February 17, 2016
Scalia Will Be Missed
By Mike McManus
In the seminal decision
of 2003 about whether gay sex is legal, Lawrence v Kansas, Justice
Antonin Scalia dissented not because he favored penalties for homosexual
conduct, but because the U.S. Constitution simply does not contain a
fundamental right to sodomy.
Scalia presciently warned in his dissent that the ruling would
inevitably lead to gay marriage and the striking down of laws against
polygamy, bigamy, adult incest and bestiality because the Court was
effectively banning states from considering the morality of sexual
practices as an intrusion into the personal and private life of the
Not a single state at the time allowed gay marriage. However, a year
later, as Scalia predicted, Massachusetts became the first state to do
so. Few state legislatures approved of same-sex marriage (SSM), although
courts began to impose it in other states.
In 2011 I wrote a column giving 10 reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.
Here are two:
Gays are not interested in marriage. Seven years after Massachusetts
legalized SSM, only 12,000 "married" - just 14% of the state's gays and
Children need a mother and father. "Marriage is the union of a husband
and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that can make new life
and connect children in love to their mom and dad," said Maggie
Gallagher, past President of the National Organization for Marriage.
In 2013 the Supreme Court issued 5-4 decision invalidating the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed in 1996 by a vote of 342-67 in
the House and by 85-14 in the Senate. It limited federal marriage
benefits to heterosexual couples.
In the decision overturning DOMA the majority stated, "What has been
exploited to this point should...establish that the principal purpose
and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are
in a lawful same-sex marriage."
Nonsense. There were no such marriages in 1996. Clinton and Congress had
no hatred of gays, but simply backed traditional marriage.
Scalia wrote a stinging rebuke of the decision: "In the majority's
telling, the story is black-and-white. Hate your neighbor or come along
with us." In so doing, "the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the
winners of an honest victory and the losers of the peace that comes from
a fair defeat."
Scalia again warned that the Court's next step would be to impose
same-sex "marriage" on the nation.
I predicted that would not happen because the Court did not use the DOMA
case to declare same-sex marriage as constitutional. Alas, I was wrong
and Justice Scalia was right. The Lawrence and DOMA decisions were cited
by the Court in last year's historic 5-4 Obergefell decision, that the
Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
"No longer may that liberty be denied," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy,
the one conservative who sided with the Court's four liberals. "No union
is more profound that marriage for it embodies the highest ideals of
love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family."
However, Justice Scalia called the decision a "threat to American
democracy," because it robs citizens of "the freedom to govern
themselves." He flatly stated, "This practice of constitutional revision
by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied...by extravagant
praise of liberty robs the People of the most important liberty they
asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won the Revolution of
1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
Why did he say that?
By votes of 50 million to 30 million, 32 states passed state
constitutional amendments that limited marriage to the union of one man
and one woman. Those votes were swept aside on grounds that the 14th
Amendment passed after the Civil War guaranteed that no State shall
"deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
What rot. The 14th Amendment simply gave former slaves their freedom.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The majority's argument is that the
Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry
because it will be good for society. If I were a legislator, I would
certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a
judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of
He argued that "courts do not substitute their social and economic
beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies who are elected to pass
Scalia put it more pungently: "A system of government that makes the
People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not
deserve to be called a democracy."
Scalia will be missed - and difficult to replace.
Copyright (c) 2016 Michael J. McManus,
President of Marriage Savers and a syndicated columnist.
2021: Column 2074: Reaching Age 80
Do Not Leave Afghanistan
Executions for Murder
A Case for Pro-Life
The Death Penalty?
Christian Choices Matter
The Biblical Sexual Standard
The Addictive Nature of Pornography
Abortion Becoming Illegal
Protecting Girls from Suicide
The Worst Valentine:
Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
Sextortion Kills Teens
Cohabitation: A Risky Business
same sex marriage,
abortion and infanticide,