comments_image Comments

Antonin Scalia Misses the Days When It Was OK for Government Discriminate Against Gay People

Supreme Court's arch-conservative says legalizing same-sex marriage discriminates against people who don't want it.
 
 
Share

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on "FOX News Sunday" on July 27, 2013.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent  in the Supreme Court case that declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional is, as expected, fun reading. It’s also quite representative of the current state of anti-gay marriage arguments in general: It is much more concerned with whining and raging than it is with actual argumentation.

Scalia’s main point is that the court has no right to strike down DOMA. In doing so, Scalia says, the Supreme Court has  overstepped its authority.

It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

The case could be made that this is sort of the only honest Originalist argument — there is nothing in the Constitution granting the Supreme Court the authority to determine the constitutionality of duly passed legislation, after all — but obviously this argument rather glaringly contradicts every single instance of Scalia voting to strike down a law. Indeed, it contradicts a decision the Supreme Court  announced yesterday, in which the conservatives decided that a portion of the Voting Rights Act that they didn’t care for was unconstitutional because they didn’t care for it. But if Scalia wishes to recuse himself from all future cases involving constitutional questions, now that he has determined that Marbury v. Madison was improperly decided, I am not inclined to stop him.

Scalia is widely praised, even (perhaps especially) by liberals for his intelligence, his wit and his supposed intellectual consistency — he is thought to have a very specific interpretation of the Constitution and while it’s a dumb one he adheres to it — but this decision exposes him for the politician that he actually is. As  Richard Posner has argued, Scalia will abandon both strict textual originalism and “judicial restraint” when it suits him. (Justice Thomas is  actually better at coming up with legal and constitutional justifications for his social conservatism, consistent with his view that the Constitution may only be understood in terms of the political and social context in which it was written.)

In most cases involving homosexuality, Scalia is likely to argue purely from disgust, and to resort to strange justifications for his disgust-based decisions. He is  repulsed by homosexuality and alarmed at America’s acceptance of it. Therefore homosexuality is Not Constitutional, or something. Just  reread his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, in which he invokes the feared “so-called homosexual agenda” and calls the court’s majority decision “a massive disruption of the current social order.” This dissent avoids most of that sort of talk, but the entire thing is still based on alarm and dismay at changing social mores.

That’s because alarm and dismay are just about all that the social conservatives have left. The last legal argument gay marriage opponents have resorted to is  a not particularly compelling claim that same-sex marriage might somehow be bad for children, because traditionally marriage was a tool used to force heterosexual couples to jointly raise their offspring. The “tradition” argument lacks any sort of legal justification: “We have always done it this way” is not really a good defense of an act’s constitutionality. The other problem with the tradition argument, as  Ross Douthat could tell you, is that there is very little about modern straight marriage that resembles “traditional marriage.”

The most notable portion of Scalia’s dissent isn’t the point about the court’s lack of jurisdiction, but the portion  where he engages in straight-up right-wing victim-complex self-pity of the sort that would not be out of place in a Maggie Gallagher column. (Indeed, Maggie  approvingly quotes this very passage.) Scalia moans at length that Justice Kennedy’s decision is  mean to anti-gay marriage people. It is so mean to them! People who oppose gay marriage are the Real Victims here, because Justice Kennedy has accused them of demeaning gay people simply by wishing to deny them the right to marry:

 
See more stories tagged with: