Scalia: 'High-Handed' Kennedy Has Declared Us 'Enemies of the Human Race'

[WestVirginiaRebel]

National Journal:

Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

________

 

I guess he and Kennedy won't be having lunch together anytime soon...

[Pepper]

@NCTexan

 

The One speaking on this:

 

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

 

 

What's next? Marriage to children, marriage to animals? Marriage to one's own siblings?

 

Why should they be left out of the fun?

 

Who doesn't love a pony???

[Valin]

@NCTexan

 

The One speaking on this:

 

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

 

 

What's next? Marriage to children, marriage to animals? Marriage to one's own siblings?

 

Why should they be left out of the fun?

 

Who doesn't love a pony???

I've seen people advocating just those things.

"I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul."

William Ernest Henley

I will decide what is true for me.

Seen this attitude before, and it leads to no place good.

[SrWoodchuck]

@NCTexan

 

The One speaking on this:

 

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

 

 

What's next? Marriage to children, marriage to animals? Marriage to one's own siblings?

 

Why should they be left out of the fun?

 

Who doesn't love a pony???

 

Awwwwww......you're just horsin' around........aren't ya?

[NCTexan]

@NCTexan

 

The One speaking on this:

 

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

 

 

What's next? Marriage to children, marriage to animals? Marriage to one's own siblings?

 

Why should they be left out of the fun?

 

Who doesn't love a pony???

 

@Pepper

 

You're right. Gosh... She's hot!

 

[Geee]

Racists and enemies of the human race both, we should be deported - especially since we are not only Republicans, but legal citizens.

[Draggingtree]

Justice Anthony Kennedy's contempt

 

By RICH LOWRY | 6/26/13 11:07 PM EDT

 

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has contempt for a swath of his fellow citizens.

If you disagree with him about gay marriage, indeed, if you merely think the federal government should continue to define marriage the traditional way while the states define it however they want, then you are a bigot. Your views deserve no political representation. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/justice-kennedys-contempt-93473.html

[righteousmomma]

I shall - with gratitude-let Rush speak for me:

 

RUSH: "Just 18 months ago -- leading up to the 2012 presidential election -- Barack Obama opposed gay marriage. Eighteen months ago, the homosexual community was very upset with Barack Obama for failing to come through on this issue, if you remember. Eighteen months ago and four years prior, many in the activist gay community on the left were very upset with Obama for not advancing their agenda, which happened to be gay marriage.

Just a year and a half ago, folks.

Just 18 months ago, the president of the United States opposed gay marriage. Now, 18 months later, we are told that the whole country supports gay marriage, and those who don't are bigots. That was in the Supreme Court ruling today, that people who oppose gay marriage are bigots and want to deny and want to make fun of and want to impugn and demean homosexuals. Why do we even need a court, if it is going to behave like this? Why do we even need a Congress?"

 

 

and he said:

 

"Scalia's dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, .... It is unlike any dissent by any justice I've ever read about any case. And that's because Scalia says that the majority in the DOMA ruling was unlike any majority that this court has ever produced, that it was filled with venom and rage. If Scalia's dissent is right, what it means is that the common, ordinary fisticuff arguments between left and right in this country have now taken over the Supreme Court. And the law and judicial restraint, temperament and all that has evaporated. And the court is no different than a barroom now. Whoever has the largest number on one side, the loudest voices and the most insulting voices wins."

[Draggingtree]

How Congress Ought to Respond to DOMA Ruling

By: AndrewHyman (Diary) | June 28th, 2013 at 12:36 AM

 

In the recent Windsor decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Congress to adopt whatever marriage definition a state adopts. Thus, a couple that is “married” under the laws of a state will get all the federal benefits of marriage. I disagree with the Court’s decision, but it does not seem so awful; the decision is left up to each state.

 

But actually there’s a huge problem. Suppose a state wants a couple in a “civil union” to be treated exactly like a couple in a “marriage”, except for the word “marriage”. That’s essentially what Proposition 8 is all about, and other states have done the same thing.

But under this Windsor decision, it seems like people in marriages will get treated very differently than people in civil unions; the former will get federal benefits but the latter will not.

 

This new judicially-created policy contradicts a state’s decision to treat marriages and civil unions the same. The new judicially-created policy also means that states that now give equal treatment to marriages and civil unions will have a huge incentive to get rid of civil unions in favor of marriages, so that gay couples can get equal federal treatment.

What Congress ought to do is simple. Replace “marriage” in federal statutes with something like “any relationship that a state calls ‘marriage’ OR that a state treats as equivalent to the relationships that it calls ‘marriage’.” http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman/2013/06/28/how-congress-ought-to-respond-to-doma-ruling/

the bold in my input