Anton Slia: SCOTUS Logic On Gay Rights Could Lead To Protectns For Child Abers | HuffPost Latt News

Contents:

• ANTON SLIA ROUTELY LED AGAST GAY RIGHTS. THOSE OPNS EXPLA HIS PHILOSOPHY.
• THE BCHIT QUOT OM SLIA’S GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT
• ANTON SLIA: SCOTUS LOGIC ON GAY RIGHTS COULD LEAD TO PROTECTNS FOR CHILD ABERS
• READ SLIA GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: SUPREME COURT JTICE SLAMS 'CONSTUTNAL REVISN'
• SLIA'S SON SPEAKG AT CONFERENCE PROMOTG CHASTY FOR GAYS
• SLIA WARNED LAWRENCE V. TEXAS DISSENT THAT STRIKG DOWN SODOMY LAWS WOULD LEAD TO GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE WILL GO NATNWI 10 YEARS, LAWRENCE V. TEXAS ATTORNEY PREDICTS

ANTON SLIA ROUTELY LED AGAST GAY RIGHTS. THOSE OPNS EXPLA HIS PHILOSOPHY.

Perhaps no cha of s monstrated this better than Slia's very nsistent opposn to gay rights.

In his view, wasn't so much that he was opposed to gay rights — although he was — but that such rights simply weren't protected by a very origalist terpretatn of the Constutn and s amendments.

THE BCHIT QUOT OM SLIA’S GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT

Slia's opposn to gay rights showed his brand of nservatism.

Slia was a nsistent opponent of nstutnal claims ma on behalf of gay rights. At the heart of Slia's opposn to gay rights was his view that the US Constutn simply did not protect the rights of gay people.

So the three major s that me to the urt sce 2003, Slia oped agast gay rights sometim btal dissents. His lleagu, of urse, argued that the 14th Amendment protected gay people — by forbiddg any level of ernment om passg discrimatory laws that nied people their fundamental rights.

ANTON SLIA: SCOTUS LOGIC ON GAY RIGHTS COULD LEAD TO PROTECTNS FOR CHILD ABERS

Slia rejected the view, claimg the Constutn, the 14th Amendment, and their amers ma no mentn of gay rights and therefore did not tend to protect gay people. Texas 2003, where the Court led that stat' anti-sodomy laws — which effectively banned gay sex — were unnstutnal, Slia warned his dissent that the logic ed to strike down the lg uld upend stat' laws agast same-sex marriage:.

The Supreme Court reasoned that all the anti-gay laws were unnstutnal for largely the same reason: They discrimated agast a group of people by whholdg fundamental rights and vlated the 14th Amendment.

Slia's stance on gay rights monstrated his origalist view: He believed the Constutn uldn't protect gay rights, bee no one uld envisn, for example, same-sex marriage as an issue back when the Constutn and s amendments were wrten. So Slia's view, the urt's pro–gay rights cisns read rights and lims to the Constutn that simply didn't exist, and therefore allowed the Court to strike down laws that were, his opn, nstutnally valid.

READ SLIA GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: SUPREME COURT JTICE SLAMS 'CONSTUTNAL REVISN'

Homosexual sodomy?

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.

SLIA'S SON SPEAKG AT CONFERENCE PROMOTG CHASTY FOR GAYS

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. “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.

SLIA WARNED LAWRENCE V. TEXAS DISSENT THAT STRIKG DOWN SODOMY LAWS WOULD LEAD TO GAY MARRIAGE

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.

Homosexual upl are like roommat.

GAY MARRIAGE WILL GO NATNWI 10 YEARS, LAWRENCE V. TEXAS ATTORNEY PREDICTS

“[Colorado’s ban] prohibs special treatment of homosexuals, and nothg more, ” Slia wrote. “[I]t would prevent the State or any municipaly om makg ath benef payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when do not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee. In one sectn, he plas that banng discrimatn based on sexual orientatn hirg amounts to grantg gays and lbians special treatment that Republins, adulterers, and Cubs haters don’t get.

Have gays and lbians tried NOT havg homosexual sex?