“Justice” Antonin Scalia is Loony Tunes

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’re probably aware that the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a landmark case that just brought marriage equality to the entire United States.  Of course, not everyone is thrilled about that.  Conservative Christians are predictably freaking out, and “Justice” Antonin Scalia is among them.

Scalia is completely unhinged.  All you really need to know is that he thinks it’s a-okay to execute innocent people.  He also thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Moving on though.

Scalia’s latest hissy fit dissent in today’s decision demonstrates yet again how wildly out of touch he really is.

“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he offers. “It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

Well congrats, but guess what?  It is of “immense personal importance” to LGBT people, who are directly affected by the ruling.  Their rights are at stake.  It would be nice if all the justices cared about that.

But far more troubling is Scalia’s talk about “who it is that rules me”.  Um… as a Supreme Court judge, isn’t the Constitution supposed to “rule”?  Hint: the answer is yes.  But Scalia just brushes that aside, and brazenly declares that he doesn’t use the Constitution as the basis for his decisions.

He goes on to freak out about the Supreme Court doing exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do: rule on the Constitutionality of cases brought before it.  I don’t quite understand why conservatives so often lose it when courts do exactly what they’re supposed to do.

Another quote from Justice Loony Toons:

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he writes. “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.

Exactly which part is unreasonable? Let’s see:

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach

That’s exactly what the Constitution is for.

a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons

Um, yeah, specific rights of human beings are outlined in the Constitution.

within a lawful realm

Again, that’s exactly what the Constitution does. It defines legal rights. What’s so outrageous here?

to define and express their identity

What more fundamental right could there be than to simply be who you are?

I see absolutely nothing pretentious or egotistic.  It was simply a statement of what the Constitution does.  But Scalia has shown he doesn’t care about the Constitution when it’s inconvenient for him.  He shows again and again that he really doesn’t get it (or doesn’t care) at a fundamental level.


Marriage equality, pedophilia, and the “slippery slope”

I recently came across a discussion of a recent ruling about part of a polygamy law that got struck down.  The participants of the discussion were mostly Christians, so of course the discussion turned to pedophiles and how since we are beginning to grant gay people the right to marry, it will inevitably lead to pedophilia just being a sexual orientation.  Then somebody came in saying they had read an article about the American Psychiatric Association doing just that.

It took me all of 30 seconds on Google to find that that was not true.  It turns out that the APA, in the midst of a series of changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), accidentally labeled pedophilia as a sexual orientation.  It was quickly corrected and the APA issued a statement, but the right-wing media had already exploded and flung the story to the ends of the Internet.

We all know Christians don’t like marriage equality, which is really what this is about.  They love the “slippery slope” argument that says if we allow all consenting adults equal rights to marry, it will inevitably lead to pedophiles being provided with all the kids they can get their hands on and there will be nothing anybody can do about it.  They don’t like marriage equality.  That’s fine.  But we’re not going to make laws based on what Christians do and don’t like.  We’re talking about consenting adults who aren’t hurting anything other than Christians’ feelings.  Get over it.

It appears there is a genetic component to pedophilia.  Whether Christians or anyone else likes that or not doesn’t change whether it’s true or not.  We know there is a genetic component to addictive behavior.  Denying that won’t make it any less true.  Recognizing that doesn’t mean we just accept bad behavior or crimes when one is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  We don’t just throw up our hands and say, “well he’s an alcoholic and it’s genetic so we just can’t punish him for DUI and killing people.”

No, we punish those who harm other people, while trying to help them before they do.  Recognizing underlying components of diseases or disorders means we can better deal with them, and help those afflicted with them.  We help alcoholics, but we still punish bad behavior.  Likewise with pedophilia, recognizing a genetic component does not mean endorsement.  It means we have a better understanding of it and can better deal with it.  It also means that, while still punishing bad behavior and protecting innocent people from harm, we can show compassion and help people deal who suffer from harmful desires and urges.  And if there is a genetic component, then at some level pedophiles are partly victims of their own disease as well and we have a responsibility to help them, both for their sake and for their victims’.

This can certainly help potential victims too.  Gaining understanding of pedophilia means we are better able to treat and manage pedophiles, perhaps even detecting those likely to have such a gene.  There are problems with this too of course, but the point is that more knowledge is a good thing.

But of course, Christians are hysterical about marriage equality, so they just love to toss around the “slippery slope” argument.  Ah of course, if we allow gays to marry, next thing we can’t stop people from kiddie fiddling.  Riiiiiight.  And we’ll have to let people marry their cat.  Of course.  It has nothing to do with rights of consenting adults.  Nope, can’t be that.

Another comment was along the lines of what wicked times we’re living in.  Yep, we sure are.  The way Christians have treated homosexuals is incredibly wicked.  But don’t worry, we’re standing up to them.