Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Antonin Scalia Knows Gays So He Obviously Doesn’t Hate Them


I have friends that I know, or very much suspect, are homosexual. Everybody does…I don’t know about my grandchildren. I know about my children. I don’t think they and I differ very much. But I’m not a hater of homosexuals at all. I still think it’s Catholic teaching that it’s wrong. Okay? But I don’t hate the people that engage in it. In my legal opinions, all I’ve said is that I don’t think the Constitution requires the people to adopt one view or the other…Americans have a right to feel that way. They have a democratic right to do that, and if it is to change, it should change democratically, and not at the ukase of a Supreme Court.”

America’s favorite Supreme COurt Justice Antonin Scalia insisting that he doesn’t have anything against the homosexuals, despite wildly contradictory statements in the past, and defending his DOMA decision in a lengthy profile from New York Magazine.

On:           Oct 7, 2013
Tagged: , , ,
    • Mr. E. Jones

      So basically he has stated that his job is unnecessary because voters should make their own decisions through legislation. So when will he be stepping down?

      Oct 7, 2013 at 9:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo

      I went to university with someone whose turned out to be a radical islamist, so does that mean I am incapable of wanting to strangle the violent nutter to death with his followers own end trails because I know them?

      “They have a right to feel that way” in relation to bigotry, how many crimes do they defend with this line. Millions.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport

      Is the capitalization in “COurt” intentional? Either way, spot on.

      It always irks me when people act as though any of our legislatures are meaningfully accountable to the people in whose name they govern. It also irks me when people invoke the specter of judicial tyranny when minority groups seek redress in the courts rather than the legislature that continues to oppress them. This is the kind of mythology we’re fed in law school, and probably the reason why so many lawyers and judges would rather add epicycles to a sad diseased system rather than see it for what it is. Indeed, I’m reminded of Pete Seeger’s song, “What Did You Learn In School, Today?”

      Oct 7, 2013 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood

      The assholes always claims to have gay friends. If you are gay and you hold onto friends who think your “participation”, his code for your pursuit of happiness, is ‘wrong”, and that it’s ok if you are legally discriminated against, I wonder about your self worth.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • doug105

      Friend is a much over used word, it takes more than just knowing someone to be a FRIEND.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles175

      My last two posts have been flagged and I do not know why. This is a test.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 11:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rand503

      It’s always so easy to spot the true homophobes by their language. First, they use the word homosexual instead of gay. To them, it sounds more clinical, like it’s a disease or something. Anyone who really has gay friends would use the word gay, and we all know that.

      Second, he has friends he suspects are homosexual? Well of course! Everyone knows he’s an anti-gay bigot, so who would come out to him? He doesn’t know if any of kids are gay or not? I”m not suprised — that’s because they know he’ll condemn them to hell, tell their parents to put them in reparative therapy and otherwise have utter disdain for them, all in the guise of tough Christian love, of course. I bet his virulently anti-gay son who is a priest in a monastic order is gay, and too scared to come out to himself, let alone his own father.

      Third, he say he doesn’t hate people “who engage in” homosexuality. Please — I don’t engage in it — I just am! So this shows that he thinks homosexuality is merely an act, it’s two men or two women having sex, nothing more. IT’s why he always reduces us to just buttsex , and why he says that the constitution doesn’t require freedom to engage in buttsex.

      So when he looks at his “friends” who are “homosexual” or thinks are homosexual, he just thinks of them as people who engage in buttsex. And he thinks the state should be allowed to ban it. And when he sees same sex marriage, all he sees are two guys who want to have buttsex and have that legitimized by the state. “Two men in love? What crazy planet are you on? No such thing!” is his thinking. “Men are to bring home the bacon and love their wives and put them on pedestals, while the women raise the children. That’s normal! And it’s how god created us all, and it’s why my church demands it!”

