Search

Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Welcome New Members! | The Art of Parking a Satellite »

Thursday, November 13, 2008

News / Homo One Nation, Completely Obsessed

Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:03 AM

Can you guess where a Supreme Court hearing about local governments discriminating between religious groups displaying monuments in public parks wound up? Can you?

Would it be all right, Justice John Paul Stevens asked, for the government to exclude the names of gay soldiers from the Vietnam memorial?

...

Mr. Joseffer had to be pressed to answer the question about excluding the names of gay soldiers. In the end, he said the First Amendment’s free speech clause, at least, places no limits on whom the government chooses to honor.

Justice Scalia agreed. “It seems to me the government could disfavor homosexuality,” he said, “just as it could disfavor abortion.”

The government could disfavor homosexuality, Scalia? Could? The government disfavors homosexuality now—not to the extent that it once did, and certainly not to the extent that you might like it to. But we can't legally marry in 48 states (and the feds don't recognize the legality of same-sex marriages performed in Connecticut and Massachusetts), we can't serve openly in the military, we're fucked if we fall in love with someone who isn't an American citizen, and on and on.

But what's interesting about this article—and what's interesting about the Supreme Court's hearing yesterday—is how seemingly unavoidable the topic of homosexuality is in this country. Even when something has nothing to do with us, we're invoked as some sort of worst-case-example—of injustice, in the case of the liberal Stevens, and tolerance-run-amok, in the case of the raving bigot Scalia.

Share via

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

How could you possibly fall in love with someone that's not American?

Posted by Jerry Bunny Buns on November 13, 2008 at 8:22 AM

There was no link to the article, so I read what I could find from googling it. The whole thing is pretty ridiculous... all the justices were going off on random tangents. I don't think they really knew what to do, but I liked Ginsburg's statement that if the government lets anyone put huge monuments in public parks as freedom of speech, then parks are going to become overflowing with monuments devoted to every obscure thing imaginable.

Posted by Sleestak on November 13, 2008 at 8:33 AM

I really liked some of the other hypotheticals:

Can the government accept a statement for display in a playground, Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked, that says “don’t throw food at your brother” but not one that says “pull the dog’s tail”?

And what was the church’s position, Justice Antonin Scalia wanted to know, about “a monument to chocolate chip cookies”?

I bet Cookie W. Monster is in favor of a monument to cookies. I know I am.

Posted by Julie in Chicago on November 13, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Boo Scalia! Boo! Sick of that guy.

Posted by Nick on November 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM

"Disfavor".

Posted by i knew i'd be dusting that one off at some point on November 13, 2008 at 8:47 AM

Well, cookies, I mean that's another thing entirely.

Posted by Darcy on November 13, 2008 at 8:48 AM

I am all for a monument to cookies. What petition do we sign to get that started?

Posted by Abby on November 13, 2008 at 8:49 AM

The government could also "disfavor" left-handed Americans, the disabled, those with red hair, people with speech impediments, bi-racial children, blacks, asians, the Irish, Jews, Poles, Italians, Native Americans, and women. Our country seems to have this unending love affair with discrimination. Since they gays are kind of the last group left to outright oppress, the Scalias of this country won't let this one go easily.

Posted by Your Name Here on November 13, 2008 at 8:53 AM

i know it's early dan, but for an editor your post has a lot of typos.

i've never been able to fathom the mind of a bigot. it seems to me that once you start talking about homosexuality as a nation wide concept all premises on which homosexuality can be reasonable discriminated against are defused. scalia, simply by recognizing ay soldiers, is debasing his entire view point. although, he does equate homosexuality with abortion.

Posted by douglas on November 13, 2008 at 8:58 AM

I would really like someone to point out Scalia's comment to the idiot lawyer in Santa Ana who's making a federal case. If the federal courts rule against us, we are far more fucked than if a state does. Ruins things for everyone.

That lawyer is proof the California Bar Exam isn't tough enough.

Posted by deanp on November 13, 2008 at 9:48 AM

One nation, underpants.

Posted by Zeitgeist on November 13, 2008 at 10:05 AM

I actually think that example was the least interesting aspect of that article. This case is actually fascinating (and not obvious) from a logical and legal perspective.

Posted by F on November 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM

I'm gonna bawl when Justice Stevens dies. I've adored him since my freshman year of high school. Not just for the bow tie, either.

Posted by Leslie N. on November 13, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Oh God, Scalia makes me nauseated with fear. How did a skidmark in the underpants of humanity like Scalia come to control the fates of hundreds of millions? I want him gone. I'm not saying that he has to be hit by a bus. But I wouldn't mind it.

Posted by Lee on November 13, 2008 at 5:54 PM