Fox News opinionators are falling right and left having fainting spells because Barney Frank called Antonin Scalia homophobic.
I'm more surprised that anyone would think that he isn't. The man clearly has a problem with same-sex lovin', thinks some pretty stupid things about gay people, and is bizarrely obsessed with butt-sex.
Here's Scalia, in his decision on Romer v. Evans, comparing homosexuality to cruelty to animals and murder:
The Court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of "animus" or "animosity" toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. 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.
In that same decision, he said hostility towards gay men and lesbians is justified:
But though Coloradans are, as I say, entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct, the fact is that the degree of hostility reflected by Amendment 2 is the smallest conceivable.
And then Scalia riffed for a while on the Homosexual Agenda:
The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, see Record, Exh. MMM, have high disposable income, see ibid.; App. 254 (affidavit of Prof. James Hunter), and of course care about homosexual rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality. [...]
It is also nothing short of preposterous to call "politically unpopular" a group which enjoys enormous influence in American media and politics, and which, as the trial court here noted, though composing no more than 4% of the population had the support of 46% of the voters on Amendment 2, see App. to Pet. for Cert. C-18.
Smith explains that the anti-sodomy laws have pernicious secondary effects--keeping gay parents from gaining child visitation or custody or employment, for instance--and Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."
Here's him at that same hearing arguing that if gays would just stop having gay sex, then they wouldn't have any trouble with sodomy laws:
Smith explains that fundamental rights are understood to apply to decisions about "sexual relations in the home" and decisions about "procreation and non-procreation." Rehnquist interjects that the laws at issue have little to do with "non-procreation." Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." See? No problem. Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas.
And in the decision for Lawrence, he discusses how the Court is on the goddam hippy librul side of the Culture Wars against Real Americans who know buttsex is bad:
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.
And then comparing homosexuality to bestiality:
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196-the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.
But this isn't about whether Scalia is homophobic or not, since he clearly is. This is about making Barney Frank seem like an evil liberal whiner because of his position on the House Financial Services Committee. They've been trying to blame him for the financial crisis for months now, instead of, you know, the greedy banksters and "non-bank"sters and the people in the government who weren't regulating them.
He's the guy they're trying to pin all this shit on because they need a scapegoat, and Barney Frank's as good as any: he's gay, he talks funny, he's Jewish, and he supports increased regulation of the finance sector.
But it's really rich that they're going after Barney Frank for not being open to other people's opinions. Who can forget what Scalia thinks of people who disagree with him?
Scalia was walking out of a special mass for members of the legal profession at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross March 26 when Boston Herald reporter Laurel J. Sweet asked him how he deals with those who complain about his public displays of religiosity.
"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia said, making a gesture with his fingers under his chin. When Sweet appeared perplexed, Scalia explained, "That's Sicilian."