Supreme Court Paved Way for Gay Marriage, Scalia Said Nearly a Decade Ago

The Metaphorical ‘War on Drugs’ Gets All Too Real

The Other Fiscal Cliff

Dunk Him

The Unsilenced Voice of a ‘Long-Distance Revolutionary’
By Chris Hedges Dave Brubeck: A Love Affair
By E.J. Dionne, Jr. Cutting Through the Controversy About Indefinite Detention and the NDAA
By Cora Currier, ProPublica Who Should Go to College?
By Mike Rose
South Carolina Voters Want ‘Senator Stephen Colbert’ The Metaphorical ‘War on Drugs’ Gets All Too Real Atheists Face Discrimination, Persecution Around the World Psy Performs for Obamas After Apology The Guardian Names Bradley Manning Its 2012 ‘Person of the Year’
‘Left, Right & Center’: All Fiscal Cliff, All the Time Doha Climate Talks Roundup Fox News Host Tells Female Victims of Violence to ‘Make Better Decisions’ Anti-Abortion Christian Reality TV Show to Try to Shame Women
Psy Shames Himself With Unqualified Apology (Video)
By Alexander Reed Kelly Reports of Publishing’s Death Are Exaggerated
By Susan Zakin Bill Murray Captures FDR’s Pain and Wit in ‘Hyde Park’
By Richard Schickel Dave Brubeck’s Alternative Ambitions

The Questions Education Reformers Aren’t Asking
Dig led by Mike Rose

Gore Vidal: His Life and Legacy
Dig led by Truthdig Staff

advertisement

-->
The Google Story: Inside the Hottest Business, Media and Technology Success of Our Time

advertisement

-->
You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. StoryRichard Schickel (Director)
$26.99

advertisement

-->
Baseball Cap$17

  Email    Print    Share

Tweet Posted on Dec 10, 2012 Screenshot

Justice Antonin Scalia.

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court in June when the justices are expected to decide the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, two landmark cases that will have widespread implications on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage in this country. Although it’s the first time same-sex marriage has made its way to the high court, we can glean information about how the justices will possibly vote based on other cases involving gay rights.

Take, for instance, this little nugget conservative Justice Anton Scalia left us in Lawrence v. Texas, the blockbuster 2003 decision that ruled states cannot criminalize sexual acts between two consenting adults of the same gender. In the minority dissent, Scalia wrote that the court’s reasoning behind striking down the sodomy laws in Texas “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

His dissent also said, “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”

More from Talking Points Memo:

The Reagan-appointed justice accused the majority on the Court of having “taken sides in the culture war” and having signed on to the “homosexual agenda.”

“The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts — and may legislate accordingly,” Scalia wrote. “The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage.”

Ten years later, public opinion has shifted dramatically in support of marriage equality. And next spring the Supreme Court will consider whether or not the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that prohibits federal recognition of same sex marriage — also violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Two federal appeals courts have ruled that it does.

Read more

—Posted by Tracy Bloom.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

TAGS: antonin scalia defense of marriage act doma gay marriage lawrence v. texas proposition 8 same-sex marriage scalia sodomy laws supreme court



Related Entries Krugman Rips GOP Budget Plan, ‘SNL’ Spoofs Fiscal Cliff Negotiations, and More Gay Marriage and Pot for Fun Now Legal in Washington Alito Rising: What to Expect From the Supreme Court’s New Alpha Conservative Rand Paul Talks Marijuana Legalization, O’Reilly-Stewart Feud Heats Up, and More

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: The Metaphorical ‘War on Drugs’ Gets All Too Real

Next item: South Carolina Voters Want ‘Senator Stephen Colbert’

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.Get Truthdig in your inbox

Newsletter

Become a Fan

Follow Us

Subscribe

     
       #donation_div {display:none;}.popup {background:#FFF; border:1px solid #333; padding:1px;}.popup-header {height:65px; padding: 30px 40px 10px 50px;}.popup-header h2 {margin:0; padding:0; font-size:18px; float:left;}.popup-header .close-link {float:right; font-size:11px;}.popup-body {padding: 20px 70px 20px 50px;}a {color: #990000;}Close

Give the gift of independent journalism.