      Forget about trying to change his mind. He’s an old fart whose mind was made up in the 1950s. It isn’t going to change any time soon.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 12:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sanfranca1

      By his logic, you can pretty much discriminate against anyone you want. Desegregation did not happen “democratically”, so what – it’s not valid in his view?

      Oct 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ McFrisky

      Really? The guy undermines those who are against homosexuality, says he has no problem with it, and yet is still met with derision? How come we are absolutely against anyone who evolves on his opinion of us? My opinion: Anyone who’s ever affiliated themselves with Republicans is immediately shut out of all debate and discussion. So inclusive, the gay community is (cough!).

      Oct 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • redspyder

      @rand503: Just as an aside – as someone with elderly relatives (the oldest born in 1910), I still hear ‘homosexual’ quite often. ‘Gay’ still does mean ‘happy’ to some people and doesn’t always make the same mental connection… it can be, to some extent, a generational definition. In our case, it is also somewhat familial – we know both, so it doesn’t sound odd or insulting.
      I completely agree. The idea that any of our legislatures are meaningfully accountable to the people in whose name they govern is a myth. And with that argument – “Americans have a right to feel that way. They have a democratic right to do that, and if it is to change, it should change democratically, and not at the ukase of a Supreme Court” – interracial marriage could probably still be banned in some states today. Shame that the writer didn’t challenge him on that.
      Overall, I think the article gives a good insight to Scalia – you get to see the workings of his mind. I also think its pretty obvious that he’s out of touch with America – he’s a bit ensconsed in the 50s… another case of generational thinking. An argument perhaps that these appointments shouldn’t be for life.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • redspyder

      @BJ McFrisky: Who says his opinion has evolved? Scalia didn’t, to my knowledge. He holds the same opinion he always has. My issue is that he doesn’t seem to apply his viewpoints consistently.
      If Scalia had been on the court during Loving vs. Virginia, what would his decision have been? Would he argue that because it was race discrimination, the Virginia law barring interracial marriage should be struck down? Or would he argue that “Americans have a right to feel that way. They have a democratic right to do that, and if it is to change, it should change democratically, and not at the ukase of a Supreme Court”. From that NEW YORKER article, I would guess that it would NOT be the latter.
      Another example – he says he is absolutely against race discrimination, but when it comes to sex discrimination he applies the “what is discrimination?” argument. He says that he doesn’t believe in the application of different levels of scrutiny, while he clearly is applying one in the race vs. sex discrimination argument. The writer clearly hasn’t done a good job of following up on these things – although he probably wasn’t looking for an ‘investigative’ profile of the man.
      Ultimately Scalia’s inconsistencies are what cause him his PR problems. And he has only himself to blame. To be honest, I don’t think it bothers him much either way.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      When Strom Thurman filibustered to try to prevent the Civil Rights legislation from passing, he had a daughter with a black woman.

      He obviously knew black people yet it didn’t make him any less a bigot.


      Oct 7, 2013 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DonW

      I fell over in shock after reading as far as “I have friends.”

      Oct 7, 2013 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rand503

      @BJ McFrisky: Please. Go ahead and read his published opinions…. He said that he believes the state has a right to ban homosexual acts, along with even masturbation. He is a memb of the Knoghts of Columbus, a virulently Antigay groups that funded NOM for many years.

      Oct 7, 2013 at 6:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo


      This imbecile, who is of more us as mulch than a man literally thinks satan is real. That alone should exclude him from public life, and in my opinion he should be locked up until his mental illness is dealt with.

      Oct 8, 2013 at 3:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @BJ McFrisky:

      Let’s see, BJ was just over on the posting about Christians in the military claiming that they were victims of discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate against gays, and he was trying to deflect criticism from them.

      And now here he is of course defending Scalia.

      BJ, I have asked you multiple times and you have never answered. Why is your very first knee jerk reaction to ALWAYS defend people who are anti-gay and deride the gay community?

      You have refused to answer multiple times and were even refusing to state that the Christians claiming to be victims for not being allowed to be bigots were wrong.

      Oct 8, 2013 at 11:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.