Scalia: No Right to 'Homosexual Conduct' in Constitution

From a site that defends marriage equality -
Advocate - Scalia: "No Right to Homosexual Conduct in the Constitution

Addressing the North Carolina Bar Association in Asheville Friday, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia said — unsurprisingly — that judges are in error when they find rights to “homosexual conduct” or abortion in the Constitution.

In his speech, titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the ultraconservative Scalia said he believes in interpreting the Constitution as it would have been when it was adopted, the Asheville Citizen-Times reports. At that time, he said, abortion, assisted suicide, and homosexual acts “were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries.”

From a site that defends so-called traditional marriage -
Moral Issues Such as Gay Marriage Have No Business Being Decided By The Court

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule this week on the legality of federal and state bans on same-sex “marriage,” Justice Antonin Scalia has said there is no “right to homosexual conduct” granted by the United States Constitution.

Scalia, 77, told an audience of lawyers and judges at the North Carolina Bar Association Friday that matters of morality should be decided by the public, not unelected judges who set themselves up as “moral arbiters.”

According to Scalia, moral issues such as gay marriage have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer” and thus have no business being decided by the court. Instead, society must determine as a whole what they deem moral and acceptable and make laws that reflect that.

Well, your honor, the Constitution doesn't specifically state 'homosexual rights' ... but it really shouldn't have to, ya' know? Isn't it a basic right of people to love who they wish to love and isn't it a basic right of two consenting adults to do what they wish together in the privacy of their own bedroom? The courts shouldn't have to state the obvious ... but it looks like they'll have to.

Sounds like it is up to the states, in his opinion.

Until someone finds something violating the Constitution in a State law and it has merit for the SCOTUS to review.

Scalia is right. But that means that it is a 10th Amendment issue, and thus belongs to the states themselves.

I am a person with traditional views, but I realize that our Constitution does allow for this, and thus each state should make its own determination. Same goes for abortion.

Their arguments against gay marriage get less and less effective each time stated.

Its coming and its not going to hurt anyone.

Archaic people open their mouth and they wonder why LGBO are so openly protesting...

Stop putting restriction on their rights and they will shut up as well.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Gosh, Mr. Scalia... where's the right to heterosexual conduct or marriage in the Constitution?

Or the right to vote?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Gosh, Mr. Scalia... where's the right to heterosexual conduct in the Constitution?

edit on 6/26/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

From the article:

According to Scalia, moral issues such as gay marriage have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer” and thus have no business being decided by the court. Instead, society must determine as a whole what they deem moral and acceptable and make laws that reflect that.

reply to post by FlyersFan


If we had continued to interpret the constitution the way it would have been when written slavery would still be legal.

reply to post by FlyersFan


He makes a good point.. the Courts and the Federal Government have no right to determine the legality of a legal contract between two people. Of course his statement is an oxymoron as well see: If the Courts and the Government have no right to determine the constitutionality of marriage, it has no authority to address marriage, and since it has no authority to address marriage it cannot say that gay marriage is legal nor illegal. Likewise, it cannot address hetero marriages either, as they are not addressed in the constitution, leaving it to be an individual contract.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Gosh, Mr. Scalia... where's the right to heterosexual conduct in the Constitution?

edit on 6/26/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Good call.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

If we had continued to interpret the constitution the way it would have been when written slavery would still be legal.

That is conjecture.

Facts show that it was left open with a way to amend it for a reason

Rulings expected today -
Supreme Court to Issue Gay Marriage Decisions
I'm thinking I know which way Scalia would go ....

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Rulings expected today -
Supreme Court to Issue Gay Marriage Decisions
I'm thinking I know which way Scalia would go ....

Kinda obvious?



I think he is making the right call. Leave it to the states to decide.

Of course, there are those who would disagree with me . . .

The Courts may not have the authority to determine "morality", but they DO have the authority, and the duty, to ensure that laws passed by the federal government, and/or State governments (with the approval and backing of the federal government) are applied and enforced EQUALLY for the benefit of ALL citizens.

Justice Scalia, this is not merely about "Homosexual behavior" being protected by the Constitution; it is, and always has been, about Equal Protection, Under the Law, Extending to ALL Citizens, as the Constitution declares.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Gosh, Mr. Scalia... where's the right to heterosexual conduct or marriage in the Constitution? Or the right to vote?

i believe his point is that this isn't a legal issue, but a moral one. judges can rule on legality, not morality, therefore asking a judge to decide if same sex marriage is constitutional or not is like dividing by zero. for instance, giving to charity is a good thing morally, however the courts cannot require people to give to charity. laws don't follow morality in this respect.

i'm in support of equality when it comes to gay rights/marriage, however i consider abortion quite wrong. gay marriage doesn't enter into the legal realm (doesn't violate rights or cause harm), but abortion does.

DOMA is a federal law, hopefully this means Scalia is in favor of striking it down.

So he wants to make homosexual a crimb!
I dont know what to say.........................

reply to post by FlyersFan


I think what he is saying is that you should not "rule" on morality as a judge. I don't think he is addressing whether or not legislating morality is right or wrong, only saying (in regards to legislation) that if The People want to control morality, there is precedence for it and it would be up to them to legislate the laws that he would then interpret.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Rulings expected today -
Supreme Court to Issue Gay Marriage Decisions

I'm thinking I know which way Scalia would go ....

Was there ever a question? It would shock the stuffings right outta me if he voted for equal treatment under federal law, respecting the states' decisions on gay marriage.

reply to post by Shimri

Originally posted by Shimri
I think he is making the right call. Leave it to the states to decide.

DOMA is a federal law. If Scalia votes to uphold DOMA, he is NOT leaving it to the states.