Scalia Has Fit Over Win for "Homosexual Agenda"
Truly, my heart bleeds
+ a few other thoughts on the recent good news from the Supreme Court

According to the Associated Press, Scalia's dissenting opinion was LONGER than the majority opinion. Come on Antonin, take a deep breath! Some choice bits:

Justice Antonin Scalia, during the Supreme Court's final session of the term Thursday, accused his colleagues of inviting gay marriage in a ruling he said "coos" over a feel-good, gay rights agenda... . There were murmurs from some in the courtroom crowd as Scalia railed for more than seven minutes against what he called a hypocritical ruling that runs roughshod over democratically elected legislatures.

"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," Scalia wrote. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

And we should pander to such bigotry why? But here's the fun part:

Scalia, writing for himself and the court's two other staunch conservatives, scoffed at the idea that Thursday's ruling does not address same-sex marriage. "Do not believe it," Scalia wrote... . "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned."

We can only hope.

The White House, of course, said nothing. From a press briefing yesterday:

Q: And on the Texas sodomy case, does the President believe that gay men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think on this decision, the administration did not file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case. And this is now a state matter.
Q: So he has no position on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just as I indicated, the administration did not file a brief on this - as, I think, you know.

But Jerry Falwell lost no time in weighing in. From the AP:

"The court allowed the right to privacy to trump the compelling interest the state has in promoting the family interests of right and wrong," Falwell said. "It just says that privacy permits anything between consenting adults. It would actually makes bestiality legal if it's taken to the limits or privacy."

Lobbyists from the Family Foundation of Virginia vowed to continue their fight against the extension of marriage, adoption and custody rights to homosexuals.

So, what's going on? I mean, this is REALLY good news. REALLY good news. This is really something to party over, and just in time for Pride in a lot of cities. And so soon on the heels of the affirmative action decision. The Supreme Court actually went ahead and ADMITTED they were wrong on Bowers v. Hardwick. Yee-ha! But...

Reader Philip Pangrac is similiarly confused, and has his own theory:

First the Supreme Court upholds Affirmative Action, then they act in favor of homosexuals. Am I the only one thinking they're setting us liberals up for a big-ass sucker punch? Next week they allow wiretaps in everyone's house, followed by incarceration without charges and a complete gutting of the Bill of Rights.

Let's just hope not. But I have to say, as happy as I am about the Supreme Court decision on sodomy laws, that DOESN'T MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT THEY APPOINTED BUSH PRESIDENT. So it's kinda funny to hear the same people who were so freakin' happy when the Supremes illegally installed Bush complaining about how undemocratic the court is. From the San Francisco Chronicle ("Conservatives condemn 'error of biblical proportions'"):

"We're very disappointed that six unelected officials in black robes seem to have trumped the state Legislature of Texas -- the elected representatives of the people of the state of Texas," said Karen England, spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, a statewide lobbying group in Sacramento.

Like I said, my heart bleeds.