Gay Rights in the United States

Call me anything but "uncontroversial". 

Several weeks ago, Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Scalia a "homophobe" presumably for his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (a Supreme Court case finding that States could not make sodomy a criminal offense because of a Constitutional right to sexual privacy).

I was tempted to write about this slander the day after it became public knowledge. I decided to hold back a bit, hoping that waiting several weeks would cure my frustration.  However, the recent victory of Lambda legal in Iowa (securing a right to civil marriage regardless of sex) and an online interview I watched of Justice Scalia compel me to bring up this issue.

The insult is frustrating on various levels.

First, the issue is frustrating because I think it is an issue that Conservatives have focused on way too much in the past.  Frankly, I think it is an issue that needs to be dropped by Conservatives and the Republican party (as I have indicated in the past) as we move forward in defining our commitments.  However, when a Conservative icon is insulted because of principled beliefs that have nothing to do with being homo- or hetero-sexual, it doesn't help to move beyond the issue.  Rather, it inspires an over-defensive posture (one that I may even be assuming in this post). 

Second, the insult is frustrating--and the recent Iowa ruling even moreso--because it implies that we are society of policy rather than a society of laws.  I'm fine with gay people. I may even be fine with gay marriage (honestly, I waver back and forth on the issue).  What I am not fine with is interpreting rigid Constitutional documents however you want. 

This practice is the very definition of tyranny.

I would contend that this was the case in the Iowa ruling (Varnum v. Brien); as it has been the case in other rulings from State Supreme Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Justice Scalia, in his interview, explains why this is such a bad idea:

And he further explains why an "public meaning originalist approach" is better suited to facilitating societal change:

These aren't the words of a "homophobe." They are the words of person who puts Constitutional principle above personal issues.  To go out and slander the man only delays the policy interests of the LGBTQ community and enrages dissent among the Conservative base.

Put mildly, that's frustrating.  What's more frustrating is that a gay politician can defame a  Supreme Court Justice and nobody in the press seems to notice. Frankly, that's incredible and it raises serious questions about the role of media and the press in our nation. Though I think it would be absurd, where is the call for Rep. Frank's resignation for such an insult?  Why is it simply tolerated?  

I'll dare to suggest that it is politically correct to slander as long as it's in the name of political correctness. As long as you hatefully rebuke hate, no one will say a word. 

That's more than frustrating... it's a shame.