Say there were a prominent Republican Congressman, a committee chairman to boot, and he went on a tear about a certain Supreme Court Justice, calling him anti-Christian because of his opinions on the separation of church and state. When he was faulted for his inflammatory rhetoric, he dug in and repeated the slur.  The media would have a field day with this guy, calling him an extremist, possibly a conspiracy-monger. We would read regular editorials in the New York Times denouncing him.
Well, we’ve got something similar with a leading Democrat. Ol’ Barney Frank just can’t let go of his assertion that Justice Antonin Scalia is a “homophobe.” Now, the unhappy Congressman has taken to the pages of the Huffington Post to defend his slur. And only conservatives are calling him on his meanness.
And get this, in attacking the level-headed Justice, Barney calls his opinions “angry” and “virulent.” My, my, Barney, you sound like a blogger having fun with his adversaries rather than a Congressman addressing a Justice of the Supreme Court. (Yet, there is no spirit of sport in the tone of your post.)
My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity.
Actually, when you read the opinions, you don’t find the anger Barney so eagerly wants to find. Now, I don’t agree with Scalia’s opinion in Lawrence which which the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts excerpts, but I do find a well-thought out opinion. Wrong in my view, but well argued.
Indeed, much of what Scalia says is beyond dispute for those who have bothered to study the treatment of gay people in society over the generations. We may not like the historical record, but it’s there.
Barney even chooses to excerpt an passage from Scalia’s dissent in Romer v. Evans to show the Justice is a “homophobe” when a simple reading of the text shows the exact opposite:
Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even “animus” toward such conduct.
Yeah, I would rather he had not compared homosexual conduct to murder, but he makes clear that he believes it wrong to hate people just because they’re gay. It’s the conduct that that he believes the constitution allows states to punish.
It is fine and honorable to object to the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice. It’s quite another thing to engage in name-calling. But, Barney Frank has made name-calling his practice when dealing with conservatives and conservative ideas he doesn’t like.
I suggest he tone down his rhetoric. But, he knows that the media lets him get away with conduct for which it would excoriate a conservative.
UPDATE:Â Tom Maguire agrees:
I don’t find support for Frank’s assertion that Scalia believes homosexuality “deserves” to be treated with disapproval; I find a stern reminder that the public deserves courts that wait until legislatures legislate before creating new rights.
Oh, well – Frank is not interested in a frank exchange of views. His goal is to shut down debate by branding everyone on the other side as a homophobe.
Exactly. Exactly. Barney’s goal is to shut down debate.
Frank is such a loser. Scalia, though I disagree with him on some issues, is a great Justice.
And yes, I just name-called Frank. Hope that’s allowed.
ILC, you’re just responding in kind.
No more, no less. 😉
“Yeah, I would rather he had not compared homosexual conduct to murder…”
God, I love this blog.
“but he makes clear that he believes it wrong to hate people just because they’re gay.” No, actually, he doesn’t. What he says is, “it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings…” (emphasis mine). So he is saying that even though we are not *supposed* to hate people, “[he] had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible…and could exhibit even “animus†toward such conduct.” He is flat laying out not only his assumption that disliking gay “conduct” (ie, being gay) was ok but expressing that dislike (through, I don’t know, outlawing it?) was perfectly ok as well. A “simple reading” of the text shows the exact opposite of the get out of the jail free card that you so desperately want to give him.
Gosh, I wonder why people throw the “self-hate” card at this blog?
Sorry, torrentprime, I just don’t see how my criticism of Justice Scalia’s dissent, but refusal to label it homophobia, amounts to self-hatred.
And if you had bothered to read his opinion instead of try to twist it, you’d see how he distinguishes being gay from conduct.
That you refuse to understand that distinction is telling.
Torrentprime, you so funny.
Under your desperate attempt to cover up for dear poor Barney Fag, you actually admit that considering conduct reprehensible and even having animus for behavior means that you “hate” it and the person who practices it, and that outlawing it would automatically be “wrong”.
In that case, laws against polygamy, bestiality, incest, and sex with underage minors, all of which fall well under the broad definition of “private conduct” that the Left is so jealous of defending, are signs of “hate” against other people, are laws based on “animus” against a certain group, and are thus unconstitutional.
It all boils down to what you think is more important — the right of the people to make their own laws, or the right of the individual to engage in whatever sexual conduct they prefer. I vote for the former, and so does Scalia. Barney Fag, on the other hand, wants any law that would in any way inconvenience him repealed.
What irritates me is that members of the gay communities around America are probably holding up Bawney Fwank as some kind of role-model.
THIS is what we are all supposed to be like???
No thank you. Fwank doesn’t speak for me.
