Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a
law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called
homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some
homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that
has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct… [T]he Court has
taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring,
as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are
observed. He cited the majority opinion’s concern that the
criminalization of sodomy could be the basis for discrimination
against homosexuals as evidence that the majority ignored the views of
most Americans: So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s
anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the
attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most
States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage
in homosexual acts is perfectly legal. He continued: “Let me be clear
that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting
their agenda through normal democratic means.” The majority’s
“invention of a brand-new ‘constitutional right’”, he wrote, showed it
was “impatient of democratic change”
…Lawrence v. Texas
Morality, based on a particular religion. Scalia wanted the slow democratic process in this case, because the issue was something contrary to his religious beliefs, but in direct contrast to the First Amendment. Even if the country is predominately Christian, it is not proper for those beliefs to trump the beliefs or non-beliefs of others. We are not a Christian state.
