[Ed. – Neener neener. So there. And so’s your old man, doodoo-head.]
Scalia begins his characteristically vitriolic dissent by protesting that “the substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.”
Yeah, right. This strikes me as the least sincere disavowal of homophobia I have encountered since former Majority Leader Dick Armey tried to argue that his reference to me as “Barney Fag” was just a mispronunciation of my last name. What we have here instead marks a tactical shift.
Apparently, Justice Scalia has come to realize that since public opinion in America has moved away from anti-LGBT prejudice, heavily salting his writings with a personal distaste for the idea that we should enjoy the same rights as our heterosexual brothers and sisters weakens the appeal of his legal reasoning. (Compare his angry screed in the sodomy case, essentially justifying the criminalization of private sexual conduct between consenting adults, with Justice Clarence Thomas’s terse statement that while he would have voted against the “silly” Texas statute in question, he believed it was a deeply flawed judgment that the Legislature was constitutionally permitted to make.) So in an unexplained abandonment of his vigorously anti-LGBT prior stance, Justice Scalia asks that his pronouncement that the Court’s opinion calls our democracy into question be judged not on the substantive issue, but as an expression of his view that “allow[ing] the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.” …
Returning to Scalia’s profession of unconcern about our marrying, while I doubt that he means it, I am very glad that he said it. In what I acknowledge is a somewhat ironic invocation of the specific words, it is an example of the guidance provided by La Rochefoucauld for analyzing arguments: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.”