The fallout will be coming for some time after yesterday’s Court decision, and I’m sure that I’ll be manic depressive for a while. While I feel happy about this affirmation of liberty, I also get worked up about the intolerant rhetoric spewing from the Right. Such as:
Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore (R) expressed disappointment with the ruling, which he said invalidates a state statute banning oral and anal sex between consenting gay and heterosexual couples. “As one who believes that the courts are to interpret and not create law, I disagree with the ruling and am always disappointed when a court undermines Virginia’s right to pass legislation that reflects the views and values of our citizens,” he said in a statement.
I’ve been a citizen of Virginia for 36 years. That legislation does not reflect my views or those of anyone I know. What he means to say is …”Virginia’s right to pass legislation that reflects the views and values of our extremist citizens and imposes those views on all of Virginia’s citizens.”
Scalia’s dissent made the case that the majority had, indeed, “dismantle[d] the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions,” as well as the enforcement of laws against bestiality, adultery and adult incest.
I don’t see the connection except in the case of adultery. The case involved two consenting adults. Bestialty and incest do not meet this test. Adultery, frankly, should not be illegal in my opinion — yes, it’s obviously morally wrong and I’m against it, but the government should not be policing the private lives of its citizens.
Again, this linking of homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other “perversions” is increasingly ridiculous. The only commonality there is that they all make sexually repressed right-wingers nervous. Being homosexual, amusingly enough, makes you statistically less likely to engage in any of those immoral and harmful practices. Their practitioners are almost always heterosexual. And besides, I expect better arguments from a Supreme Court Justice. Who does he think he is, Rick Santorum?
Scalia charged that the majority’s allegiance to “the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture” had blinded it to what he said was the fact that “many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
Scalia did not himself endorse such views, but rather said that, if the majority objects to homosexuality on moral grounds and wants to outlaw it, that is a manifestation of democracy, not discrimination.
Duh. DEMOCRACY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. The majority cannot rule in such matters. And they certainly cannot “outlaw” homosexuality, and thus, a class of people! My sexuality was not given to me by the state nor the people – I was born with it and therefore, as the right would say, it was given to me by God.
Now, read that quote again with one small change and you’ll understand:
“many Americans do not want Jewish persons as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
Aha! Suddenly you understand, right?
I at first put “black persons” as an example, but I realized that the right wingers would say, “well, that is a genetic, in-born thing.” But being Jewish isn’t – while you may be born into a Jewish family, what makes you Jewish is your beliefs. So, here we have a person who has “made a choice” to live a “lifestyle” – using the arguments of the anti-gay right. So, does that quote now seem reasonable? Have I made my point, or just muddied it?
Our attorney general’s statement is priceless, considering that it was Virginia that fought the case all the way to Supreme Court in 1967 (Virginia v. Loving) to try to keep its laws against miscegenation. Although he says that he’s “always disappointed when a court undermines Virginia’s right to pass legislation that reflects the views and values of our citizens,” I wonder if he’d be as willing to say now that the court was wrong when it forced acceptance of marriage between the races on Virginia, and that he was “disappointed” with that reversal of legislation reflecting the “views and values” of the citizens of the Commonwealth?