This blog is on hiatus, so it’s time for a post. Every time I stop blaming internetially, the first thing I do is want to start blaming again. It’s a nervous tic.
OK, I don’t want to take up a lot of your precious patriarchy-blaming time — at this time of year radical feminists are even more diverted than usual by the pressure to fall into traditional patriarchy-approved holiday woman-behaviors — so I’ll skip the usual wordy, self-indulgent preamble.
I am informed by feminist spies that hidebound Supreme Homphobe Antonin Scalia has failed to evolve — since 2003’s Lawrence v Texas — in terms of his antediluvian views on non-straightness. His big idea was, and is, that one may have “morals” against homosexuality.
Remember back in 2003, when butt-sex was still illegal in Texas? They arrested a couple of dudes for consensually doin’ it in the privacy of their own Houston boudoir, which arrests prompted no small outcry. It went to the Supreme Court, where the Texas anti-sodomy law was struck down. I know, I was just as surprised as you are. But struck down it was, causing pink-faced arbiter of penis-placement Judge Scalia to dissent floridly. He suggested that discrimination against gays is totally awesome. If the majority are into kicking gay ass, he opined, who is the Supreme Court to stick its nose in? Here he is in that dissenting opinion, complaining that the Court has no business redefining as “discrimination” a state’s right to oppress an entire class of people.
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; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress […]; that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. §654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).[cite]
His argument is that the Constitution is just an armature upon which the “mainstream” is entitled to hang whatever provincial, uneducated phobias, fantasies, and delusions it sees fit, rather than as an instrument with which to set permanent policy. If The Boy Scouts of America want to ban gay scout leaders (while, as it turns out, secretly conducting business as Pedophile Scouts of America), the federal government has no standing to intervene.
So that was ten years ago. Now here’s Scalia in 2012, on the eve of historic challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, slithering around Princeton on a book tour, demonstrating that his homophobic leopard-spots remain intact.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Funny old Scalia! He says he’s pulling a reductio ad absurdum. But he’s really just spluttering the usual atavistic right-wing glak we’ve come to expect from this species of hata. Reductio ad absurdum? Really? As in, if you deny that homosexuality is immoral, you are also denying that murder is immoral?
If you are civilized, just, or kind, you can’t support an anti-gay argument, either by reducing it to absurdity or by any other means, because no anti-gay argument can rest on anything but hate and bigotry. Being anti-murder doesn’t equate to advocating discrimination against an entire class of people. Murder isn’t considered by any quarter of society to have philosophic value, whereas sticking peens into consenting (and often non-consenting) voids forms the basis of our entire social structure.
Let me be clear. As a man-hating humorless hairy feminist, I’m not overly concerned with a dude’s right to stick his dick into whatever he fancies; as history has shown, dudes will prevail, and the peen will find a way. Neither do I consider marriage — that primary unit of patriarchy — to be the holy grail of equality it’s cracked up to be. But if you’re going to incorporate a behavior (such as pronging or marrying) into the standard cultural repertoire, it must be sanctioned across the board, not just within the group that happens to conform more sanctimoniously to some arbitrary, imaginary “moral” construct imposed to further their own interests by a ruling class of oppressors and assholes.
The Defense of Marriage Act is an instrument of oppression, and so is that hatey chump Scalia. I have “morals” against him.