September 25, 2017
Contributors Latest News | Poll Questions | Hurricane Maria | Ayla Reynolds | Obamacare

Comments for: Antonin Scalia blocks the aisle against gay marriage

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    In terms of the law, his analogy is not only stupid, it’s not an analogy. He knows mere moral disapproval alone is not enough for a law. Murder is outlawed (in most cases) because there is a victim. Where is the victim in a monogamous homosexual relationship? We don’t outlaw murder when there isn’t a victim. Isn’t that the basis of those “stand your ground” laws that conservatives love so much?

    This is hypocrisy to the highest degree. Conservatives love the states rights argument, but somehow here, they want the federal government to trample over the states that want to decide what marriage means for them. That is obvious and blatant hypocrisy.

    Want to see a woman of integrity? See Ginsberg. She’s done these Q&A sessions before and when asked political questions, she’s declined and she specifically stated that these issues would be before the court soon. She didn’t want to pre-judge the cases. Scalia? He has no problem admitting he’s already made up his mind. Made up his mind before hear arguments, reading the briefs and memos, etc. That is absolutely disgusting and you know the right would be screaming bloody murder if anything like this happened on the left. Have the integrity to admit that Scalia is absolutely and positively a bad justice.

  • Anonymous

    Sad fact that, less than ten years ago, it was essentially illegal to be gay in (I think) fourteen states.

  • Cecil Gray

    Scalia is winging right out in the open and taking full advantage over the fact that checks and balances stop before checking his extreme prejudice.

  • Anonymous

    Scalia is a poor excuse for a jurist. And his grandstanding indicates we’d all be better off if he resigned and became a journalist (although he’d be just as incorrect).

  • Anonymous

    Thank you Antonin Scalia for standing up for what’s natural and right!

    • Anonymous

      What is natural and right about being unable to understand why murder is illegal??

      • Anonymous

        I think you misunderstood my point. Scalia referred to the idea that he believes that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, just as he believes that murder is morally wrong. The basis for his belief is probably the Bible, which has served as the foundation of belief for many people for the past 2,000 years. Although many in the pro-homosexuality movement do not believe the Bible to be relevant today, many of us still do. I suspect that this rift will only grow in the future, as many Americans continue to turn away from classical Christian belief toward secular, humanistic thinking.

        • Scott Harriman

          Just because “many” people get their moral beliefs from a particular book does not mean a country should base its laws on it.

          • Anonymous

            What then should be the basis for the establishment of our laws? Should we allow everyone to do whatever seems right in their minds?

        • Anonymous

          There is no logic to using the bible when making law. Scalia’s personal beliefs should not be allowed to taint arguments.

          • Anonymous

            A jurist’s personal beliefs have to serve him as he decides how to establish law. How do you think our founding fathers established the foundational law that our legal system is based upon?

          • Anonymous

            It’s human nature to lean based on personal beliefs. I understand that. But Bibles are a series of parables written by many people, following different beliefs. They can be personal guides to personal behavior, but should not be germane to the consideration of law for a greater body – many of whom might not be Christian. Remember the people who conquered this continent were initially running from religious persecution. (Of course, as most Christian religions seem to do, they persecuted the native religion, and anything different that cropped up amongst themselves.)
            So it makes sense that our most oft cited founding father Thomas Jefferson, first noted needing ‘a wall’ between religion and state. While the first Amendment doesn’t say separation of church and state, much law and commentary afterwards does bring up the separation of church and state.
            For me, as a person who puts a lot of faith in science, while still practicing my own PERSONAL religious beliefs, nothing that I would ever try to push on anyone else, the separation of church and state is imperative. Scaalia should be censored at the least, or step down.

          • Anonymous

            I appreciate your well thought out response, and I agree with some of what you say. The problem with science as a foundation of faith is that it isn’t equipped to deal with most questions of “morality” that we face. Evolution suggests that the most strong survive–or at least the most persistent. With this idea serving as the basis for the formulation of one’s morality, murder could be considered appropriate in a time when resources are scarce. Perhaps this is why many non-Christian people are ok with abortion–given that unplanned, “unwanted” babies are seen as an economic and social burden on society. Most Christians, however, hold the view that God initiates new life in spite of what we consider to be the most convenient circumstances, so to snuff out that “innocent” life before it has even “fully” come to fruition is morally wrong. Without this moral guide to provide a framework for the development of one’s beliefs, how can anyone decide what is right or wrong for a society? I know we’ve come to love polls in this country, which capture national sentiment at one moment in time, but if we use polls or current public opinion to establish our laws, I believe we are likely to destroy both our economic and social stability in this country, much like Europe has been doing recently.

          • Anonymous

            PureLogic, I appreciate a thoughtful reply back. I am an earthworshipper, and recognize that a few of my moral guides mirror the evolution of many religions. I won’t take the abortion tangent, but I will say that there are many different belief systems in this world, and in America. Intellectually we encourage that diversity, but in practice we definitely have a harder time with it. To say that different belief systems are immoral, that science doesn’t leave room for making better, more informed decisions proves the limits of the Christian belief. What has happened in Europe and the United States occurred across all beliefs. A greediness and removal from personal responsibility that all the morality in the world doesn’t seem to be able to overcome.
            How did we lose that? I see it in every religion.

        • Anonymous

          If you only think murder should be illegal because the Bible says its wrong, you are a sociopath, too.
          There is nothing in the Bible that is written into US law that is not a common moral, ethical law in every human civilization. But we absolutely take a better moral standard toward one another than the Bible instructs!
          Take slavery– the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery, though there are many passages regarding it. We live in an age today where human slavery is prohibited worldwide– a positive thing, don’t you agree?
          This is but one example of how the world is becoming a better place as the secular, humanistic thinking you fear spreads and overcomes supersticious, fear-based beliefs.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Sodomy on par with murder?

    Good grief Scalia… no wonder you’re name is attributed to dissent far more than anything else. You’re bloody crazy.

  • Anonymous

    How did this person get on the Supreme Court, if he honestly cannot understand that crimes are crimes not because of some thousand-years-old book, but because they have real victims?

    Seriously, he thinks the argument can be made to make murder legal because gay people aren’t getting locked up anymore? Gay people aren’t depriving anyone of life or freedom when they have consensual relationships.

    I think the case can be made that Justice Antonin Scalia is a sociopath.

You may also like