Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Ruling on ‘homosexual sodomy’ is easy

'For 200 years, it was criminal in every state'
Friday, October 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — Noted conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience at the Washington D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute that “it’s ‘easy’ to render a verdict” on same-sex marriage “when you apply the words in the Constitution as they were intended by its framers.”

Scalia told the audience of several hundred at a recent signing for his new book, “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.” that he considers himself a a “textualist” — which he explained means that he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy,” Scalia said. “Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

During a lengthy question and answer session, Scalia contrasted his style of interpretation with that of a colleague who tries to be true to the values of the Constitution as he applies them to a changing world.

Scalia told the audience that the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution, although he noted that the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

“It is very difficult to adopt a constitutional amendment,” Scalia said. He once calculated that less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, residing in the 13 least populous states, could stop an amendment, he said.

Scalia also emphatically denied that there’s any dissension among the court’s conservative justices in light of Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote to uphold the president’s health care law. (Scalia dissented from Roberts’ opinion.)

“Look it, do not believe anything you read about the internal workings of the Supreme Court,” he said.

“It is either a lie because the press knows we won’t respond — they can say whatever they like and we won’t respond — or else it’s based on information from someone who has violated his oath of confidentiality, that is to say, a non-reliable source. So one way or another it is not worthy of belief.”

“We can disagree with one another on the law without taking it personally,” he said.

On the issue of same-sex marriage equality, the Court is now expected to discuss the topic after the presidential election, which would mean arguments would not take place until the spring.

Las month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the Court’s recognized progressives, told an audience at the University of Colorado in Boulder, “I think it’s most likely that we will have that issue before the court toward the end of the current term.”

The Court has several pending appeals they could choose to hear that deal in one way or another with same-sex marriage.

One set of cases looks at whether same-sex couples who are legally married can be deprived of a range of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. Another case deals with California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and federal court rulings striking down the amendment.

An Arizona case deals with a state law that revoked domestic partner benefits, making them available only to married couples — Arizona’s constitution bans same-sex marriage.

Share this article with your friends and followers:

Archives: , , , ,

Filed under: National Headlines

27 more reader comments:

  1. Sometimes the only thing standing in the way of the future is a well placed funeral.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:09pm
  2. Some are worryingly in positions of strength causing further damage.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:11pm
  3. As opposed to heterosexual sodomy?

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:11pm
  4. well what are his stands on women’s right to vote and slavery…those were not part of the constitution either…fucktard.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:18pm
  5. what about the heterosexual sodomy? because not all gays partake in the socalled homosexual version.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:21pm
  6. huh, well, given that sodomy includes oral sex, i hope the old bastard doesn’t mind giving up his $15 blow jobs. seriously, blue light laws are bullshit; if two consenting adults engage in sex, that’s their business. if no animals or children are involved, who fucking cares?

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:22pm
  7. which correct me if I am wrong, it is basically the same thing.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:22pm
  8. You’d think that someone smart enough to make it through law school, and become a Supreme Court justice, would be smart enough to know that just because something was illegal in the past doesn’t mean it should’ve been, or should be now. At one point, it was unlawful for women to wear pants… sometimes, laws just don’t make sense.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:25pm
  9. wow, at least pretend to listen to the facts in the case, the constitution clearly states that we deserve a fair trial.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:25pm
  10. The sad thing is, everything he says is true, minus his ideology. Yes, we are using the courts to do what the voters are not prepared to do. But I’m not prepared to be stuck in the past forever and the decisions to change that past are, fortunately, just as true as the fact that voters are not prepared to change them or that ideally, they would. &-{/} Don’t worry. He’s just as conservative about donor and signature disclosure laws. ;-{P}

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:25pm
  11. How does he sleep at night?

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:26pm
  12. I didn’t get it at all. He applies the words of the Constitution as the framers meant them to be. He has alway been known as a bigot and that is not what the framers intended at all.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:26pm
  13. really not standing for most of your gay bullshit propaganda but they.re insane. you are right. for once.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:27pm
  14. A narrow mind on the Supreme Court!

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:27pm
  15. Trust me I am sure he likes the reach around also! Jackass

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:30pm
  16. he’s using the constitution to legislate morality, a subjective concept; something that doesn’t work so well in this arena (sexuality).

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:36pm
  17. Scalia, you’re nothing more than an arrogant, dirty old fuck. This is what gets me about these christianists- IT’S NOT ABOUT THE SEX!! Talk about an “activist judge”- for him to actually refer to it as “homosexual sodomy” is not only insulting, it’s not at all surprising. The issue before the SCOTUS about being able to enjoy the same rights and privileges of civil marriage as my heterosexual friends and family. It’s not about the sex, you old fucking moron. That’s already legal and there’s not a damn thing you can do about that.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:56pm
  18. Wow. Stupid is as stupid does. Idiot.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:11pm
  19. Sadly if Romney gets in he will appoint more judges like this! THAT lasts way more than 4 or 8 years.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:20pm
  20. Let me tell you what I learned my first day of intro to law, everything in the law is based on interpretation. No one can say what the framers of the constitution intended, so ppl need to stop putting words in other people’s mouths. When I’m done with law school, the supreme court is going to be tired of hearing my name. I plan on making sure everyone gets equality, not just white, rich, straight men.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:24pm
  21. The supreme court judges are for life… Hence the first comment.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:26pm
  22. why do human beings think they can force their religious values into law? He need to keep his personal religious beliefs to himself n stop tryin to force it on the whole damn world! Live your life n stop trying to tell us how to live ours!

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:32pm
  23. and they wonder why some people go atheist! At least atheist not tryin to control the world with their religious beliefs.

    Posted on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:34pm
  24. With his logic slavery would still be the law of the land and women would still be owned by their husbands and fathers. After all these laws were around also for more than 200 years.

    Posted on Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 4:54am
  25. just because something has been a certain way for a long period of time does not make it right, nor does it mean it should not be changed.

    Posted on Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 5:10am
  26. Just what we need…another bigoted asshole with power

    Posted on Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 9:12am
  27. Stupid old bugger (or am I allowed to call him that?)!

    Posted on Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 9:36am