Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Judges vs legislation to decide moral issues?

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in a recent interview with a gay news Web site.

In an interview on 365gay.com, the Democratic lawmaker, who is gay, was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government 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," said Frank. The video of the interview is available online. [...]

Scalia dissented from the court's ruling in 2003 that struck down state laws banning consensual sodomy. He has complained about judges, rather than elected officials, deciding questions of morality about which the Constitution is silent.

Controversial topics like gay rights and abortion should not be in the hands of judges, he has said, calling on people to persuade their legislatures or amend the Constitution.


  1. Judges vs.legislation? Who says either one is qualified to decide moral issues??
    Why exactly are legislators-- who have no conscience of their own but are simply voting what their constituents demand--any more qualified in morality issues than judges who simply analyze the law?

    Trying to enforce anyone's version of a moral standard in a secular democracy is a no-win situation.

  2. Barney Frank is typical of the leftist secular approach to democracy. He won't approach the court now because of Scalia's presence. If the court were to rule against him, well that just would be wrong.
    But after Obama is well into his third term of office and the court is full of Democrats then Frank will be quite happy to have it rule on his issues.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.