Barney Frank Calls Scalia a “Homophobe”– Frank’s Right As Usual!

Seriously… you have to love Barney Frank. He seems to be one of the few Congressional Democrats who just says what he thinks, without running it through a "political expediency" filter.

In a recent interview with the gay news Web site, Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia (why has he not been impeached? Do we have no standards?) a "homophobe." He was discussing gay
marriage and his expectation that Supremes might eventually have to decide on whether the federal
government should be allowed to deny recognition to same-sex marriages.

"I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now
because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this
current court."
Click the link to see the video and my commentary:

And just in case some of you are thinking he was being unfair, check out this dissent in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003:

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. I noted in an earlier
opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which
any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from
membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview
facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire
as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual
conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.

Stop there for a minute.

For those of you who have forgotten, this case had to do with two men who were engaged in a private, consensual sex act, and were subsequently arrested by police after said police invaded the wrong house in response to another crime. The court ruled that "the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to
engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process

In other words, the court decided that two consenting adults engaged in consensual sex couldn't be guilty of a crime, just because the state didn't approve of the act. In other words, the issue wasn't the act itself; it was the rights of the people involved. Apparently, Scalia thinks anyone who engages in sex that others find "icky" should be subject to arrest and imprisonment, because it's "icky." Not only that, but apparently, the government's power to lock people up for doing "icky" things transcends their right to privacy, as homophobe Scalia sees it.

And who else but a homophobe could come up with the following?

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s
grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an
invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the
public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear
from this that the 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. Many Americans do not want persons
who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business,
as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s
schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting
themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be
immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which
it is the function of our judgments to deter. 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…
Again, I ask… why is this asshole still on the court?

Thank you, Barney Frank, for once more telling it like it is…

Comments are closed.