As related to us by the Scalias, Antonin and his son Paul.
First, the father...
Now that the Supreme Court will be weighing in
on the issue of same-sex marriage, the Justices’ biases on the basic
principles of sexual orientation are under scrutiny — none perhaps
moreso than Justice Antonin Scalia. Recently, he defended his comparison between homosexuality and murder, arguing simply that either can be morally condemned. He obtusely couldn’t understand why the gay Princeton student who asked the question wasn’t convinced by his response.
More on this exchange.
The quotations from Scalia opinions that so dismayed Princeton
freshman Duncan Hosie all referred to homosexual conduct. For example,
in a 1996 case the majority of the court held that voters in Colorado
had exhibited “animus” toward gays by making it impossible for the state
or municipalities to pass laws protecting them from discrimination.
Scalia responded: “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." In his dissent Scalia did
refer to “homosexuals” (he assiduously avoided the word “gay” except in
quoted material), but he used that term interchangeably with “those who
engage in homosexual conduct.”
And what of the notion of "sexual orientation"? Scalia did
acknowledge in his Colorado opinion that such a thing might exist. For
example, he wrote that it was permissible for states to criminalize
homosexual conduct (as it was in 1996) "surely it is rational to deny
special favor and protection to those with a self avowed tendency or
desire to engage in the conduct. In the next sentence he suggests that
"'homosexual-orientation' is an acceptable stand-in for homosexual
conduct."
And now the son.
Insights into Scalia’s understanding of homosexuality (or lack thereof) can perhaps be found through his son, Rev. Paul Scalia, a Catholic priest in Arlington, Virginia. The younger Scalia has worked with the Church’s Courage ministry, which promotes “chastity” for gay Catholics using principles from ex-gay therapy. He has also spoken openly on the topic, and though he’s proven quite capable of reiterating the Church’s anti-gay teachings, a 2005 article reveals just how distorted the family’s view on homosexuality may be.
You need to go on
over there, or you can
click this link. Once you have taken in as much of that as you can stomach,
continue here.
Contrast the Scalias’ approach to this passage in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s
majority opinion in the 2003 case of Lawrence vs. Texas, which
overturned a Texas law against same-sex sodomy. Kennedy wrote: “The
case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each
other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.
The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The
state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making
their private sexual conduct a crime.” Some gay activists blanched at
Kennedy’s use of the term “homosexual lifestyle,” but applauded his
larger point: that what was at issue was the lives of gays and lesbians,
not isolated sexual acts.
Scalia dissented in that case, too, arguing that Texas’ sodomy law
“seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of
sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable' — the same interest
furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult
incest, bestiality, and obscenity."
The conventional interpretation of Scalia’s opinions in gay-rights
cases is that he doesn’t like gays; but maybe the more accurate gloss is
that he doesn’t believe they exist -- except when they are engaging in
(or thinking about) "immoral and unacceptable" sexual acts.
And then finish at the original with this.
For the Scalias, moral condemnation of homosexuality is just assumed,
and the consequences of that judgment are par for the course. The
consequences of family rejection
for LGBT youth have been thoroughly documented, but for these men,
rejecting “homosexual inclination” takes priority. Rev. Scalia relies on
genetic uncertainty to conclude that homosexuality is not a “fixed,
inborn orientation,” even though science does not doubt
that is exactly how sexual orientation presents, regardless of its
causes. He seeks to reject people for something that is wholly part of
who they are and how they will lead their lives, ignoring that such an
approach unquestioningly deprives them of life’s most basic sources of
happiness and support: a loving partner and the opportunity to raise a
family.
The phenomenon of “coming out” only exists because a culture that
shuns homosexuality has demanded gay invisibility. The concept of “gay
pride” came about not as flamboyant flaunting, but to counter the
expectation of “gay shame.” These unique aspects to gay identities
reflect the consequences of condemnation, not an impetus for them. Moral
condemnation is not inherent; in the court of law, it must be justified
beyond tradition and religious belief. Unfortunately, it seems Justice
Scalia is not interested in such intellectual justice.
So by my reading, homosexuality -- according to the Scalias -- is an 'urge', i.e. a choice; since it is a sin against God's law it is also a sin against man's; and no serious thinker can disagree with that. (It is worth noting that no less serious a thinker than
Gore Vidal advanced a similar premise, albeit without the moral judgment.)
These religious interpretations, followed by constructing premises based upon the foundation of conservative Christian values -- dogma, in other words -- is what leads to less serious thinkers saying things like "Life is God's gift to women, and so by extension is a fertilized egg as byproduct of rape or incest."
When science is dismissed in favor of faith, the rationale for any argument collapses. But the comforting fallback for those less serious thinking folks is always some version of 'what does the Bible say'. This makes as much sense to me as watching one television news network, one which only reinforces your prevailing point of view, never engaging one in critical thinking, never prompting a question as to whether the thoughts involved might be misguided.
The very definition and practice of ignorance (and a few other things).
