Barney Frank...Not All Opponents Of Same Sex Marriage Are Homophobic But Yeah, Scalia Is Definitely Is

Barney Frank recently took a few minute from screwing up the country's financial system to call Justice Scalia a "homophobe". I skipped posting on it because, well, Frank says a lot of stupid shit and who can keep track of it all?

But yesterday he doubled down on it. Frank graciously acknowledged that opposition to same sex marriage is not ipso facto proof of homophobia but Scallia? Yeah, he hates teh gheys.

"What a 'homophobe' means is someone who has prejudice about gay people," Frank told WBZ radio, arguing that Scalia's judicial writing "makes it very clear that he's angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people."

In particular, Frank cited Scalia's opinion in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court struck down state laws barring consensual acts of sodomy. In his dissent, Scalia wrote that the 6-3 vote served to ratify an "agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."

"If you read his opinion, he thinks it's a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people," Frank said yesterday.

Barney, you are an idiot. Based on the dissent it's quite clear that what Scalia thinks is the Constitution doesn't prohibit states from enacting such laws. His personal opinion on such laws are not anywhere in evidence in the opinion. As usual Scalia is scathing in his language but his target is the sloppy thinking and writing of his fellow justices, led by His Royal Highness, The Duke of Kennedy.

Frank claims that Clarence Thomas isn't a homophobe because Thomas said that while he would uphold the Texas statute he would have voted against the law were he a legislator.

Well, here's part of what Scalia wrote in his dissent (which Thomas joined).

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so.

If that makes you a homophobe, I'm affraid I have to sign up for the club. Fortunately, that's only the case in Barney Frank's tiny little brain and not reality.

One more thought....

I honestly wonder if Frank has read the dissent. It reminds me of the time Harry Reid called Clarence Thomas "an embarrassment" whose "opinions are poorly written".

When pressed for an example, old Harry came up with "the Hillside Dairy case" which he said was the work of 8th grader. Here is Thomas' dissent from that case in full.

I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

Liberals like to say and think they are super geniuses. In reality they tend to be moronic name callers.

posted by DrewM. at 11:09 AM

| Access Comments