Laws are blunt instruments. They aren’t subtle, and where we draw the line, and the distinctions we make are often arbitrary. For instance, we allow people to vote at the age of 18 because we recognize that you should have a certain level of maturity and experience before being allowed to participate in the democratic process. But why specifically 18? Why not 17 or 19? Why not 17 and a half? Why not 18 and three months?
In a democratic society, those lines are under constant review. We fuss and ruminate and discuss and debate day after day and year after year. We push the lines this way and that, and we often rely on judges to make certain decisions for us. But we hope that they use wisdom, and we hope that they try to maintain some kind of objectivity. They are, in a sense, professional decision makers.
When Scalia repeatedly brings up things like murder and bestiality in relation to homosexuality, it is obvious to me that he isn’t even trying to be objective, and his comments suggest to me that he is attempting to justify his prejudices, not keep them at arm’s length for the sake of honest reflection.
The man is a homophobic bigot. He wears his hate on his sleeve. And he calls it his morality. He makes it pretty clear he doesn’t believe he has to even consider anyone else’s perspective, least of all LGBT Americans, or their friends, or loved ones or allies. In my view, he is singularly unqualified to be one of the deciding voices regarding marriage equality in this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment