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.
@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.