How Slia's opns on gay rights expla the late Supreme Court jtice.
Contents:
- ANTON SLIA ROUTELY LED AGAST GAY RIGHTS. THOSE OPNS EXPLA HIS PHILOSOPHY.
- READ SLIA GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: SUPREME COURT JTICE SLAMS 'CONSTUTNAL REVISN'
- 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.
Supreme Court Jtice Anton Slia torched the majory opn regnizg gay marriage natnwi lorful language. * justice scalia on 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. 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. 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.
READ SLIA GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: SUPREME COURT JTICE SLAMS 'CONSTUTNAL REVISN'
* justice scalia on gay marriage *
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.
JTICE SLIA'S GAY MARRIAGE ADVICE: 'ASK THE NEART HIPPIE'
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.
Homosexual sodomy?
GAY STUNT ASKS JTICE SLIA TO FEND HIS 'BTIALY' MENTS
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.