Who are "some homosexual activists" and WTF is their "agenda"?

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?

6:00 a.m. - Wake up and hit the gym. Today is free weights and aerobic workout.

7:30 a.m. - Breakfast. Egg white omelet, with 1/2 grapefruit, and turkey bacon, all served on a wonderfully rustic china set that was purchased at a quaint antique market in Vermont.

8:00 a.m. - Interior decorating. The clash between the mauve in the hallway and the burnt sienna in the 2nd bedroom is driving everyone batty. Perhaps we could take a look at the use of throw rugs too.

10:30 a.m. - Judy Garland film festival. One word. FABULOUS!!

12:00 p.m. - Single out all religous right members and secretly brainwash their children into becoming homosexuals. See if R & D has perfected the “it’ll turn you gay” flouride treatment for the water. World domination is but a step away.

1:00 p.m. Lunch. Perhaps Tapas. With a side of the blood of innocents and fried infants.

2:30 p.m. Get beaten up, and possibly killed, for being “different” and having the audicity to think it’s nobody’s fucking business who someone chooses to be intimate with.

4:00 p.m. Twister.
The rest of the agenda for the 27th is free time. They’ll be an afternoon tea, an open mike poetry reading, and the ruination of the great Christian country of the United States of America available for anyone who wishes. And that’s just one day.

I do think there is a gay agenda. I think most gay people subscribe to it. And I think the agenda, in it’s entirety, is “Please don’t hate gay people.”

The sneaky, schemeing bastards.

With that schedule, who has time for sodomy. :wink:


Often, I read what conservatives say, and I think “I can agree with that”. Other times, I think “Well, I disagree with that opinion, but I can see how someone could reasonably believe that way.”

And sometimes I read things like Scalia’s comments, and I think “What kind of barking insanity is this shit?”

He dissents from the opinion that there can’t be laws outlawing what two consenting adults do in private, that hurts no one? And the reason he gives is that there’s a “so-called agenda” to remove disgrace from being gay?

Am I misunderstanding something here? Isn’t he clearly and concisely saying that it’s disgraceful to be gay, and there should be laws against it? I thought this was the 21st century, was I mistaken?

The annoying thing is that the quoted part of Scalia’s dissent is so unneccessary, and only undermines the rest of his opinion. If he deleted the first two paragraphs of his conclusion, he’s still be making his point without also looking like a schmuck.

(The opinion in HTML, for those of you who hate PDF)

I agree: the rest of his opinion is characteristically raging, but makes many good points.

This first part makes him sound exactly like a confused bigot trying to struggle his views into polite langauge.

You forgot to mention the whole “rewards” program. Unfortunately, being bisexual, I only get half the benefits of this program. I’m currently working on the toaster oven, but I’ll be damned if I don’t make enough people gay to get that damned dishwasher I’ve been wanting by the end of next year. :wink:

You forgot to mention the whole “rewards” program. Unfortunately, being bisexual, I only get half the benefits of this program. I’m currently working on the toaster oven, but I’ll be damned if I don’t make enough people gay to get that damned dishwasher I’ve been wanting by the end of next year. :wink:

Yikes! Double post. Sorry guys!

And where does he get the “so-called”? They’re gay, they’ve got an agenda – what’s the ambiguity?

That’s it miss! Report to the principles office for ‘faggifying’! No more bisexualism for you!
Gay procrastinators will make the world fabulous… someday

You know, I’d really love to have a hand in an Antonin Scalia biopic.

Err, biopsy, I mean.

Notice how he sneaks in the comment about a “law-profession culture.” I’d like to ask the lawyers here, when did you first start getting indoctrinated into the homosexual agenda? Do they start in law school. Do they start with something subtle like tasteful curtains in the lecture room windows? Are there questions about show tunes on the bar exam? Is there a double meaning to being a “partner” in a law firm? In sidebars do you guys talk about what the witnesses are wearing? Do you ever have to help decorate a judge’s chambers?

Inquiring minds want to know.

One word, Diogenes: Philadelphia

And, frankly, what does all that discriminatory bigotry have to do with the case at hand? Is it, or isn’t it, constitutionally lawful? That’s what you need to decide, you hateful gasbag Keep your personal religious (and obviously heinously flawed) opinions off the bench and hear the case!



I knew a guy in law school who used to wink at other men. At first I thought it was an innocent quirk – he was friendly fellow – until it degenerated into more hardcore practices such as friendly smiling and arse-slapping.

I knew we had crossed the line into the murky territory of homosexual activism when, while enjoying post-match drinks after cricket, I felt a male arm around my shoulders. My moral opprobrium was swept aside as I was indoctrinated into the degenerate ways of the agenda-steeped law-profession culture.

Scalia is a fruitcake.

I haven’t even seen the news today but I’ll bet 1 trillion dollars that Scalia’s puppy joined his dissenting opinion.

wakimika: Well, sort of. He did dissent along with Scalia and Rhenquist. However, as I mentioned in a Great Debate thread on the decision, he wrote a separate dissent emphasizing his personal distaste for the law they were discussing. I think even he might’ve found Scalia’s venom over the top, and was trying to distance himself from it.

Look up the decisions and judge for yourself.

Again: Scalia is NOT aruging a fruitcake position here at all. Whatever else you may think about the man, the actual arguments he makes are seriously worth consideration, even if you think he’s wrong.