Support Truthdig by making a donation of at least $25 in someone's name, and we'll send him or her a signed letter of appreciation from our publisher.

With your support, we've been able to pay writers such as Chris Hedges, Col. Ann Wright, Mr. Fish and Nomi Prins.

We've sent reporters around the world, from Afghanistan to Cairo to Cuba.

Thanks to you, our mission to find and publish a range of insightful opinion and analysis from a progressive point of view continues.

Support Truthdig

HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+ Google+
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2012 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. Web site development by Hop Studios 

View the Original article

A Decade Later, Still Waiting on ANWR’s Oil

Remember how opponents of greater access to U.S. oil and natural gas resources scoffed at the idea of developing reserves in remotest Alaska, saying the oil would take 10 years to come online and therefore wouldn’t help crude supplies in the Lower 48?

Guess what: We’re there. It’s 10 years later, and those reserves in Alaska are still waiting to be tapped – even as Washington enters another round of finger-pointing over energy.

Here’s an indisputable point: If access to an airport-sized swatch of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) had been granted a decade ago, a million barrels of oil per day could be part of America’s supply equation instead of an academic debating point. As the debate renews, National Review’s Jim Geraghty helps out with a list of some of the ANWR naysayers:

Sierra Magazine (Jan-Feb issue 2002): If drilling were approved today, it would be ten years before oil arrived in refineries.”

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (April 17, 2002): “Oil extracted from the Wildlife Refuge would not reach refineries for seven to ten years and would never satisfy more than two percent of our nation’s oil demands at any one time.”

Vice President Al Gore (Sept. 30, 2000): “It would take years and years of development, which would cause decades of environmental damage, to reap just a few months of increased oil supply.”

President Obama (Feb. 28, 2006): “We could start drilling in ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month.”

Because of the time it takes to produce oil from federally-leased areas – up to a decade onshore and seven to 10 years offshore – it’s obvious that sound energy policy requires leadership and foresight. In the case of ANWR, sufficient vision was unfortunately lacking, and its valuable resources remain underground instead of helping to supply our energy needs.

Now, as the ANWR debate is virtually certain to renew, who’ll be the first to dismiss the reserves’ oil because it won’t be available for a decade or more …

View the original article here

A Decade Later, Still Waiting on ANWR’s Oil

Remember how opponents of greater access to U.S. oil and natural gas resources scoffed at the idea of developing reserves in remotest Alaska, saying the oil would take 10 years to come online and therefore wouldn’t help crude supplies in the Lower 48?

Guess what: We’re there. It’s 10 years later, and those reserves in Alaska are still waiting to be tapped – even as Washington enters another round of finger-pointing over energy.

Here’s an indisputable point: If access to an airport-sized swatch of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) had been granted a decade ago, a million barrels of oil per day could be part of America’s supply equation instead of an academic debating point. As the debate renews, National Review’s Jim Geraghty helps out with a list of some of the ANWR naysayers:

Sierra Magazine (Jan-Feb issue 2002): If drilling were approved today, it would be ten years before oil arrived in refineries.”

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (April 17, 2002): “Oil extracted from the Wildlife Refuge would not reach refineries for seven to ten years and would never satisfy more than two percent of our nation’s oil demands at any one time.”

Vice President Al Gore (Sept. 30, 2000): “It would take years and years of development, which would cause decades of environmental damage, to reap just a few months of increased oil supply.”

President Obama (Feb. 28, 2006): “We could start drilling in ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month.”

Because of the time it takes to produce oil from federally-leased areas – up to a decade onshore and seven to 10 years offshore – it’s obvious that sound energy policy requires leadership and foresight. In the case of ANWR, sufficient vision was unfortunately lacking, and its valuable resources remain underground instead of helping to supply our energy needs.

Now, as the ANWR debate is virtually certain to renew, who’ll be the first to dismiss the reserves’ oil because it won’t be available for a decade or more …

View the original article here