself or be impeached if he doesn’t. You are simply trying to justify his homophobia because of your own.

      Dec 11, 2012 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • queerty1958
      queerty1958

      People like Scalia need to be ignored….right after they are ridiculed and publicly humiliated. I can’t say if he is a homophobe, but he certainly is a big fucking bigot!

      Dec 12, 2012 at 12:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @msfrost: On what grounds?
      @queerty1958:

      Dec 12, 2012 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dbmyers
      dbmyers

      @Avenger: Your just a troll. People please don’t feed him.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 1:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dbmyers
      dbmyers

      @Jerry12: Ronald Reagan appointed him. George H. W. Bush appointed the other idiot – Clarence Thomas.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 1:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bulls Eye
      Bulls Eye

      Remember: this is the Justice who refused to recuse himself from cases involving Dick Cheney — with whom he went duck hunting. A judge is supposed to avoid “the appearance of impropriety,” and he failed to do that by sitting on the Cheney case. And the “Chief” Justice, John Roberts, didn’t have the balls to do the right thing and take Scalia off the bench for that one.

      How are we expected to believe that Scalia will base his decision on the Constitution rather than the Bible in any case before him involving gay men and women?

      And how can the Supreme Court claim any legitimacy with that kind of person sitting on the bench?

      If we are ever to expect fair, just and Constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws for members of the gay community, then it’s time for Scalia to go.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 9:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rock Star
      Rock Star

      F him and f Thomas too they are disgusting bigoted elitist pigs, and that’s the whole story. Impeach them.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • EGO
      EGO

      @BarLackey: The fact that you mentioned the bible shows that you do not look at all sides. The bible was written by people who believed the world was flat, it was not written by God. Gay people are more apt to look at all sides because we were born gay but are brought up as heterosexuals so we have to search deep within ourselves to look at all sides. Scalia does not know what he is talking about, especially the difference between civil and religeous issues.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Redpalacebulleaglesox
      Redpalacebulleaglesox

      @rand503: You are absolutely right, Scalia is on the record for homophobia in his dissent against the decision invalidating sodomy laws. He claimed that the case was part of a ” homosexual agenda” to tear down “established” American morality. What he needs is someone to get dead in his face and force him to defend his rampant bigotry in a forum where he is not comfortable. I also quote the Bible, but to show the inaccurate interpretations offered by the homophobes. For example, Exodus 20 starts with a restatement of the prohibition against adultry, then goes on to define adultrous behavior. That’s where the “man shall not lay with a man” prohibition comes in. It refers to a married man, not an unmarried one. Those who say otherwise are guilty of taking one verse out of its larger context.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 5:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Throbert McGee
      Throbert McGee

      If the student had been quicker on his feet, he could’ve argued that comparing sodomy with murder is like comparing the eating of shellfish with murder — which is to say that no one, even Orthodox Jewish rabbis, actually makes the latter comparison! (That is, eating shellfish is simply held to be *off limits for faithful Jews*, and not an intrinsically immoral act for everyone everywhere.)

      P.S. If anyone wants to weigh in on the Real Meaning of the sodomy verses in Leviticus, you might want to Google on the key Hebrew phrase “mishkav zachar” for some general background reading on how Jewish interpretations may be different from Christian ones. Not all Jews agree on what “mishkav zachar” means — but overall, the Jewish analysis is not quite the same as what Scalia would’ve been taught as a Roman Catholic. And in particular, Jewish authorities read the death-penalty verse (Lev. 20:13) quite narrowly, and argue that many forms of homosexual activity (both female/female and male/male) were NOT punishable by death, even in ancient times.

      Dec 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Murphy0071 Wrote in post #25, “Homosexuality is the result of various events during fetal development or later resulting from head injuries, surgical results, tumours, and viruses, etc. If Scalia were willing to read the scientific literature, he would find the Works of Gunter Dorner, “Hormones and brain differentiation,” Elsevier Press of some value along with thousands of highly professional peer reviewed articles in German and English. In utero, the Germans have perfected a technique to stop masculinization of female fetuses by using anti-androgenic drugs such as Cyproterone Acetate. For these fetuses, Lesbianism is impossible.”

      Wow. This sent ice through my veins. Who do they think they are interfering with our development? Why create more heterosexuals? Isn’t the world populated enough? Why are heterosexuals so worked up over us that a “CURE” is developed?

      Dec 13, 2012 at 7:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Here’s an interesting article about gays using both sides of our brains. We were considered favorable to the community at one time, due to our propensity to understand complexities. I feel as though we are a gift to society. What a shame it would be to exclude us because we were born differently, just because of bias. It makes me sick to my stomach. Read this article about our brain structure.

      http://www.shaktitechnology.com/gaybrain.htm

      Dec 13, 2012 at 7:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jack T
      Jack T

      @BarLackey: While We the American taxpayers are generously filling Scalia’s pockets, he has to prostitute himself to sell his books. Leave the pre-judgement outside the hallowed halls of the court room of the the Highest court in the strongest country on the planet. To do otherwise shows the BIAS the court already has against a class of citizens who have been denied FUNDAMENTAL liberties, everyone else (Blacks, Latinos, even illegal aliens) take for granted. To be true to the oath of office, listen to the evidence and Constitution and those telling words, ” …All men are created equal…” You know those things that matters to a Veteran. I fought and bled for those ideals. To deny me equal protection under the law to me is to deny every patriot their service to the support and defense of the Constitution and America.

      Dec 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your 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.