Scalia Was a Prophet On Same-Sex “Marriage”

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two same-sex “marriage” cases. That means Antonin Scalia was a prophet. In 2003, when the Supreme Court overturned all the anti-sodomy laws in all states, Scalia told the courts that they had unleashed chaos.

“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”

Scalia’s minority conservative opinion got liberals very angry. They also did all they could to pretend to not understand why he said what he did. The CNN FindLaw blogger went so far as to agree with Scalia’s reasoning and, at the same time, pretend he bore responsibility for advocating homosexual “marriage.”

“[I] n Lawrence v. Texas, the Court invalidated a Texas law that barred same-sex sodomy, and Justice Scalia dissented. In that dissent, Scalia opined that the Court’s ruling logically entailed state recognition of same-sex marriage. Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took him at his word.  Make no mistake: Because I often find myself disagreeing with the substantive positions Justice Scalia takes, I’m delighted when he suggests that rulings of the majority have consequences that he rues and I welcome.  The question nonetheless remains — and it is a question perhaps better answered by a psychoanalyst than by a constitutional law professor — why on Earth Justice Scalia writes what he regards as parade-of-horribles dissents that risk becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. ”

So that’s what Liberal’s think: If you, as a judge, spell out where legal reasoning will lead, you must be neurotic. This is a stellar example of how many liberals don’t understand the concept of logic or reasoning at all. You just say things that will bring about what you want; or else you need to go see a therapist because you must be mentally unwell.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: ‘Houston Chronicle’ Forced to Retract Stories After Reporter’s Work Proven a Fraud

Of course, Scalia did not only predict same-sex marriage less than a decade ago. His “parade of horrible” was longer. I’m curious if Scalia’s critics are opposed to the rest of his list or just found it convenient to not mention other “perversions” that could now become legal:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity …. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

Whether Scalia new it or not, this wasn’t just a prediction deduced from legal principles. It was also a matter of historic reality. Germany legalized bestiality at the same time it decriminalized homosexuality, spawning an industry of zoo-bordellos where animals could be rented. Only now is the government considering banning the practice on the basis of preventing cruelty to animals.

Scalia was obviously right in his prediction. We live in a society that, because of real past injustice (i.e. racial minorities) has now established the legal practice for using government coercion, engineering, and penalties to enforce acceptance for any group that is declared a minority. We are about to get real sexual revolution—one inflicted on traditionalist holdouts by guns and guards.

Previous Massive Revenue Loss Follows California Tax Hike Vote
Next The Quadrillion-Dollar Derivatives Bubble


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.