This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments about equal rights for gay Amerins. But we already know what Slia thks.
Contents:
- SLIA SE SLIPPERY SLOPE AFTER HISTORIC GAY-RIGHTS RULG
- JTICE ANTON SLIA'S PROVOTIVE COMMENTS ON GAY ISSU
SLIA SE SLIPPERY SLOPE AFTER HISTORIC GAY-RIGHTS RULG
His many reflectns on homosexualy formed a notable part of his judicial legacy. This story was published March 2013, as the urt prepared to hear historic gay rights s. ” Judgg by the thgs he has said urt or wrten his legal opns about gays and lbians, he don’t really mean .
Dpe Slia’s long public history of exprsg revulsn and ntempt for gays and lbians, on the subject of whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry, he is among the ne people whose opns will really matter. Here are the lowlights of Slia’s anti-gay ments:.
Texas, the se challengg a Texas law that crimalized homosexual sex, Slia me up wh a tastels analogy to illtrate the issue. Let’s throw gay people jail bee some people don’t like them. In his dissent Lawrence, Slia argued that moral objectns to homosexualy were sufficient jtifitn for crimalizg gay sex.
JTICE ANTON SLIA'S PROVOTIVE COMMENTS ON GAY ISSU
“Many Amerins do not want persons who openly engage homosexual nduct as partners their bs, as sutmasters for their children, as teachers their children’s schools, or as boarrs their home, ” he wrote.
Laws banng homosexual sex are like laws banng murr. Surely that is the only sort of ‘anim’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual nduct[.
Slia cid to take the “moral disapproval” argument up a notch his dissent Lawrence, wrg that the Texas ban on homosexual sex “unniably seeks to further the belief of s cizens that certa forms of sexual behavr are ‘immoral and unacceptable, '” like laws agast “fornitn, bigamy, adultery, adult ct, btialy, and obsceny.