James Taranto notes that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia basically predicted the ruling against Prop 8 in California. Judge Walker, in this decision, cited, among other things, Lawrence v. Texas which struck down state laws criminalizing consensual sodomy. "It’s just personal behavior", was the argument from those trying to get those laws overturned. The Supreme Court justices themselves, who wrote the opinion in Lawrence successfully overturning the state laws, said that the Lawrence case "does not involve" the issue of same-sex marriage.
Scalia essentially called that disingenuous in his dissent.
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. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.
Same-sex marriage is not the first step on some slippery slope. It is, for some, the destination; the result of supposedly innocuous rulings that have come previously which laid a foundation that backers, including liberals on the Supreme Court, claimed had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
This is how they remake society; by lying to you until such time as they’ve built up enough steam, by whatever means necessary, to force through what they ultimately want. This destination has been predicted for some time; Scalia’s prediction came in 1986. He (nor I) could believe that the liberals on the bench were that stupid as to not know what they were doing. It was, and is today, not so much about the law as it is about the politics for them.
Also, Scalia’s prediction was not "fear mongering"; it was an honest conclusion drawn based on an understanding of the law and its ramifications. Neither it is "fear mongering" to suggest that this destination is itself not final, but simply a stopping point on the way to who knows where else. One simply has to look at history, even just recent history, to know that. After same-sex marriage, the Netherlands began giving civil unions to unions of 3 or more in 2005. And in 2004:
Tucker Carlson, host of CNN’s "Crossfire", debated with Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques on the polygamy issue. Carlson asked her why shouldn’t polygamists be able to marry and all she could say was, "I don’t approve of that."
Jacque was pushing for same-sex marriage, but figured it would all just stop in its tracks right there, because she didn’t approve of it. I’ve got news for you: jokes about "boogetymen", trying to ignore this history and the considered opinions of law scholars much smarter than they or I, display an ignorance and dismissiveness that belie a facade of thoughtful consideration.
In 1986, few people who argued against sodomy laws thought that it was any more than a privacy matter. They were naive and/or misguided. Those who think today that the debate over what is marriage will be done once we have same-sex marriage are equally naive and misguided. But they will have less of a reason to claim, down the line, that they couldn’t have had an idea what would come of it. Willful blindness will be the only explanation.
Scalia was right. Remember that.