PS to TP – quit trying to play the “self-hater” card. You sound like a drama queen. Get off the cross, we need the wood.
Regards,
Peter H.
It seems pretty clear from this that Barney Baby is the emotional female in his homosexual relationships.
I wonder if he wears a dress at home?
“Exactly. Exactly. Barney’s goal is to shut down debate.”
Bleatin’ Barney has obviously forgotten an important historical point: namely, expression of “incorrect” or unpopular opinions doesn’t stop when debate is shut down. Nope, it simply appears in other forms.
Like, for instance….
violence.
Oh get over yourselves. You couldn’t watch cable news for five minutes in the Bush era without some Republican impugning liberals’ patriotism or values or support for the troops, and you know it.
Probably because, Levi, Republicans are well aware of what liberals feel about our troops and the fact that the Obama Party fully supports and endorses that.
Put bluntly, the Obama Party believes our troops are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in their own country.
Gee, where did anyone get the idea that rooting for your country to lose a war was unpatriotic?
Levi observes: “Oh get over yourselves. You couldn’t watch cable news for five minutes in the Bush era without some Republican impugning liberals’ patriotism or values or support for the troops, and you know it.”
While that’s probably true, Levi, and I was someone who -on occasion- would point out in 2001-2003 that people who spoke out against the troops, our mission or the President on the WOT were likely giving aid to the enemy and posited that maybe JohnVietCongKerry should just join al Qaeda and get it over with… it didn’t make it right.
Similarly, when BarneyFrank calls Justice Scalia a homophobe –and I would imagine a lot worse if we could get audio record of his rant at the last P-town 4th of July manFeast & parade– Frank is wrong.
Now, conservatives, as a lot, are kind of sticky prickly folks when it comes to them being called bigot or racist or homophobe… and trust me, Levi, I have first hand knowledge of said stickiness and prickliness… but then gayGOPers get labeled with the self-loathing gay line so often from the farLeft that it no longer even stings for me –kind of like the old farLeft line of chickenhawk or keyboard army during the WOT –which I think, according to Obama’s doublespeak, is no longer to be called WOT.
So when we think about Justice Scalia’s incredibly NON-discriminatory practices in hiring law clerks over the past 22 yrs, it seems kind of a silly line for Frank to call him a homophobe. The record doesn’t support Frank or the gayLeft.
What Frank really should be saying is that Justice Scalia doesn’t support the gayLeft –and that would mean the mainstream gay movement’s agenda in politics or social matters. And that would be ok for Justice Scalia in my book –heck, I don’t support much of the gayLeft’s agenda.
So you see, just because some of us on this side of the aisle used to try to shut-down debate over the War on Terror or the need to torture, wiretap or eavesdrop on American-internl calls… with charges of people being anti-American or unpatriotic, doesn’t mean it’s now ok for Frank to do it.
Frank, I think, is an evil corrupt man who long ago stopped serving the public interest and is now engaged in a kind of ego-politics where policy is less important than HIS exercise of power. He flames Scalia, well ok. Justice Scalia is a big boy (no, really he is a BIG boy almost matching Frank pound for pound) and he’s proven nicely he can take care of himself and handle Frank tit (or is it man-boob for these guys?) for tat.
I kind of like the dust up. But the record is clear: Justice Scalia is no homophobe anymore than JohnVietCongKerry is a disloyal American. OK, maybe that’s not the best example.
Barney Frank loves to fondle his stubby gavel. He would love to be able to beat down everyone he opposes with being out of order. His antics on YouTube are classic examples of how a mean little slug with too much power acts when his feet ache.
Levi, please identify the Republicans who impugned liberals’ patriotism with actual quotes from the elected officials.
I would post a response at Huffington but I have been banned for posting an opposing view in a very civil manner.
Well, if it were Barney, he might have called you a “homophobe” for expressing an opposing view.
Dear Sirs,
I don’t have the opinion at hand but I have read it more than once. All of the above quotations are taken out of context.
Bottom line, what he said was that as a jurist he did not find that there was anything in the Constitution or in stare decisis that justified overturning a law properly ordered by a state. An originalist position, but always his position.
Regards,
Roy
the whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” concept is ignorance defined. scalia isn’t a homophobe, he’s an ignorant moron. he thinks, as clearly evidenced by his dissent, that homosexuality is a “behavior” and not an orientation.
#20: Thank you, bob. As always, we can count on you to define ignorance.
bob declares Scalia to be an ignorant moron. I wonder if bob could point us toward a well educated moron as a point of comparison.
How does an ignorant moron get by all the Senate vetting? Does he trick them? No. That would ruin his standing as being ignorant.
Well, I guess I am too great a moron myself to be able to understand the clever nuance of thelittleletterpersonbob. Now brain itches.
bob won’t even address the text of the dissent. He should be taken seriously why?
I remember an interview with Justice Scalia about the flag buring decision. He was talking about how his wife was mad at him. He thought that burning the flag was contemptable, but protected. Again showing that he puts his job above his personal feelings.
It’s fine for Barney Frank to say what he likes on this issue. First, it’s legal, because we have freedom of speech in the United States. And not unwise for Barney Frank to say what he said because if a Supreme Court justice is prejudiced against gay people, we should not have to be quiet about it just to be “civil†or “respectful†of the Supreme Court. It may not be a nice word, but what if it’s true? If he’s prejudiced, he shouldn’t be a judge, who has a duty to treat everyone equally. We should listen to why Barney Frank said what he said. The people who object to what Frank said should read Scalia’s opinions that Frank talks about before they assume that a Supreme Court justice couldn’t be a homophobe. It is completely within Frank’s rights to express his opinions about Scalia and it our decision as citizens and that of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not his accusations hold any truth.
actually i did talk about his dissent. he talks about the actions of homosexuals as if being gay is behavior instead of orientation. he also uses the phrase “homosexual agenda”, which is a phrase invented by homophobes.
Barney Frank settles the argument about homosexual equality. He is the mirror image of, and has achieved the summit of idiotic, heterosexual males on a power trip in Washington, D.C. And I agree, he has got to be the female in his relationships – reminds me of a radical feminist trapped in a guys body.
So, Justice Scalia is a “homophobe” based on what Barney Frank assumes Scalia would do if the Defense of Marriage Act were challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court? Just curious: what does that make the Democratic President who signed the Act into law in the first place?
Funny how that fact seems to have gotten lost in Congresswoman Frank’s idiotic bitch-fit with herself.
*laugh* let me try Bob logic.
Bob admits he drinks beer here http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9894#comment-395715 since he drinks beer, invented by Germans, he must believe in sending gays and Jews and Rrom to death camps for the glory of the master race.
Wow, using irrational non-sequetors is fun!
i think the only thing you “tried” there, livewire, is displaying your own stupidity.
from scalia’s dissent:
One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. 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. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
how can you read this and not sniff homophobia?
bob, I don’t know what you’re sniffing, but you’re the one who takes a ‘term’ and decides its such insight. I’m just applying to you the same standard.
How dare Scalia rely on established case law in his dissent, rather than feelings.
Livewire,
I see you are stupid. As a moron, I look up to you. Well done!
how can you read this and not sniff homophobia?
Because, boob, gay-sex liberals like yourself claim that supporting DOMA and DADT did not make Clinton a homophobe, nor does opposing gay marriage make Barack Obama a homophobe, nor does claiming that homosexuals are “filthy” make Louis Farrakhan a homophobe, nor does firing gays who complain about discrimination make Howard Dean a homophobe, nor does supporting state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage make John Kerry a homophobe, nor does supporting the FMA make Harold Ford a homophobe…….
As long as Barney is slurring, why doesn´t he slur Ahmadinejad, as a homophobe. I wonder how it would be received by the Iranians?
oooh now i’m a “gay-sex liberal”…how fun!
1) clinton wanted to get rid of the ban on gays altogether. this measure was not legislatively possible, so he compromised with DADT.
2) farrakhan is a homophobe. i never said he wasn’t.
3) obama supports full legal rights and recognition for gay unions…basically the only thing he opposes is calling it “marriage”, and frankly, i’m okay with that. i don’t agree with him there, but i’m also smart enough to know that any politician that says he supports gay “marriage” will not win a single southern state. i’m confident that gay rights will advance much further with obama as president than under bush or mccain.
4) i’m not a huge harold ford fan. he may well be a homophobe…or at least pretend to be one since he tried to get elected in tennessee.
5) i’m not sure what you’re talking about with john kerry or howard dean, and somehow i think you’re making shit up.
filtered.
And once again, the gay-sex liberal boob uses every spin in the book to avoid the fact that he refuses to call homophobes people who signed DADT, signed DOMA, who promoted the fact that they signed DOMA, people who claim marriage is a “sacred bond” that should be denied gays, people who support the FMA, people who support state constitutional amendments, and people who discriminate against and fire gay employees.
Calling Scalia a homophobe isn’t a slur. It’s just a fact.
Thus speaketh the Hound.
So I can confidently say “Calling Houndentenor an idiot isn’t a slur, it’s a fact,*” with the same standard of factchecking that he applies.
You can’t back up what you say Hound, yelling it over and over doesn’t make it true.
*appologies to any idiots reading for the comparison.