Homosexual agenda: suppression of dissidence, irrational, antisocial and immoral
I n his dissent in United States v. Windsor , the Supreme Court decision invalidating the federal definition of marriage as natural marriage, Justice Scalia rightly identified as particularly outrageous the Court’s assertion that the purpose of the definition was a “‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages.” The assertion is ignorant and bigoted to the point of being delusional. It’s not as if the justices hadn’t seen arguments to the contrary. How did they come to say such a thing? From one perspective the Court was simply doing what it always does when it establishes as a matter of constitutional law sexual autonomy rights that are favored by governing elites but lack any basis in the Constitution. It has the justice with the least professional shame ( William O. Douglas ) or the least intelligence ( Harry Blackmun , Anthony Kennedy ) put together some words that purportedly support the right. The rest of the majority then attach their names to what he writes