Originally Posted by ckblv
I didn't take Justic Scalia's remarks that way at all. I took it as he didn't feel SCOTUS should make moral judgements and that is all.
If he was such a anti-gay person, one would think he would want to make a judgement so he could go against gay people.
Not everyone that is conservative is against gay people you know.
He DID want to make a judgment. Dissent in this case doesn't mean that he withheld his vote, it means that he voted quite vigorously against the majority of the court. And he spent 21 pages explaining how "the homosexual agenda" was going to nullify laws against all manner of heinous crimes such as rape, incest, illegal drug use, murder, zoophile acts, homosexuality, etc. (note the company he likes to throw gays in with)
Interestingly enough, the case of Lawrence
originated in Texas, and at the time of his dissent and possibly to this day, acts of Zoophilia are still legal in Texas. Imagine that! You'd think Scaila would have known that. Maybe he didn't do all
of his homework after all.
They tried to outlaw homosexual relations between 2 humans, but heterosexual relations between a human and animals is legal. For a state government so engrossed in legislating morality, that is just plain weird.