Justice Scalia’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas is so pittable that one hardly knows where to start. But I keep fixating on the following sentence:
I keep trying to deconstruct this sentence, without success. Perhaps the members of this Board can help me.
First of all, we have an agenda. We don’t know what’s on this agenda, because he won’t tell us. All we know is that the agenda items are “directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct”. The items directed at this goal, I suppose, could be anything from marching in a gay pride parade to publishing an argument in a legal journal in support of gay marriage. But whatever these items are, we are told, they are “promoted” only by “some homosexual activists”.
Well, maybe. But the goal they are “directed at”–removing the “moral opprobrium” attaching to homosexuality–must surely be shared by almost every gay person, and a great many straights besides.
But wait. This agenda has been mis-characterized as the “so-called homosexual agenda”. It isn’t really endorsed by most homosexuals. Huh? Am I the only one hearing an echo of, “Most of our negroes like things just the way they are, and wish them there outside agitators would go back up north where they came from?”
At any rate, the “law-profession culture” has “largely signed on” to this agenda, whatever it is. And the Supreme Court is a “product” of that culture. It is? Which culture? The average age of the Supreme Court justices is about 70. Was gay rights a big part of the agenda when John Paul Stevens was going to law school in the 1940’s? Did Sandra Day O’Connor take gay and lesbian studies in college? I don’t get it.
So there you have it–the goal, shared by everybody except bigots, of “eliminating the moral opprobrium” attaching to homosexuality has transmogrified into an “agenda” promoted by “some homosexual activists”, who somehow took over the “law profession culture” of this country and dragged an unwitting Supreme Court in their wake.
Is this guy really this much of a dork, or did he just have a bad day?