I just couldn’t help myself. I couldn’t resist the opportunity to point out how ridiculous it is that in 2012 we still have prominent government officials who believe that we homosexuals should be locked up for who we love or what…
Since the election is over (my side won and in the words of Wanda Sykes “Obama Bitches”) I was going to retire this political column for a least a few months, but after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s verbal diarrhea last week at Princeton University, I just couldn’t help myself. I couldn’t resist the opportunity to point out how ridiculous it is that in 2012 we still have prominent government officials who believe that we homosexuals should be locked up for who we love or what we do in our own homes. (It’s not as if some of us don’t like to be locked tied up in our own homes.) We have officials who will state, on the record, in front of a large crowd at one of the most prominent universities in our country, that it’s ok for lawmakers to foist their idea of morality upon the entire citizenry and will defend the constitutionality of certain laws using something called “the reduction to the absurd” as an argumentative basis. For anyone who is not quite sure what I’m referring to, it went something like this…
Last week a freshman at the Ivy League school, Duncan Hosie, who happens to be gay, had the cojones to ask Monsignor Justice Scalia why he compares laws banning homosexuality to those banning bestiality and murder. Scalia, who is on tour promoting the Bible his new book, decided that he would respond to the question, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had announced just days before that it would hear two cases dealing with the constitutionality of laws banning homosexuality, namely the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman only, and California’s Prop 8 which put a stop to gay marriage in our nation’s most populous state. Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, nor am I a judge (I confess, I will judge your haircut, your outfit, and your grammar, but I digress , but I do watch a lot of Law and Order, and one of my best friend’s dad is a judge so I know what I’m talking about here, and every time I see a lawyer or judge get asked about a pending case, they say “no comment” or “You know I can’t comment on an open investigation” or something like that… Come on Justice Scalia, now is not the time for you to pipe up with your religious political views, and it’s scary to a lot of us to think that those same views are influencing your interpretation of our (secular) Constitution.
I guess it’s not really the fact that he commented, it’s what he said that really has our community up in arms. He said “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd, If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” He went on to claim that he’s is not comparing homosexuality to murder, but if that’s not what he is doing, then shouldn’t he find a different analogy to make his point? But to answer his question, yes, we can have moral feelings and laws about murder and bestiality and separate those views and laws from our feelings about homosexuality. I really can’t believe that I have to make this argument in this day and age, give me a break.
“Reduction to the absurd,” sir? For even making this argument YOU are absurd, and your antiquated ideology is even more absurd. However, thankfully, unlike when you have made negative arguments about homosexuality before, your views are no longer reflective of the majority of Americans. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, its job is to ensure laws are constitutional and to strike down laws that don’t meet the standard of the Constitution. At its core is always the Constitution, a document that guarantees equality to all of the citizens of the United States. To have a sitting Justice of the highest court in the land out hocking a book and commenting about open cases coming before the court is more than absurd, it’s unethical. But, when (in my lifetime at least) did ethics ever matter in D.C.? Guess it was just my naiveté to think the Supreme Court was somehow above all of that.
Thankfully, the good news underlying the cacophony Justice Scalia has caused is that finally the Court has accepted marriage equality cases and their ruling, expected in June of 2013 could very well have a positive impact on the daily lives of gay people across the country. There is the chance the court could see things differently than I do (Refer to my lack of law degree mentioned above) but I plan to be going to a lot of gay weddings in Florida next year. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. You may even see little big ole’ me dressed up in a judges robe (trust me, it would be fabulous with frills, and white lace on the sleeves and all…) presiding over a couple of gay weddings as my “drag” alter ego “ Justine AntonIan Haterville Scalian”
