The nservative's latt turn of phrase his gay-marriage dissent ma a splash on social media.
Contents:
- READ SLIA GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: SUPREME COURT JTICE SLAMS 'CONSTUTNAL REVISN'
- JTICE SLIA RIPS APART GAY ‘MARRIAGE’ RULG
- JTICE SLIA'S GAY MARRIAGE ADVICE: 'ASK THE NEART HIPPIE'
- GAY STUNT ASKS JTICE SLIA TO FEND HIS 'BTIALY' MENTS
- ANTON SLIA ROUTELY LED AGAST GAY RIGHTS. THOSE OPNS EXPLA HIS PHILOSOPHY.
READ SLIA GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: SUPREME COURT JTICE SLAMS 'CONSTUTNAL REVISN'
Supreme Court Jtice Anton Slia torched the majory opn regnizg gay marriage natnwi lorful language. * justice scalia gay marriage *
” Fally, Slia warned that the lg to extend marriage rights to gay upl across the untry would rob the urt of s power: “Hubris is sometim fed as o’erweeng pri; and pri, we know, goeth before a fall.
Protters opposed to gay marriage rallied ont of the Supreme Court Washgton on Thursday. Urt ultimately cid to end the ban on gay marriage, lg that the 14th Amendment requir stat to marry same-sex upl as well as regnize their marriag legally performed other stat. Right after Mary Bonto, the lawyer challengg marriage bans several stat, pleted her argument, a spectator rose om a back row and started screamg, “If you support gay marriage, you will burn Hell!
” Ined, there’s every reason to believe that Slia more or ls shared the protter’s view of the immoraly of homosexualy, and that he regards the Court’s toleratn of gay people as one of the great disasters of his nearly three s as a ’s unter-outburst was a notable ntrast to the rpectful tone of the rt of the argument, cludg om his fellow-nservativ. It is one measure of the succs of the gay-rights movement that all the other Jtic felt pelled to phrase their qutns ways that honored the humany of gay people. After Bonto said that gay people should be allowed to jo the stutn of marriage, Chief Jtice Roberts replied, “Well, you say ‘jo’ the stutn.
JTICE SLIA RIPS APART GAY ‘MARRIAGE’ RULG
* justice scalia gay marriage *
“Excludg gay and lbian upl om marriage means the digny of the upl. )Jtice Elena Kagan battered John Bursch, the lawyer for Michigan, wh var versns of the same qutn: What ernmental tert was the state servg by excludg gays om the stutn of marriage?
” Bursch uld never really say what those nsequenc were, nor uld he expla why heterosexual-only marriage had to be prerved for the sake of the children when lots of straight people don’t have kids and lots of gay and lbian people most likely oute still looks like a victory for the plantiffs and marriage equaly all fifty stat. At a mimum, even before the cisn is announced, the argument self was an example of how much the untry, and the Court, has changed on the subject of gay rights. C., June 26, 2015 () - Gay "marriage" is now the law of the land.
JTICE SLIA'S GAY MARRIAGE ADVICE: 'ASK THE NEART HIPPIE'
One le Supreme Court Jtice Anton Slia's dissent on gay marriage ptured the public imagatn after Friday's historic cisn. "I thk he's slaggg gays and hippi, " said Crosby. ET -- Jt days after the Supreme Court announced would take s first ser look at gay marriage, Jtice Anton Slia was asked to fend his legal wrgs on Supreme Court jtice was visg Prceton Universy on Monday to discs his latt book when a llege hman, who intifi as gay, asked Slia about the parison he has drawn between laws banng sodomy wh those barrg btialy and murr.
“If we nnot have moral feelgs agast or objectns to homosexualy, n we have agast anythg?
Slia had dissented the se; his dissent, he mak a uple of parisons to laws agast btialy and clar, "nowhere do the Court’s opn clare that homosexual sodomy is a 'fundamental right. He didn’t jt alienate liberals by parg laws agast gay sex to laws agast murr and btialy, he has alienated laws nservativ have nmned.
GAY STUNT ASKS JTICE SLIA TO FEND HIS 'BTIALY' MENTS
It didn’t make sense to me, " he Supreme Court will be reviewg California's ban on same-sex marriage and a feral law that f marriage as only the legal unn of a man and a woman March, wh a cisn expected by late has "not been opaque" about his feelgs toward same-sex marriage the past, and gay rights advot do not expect him to change his md when the Supreme Court hears the s the sprg, said Fred Saz, vice print of munitns at Human Rights Campaign, the natn's largt gay rights anizatn. "I feel as if he’s crossed a le parg some of the thgs he’s pared gay rights to... 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. 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.
ANTON SLIA ROUTELY LED AGAST GAY RIGHTS. THOSE OPNS EXPLA HIS PHILOSOPHY.
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.
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.