Antonin Scalia | Barney Frank | News | Radio | Supreme Court

Barney Frank Defends Labeling Scalia a 'Homophobe' - AUDIO

Frank_scalia

Barney Frank talked with WBZ news radio yesterday and defended his characterization of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a "homophobe" in a recent interview with CBS News' Ross Palombo.

FOX News then attacked Frank for calling him that.

Said Frank to WBZ: "[Scalia's judicial writing] makes it very clear that he thinks gay people are a threat to the society — it's an angry, anti-gay opinion...What a 'homophobe' means is someone who has prejudice about gay people.....While I support same-sex marriage, I do not think if you're against it you're homophobic...I don't think Clarence Thomas is a homophobe for an opinion which says, 'look the Constitution allows the state to do what I think is silly,' but what Scalia says, and I urge people to read his opinion, the case is Lawrence against Texas. Essentially, if you read Scalia's opinion he thinks homosexuals are a threat to society and that it is a pretty good idea to lock any of us up who engage in private in behavior that he disapproves of."

Listen to the WBZ interview, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Barney, hon, let it go....less lip flapping and more ACTION. Scalia is not going to engage you in this....

    Posted by: Stan | Mar 25, 2009 12:04:57 PM


  2. Way to go! Don't back down from the truth.

    Posted by: Sam | Mar 25, 2009 12:06:45 PM


  3. What a strange comment. It's not like Barney called up the station and arbitrarily decided to "lip flap" about Scalia. He was called by a reporter to answer a question. And a great answer it was too. Scalia's a jackass who has always and will always side with the homophobes.

    Posted by: Markus | Mar 25, 2009 12:17:02 PM


  4. Good for him.

    Posted by: Pender | Mar 25, 2009 12:20:53 PM


  5. Thank God for Barney Frank. This isn't lip flapping; this is truth telling.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Mar 25, 2009 12:27:20 PM


  6. Please someone give Barney Frank a nobel prize/kinghthood/oscar whatever - he is our live, living, active and brilliant Harvey Milk! We are fortunate to have him on our team...

    Posted by: echovic | Mar 25, 2009 12:33:01 PM


  7. ok, I am crazy, I actually just READ Scalia's opinion. It IS amazing. Essentially he says that sodomy is not a "fundamental right", and that some citizens don't want people who practice sodomy to be school teachers and boarders in their homes.

    But what is even more interesting is at the end (along with his obligatory "I don't have anything against gays" statement) he actually says:

    "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."....

    one word: WOW

    (you can read it here:
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html)

    Posted by: rich | Mar 25, 2009 12:45:52 PM


  8. good for Frank for distinguishing chicken shit from chicken salad. i don't admire Clarence at all, but scalia is a hate monger. (and, to think that george the first appointed unca tom to replace the late, great Thurgood. it still gnaws at my gut, like an eagle picking at Prometheus's liver for being kind to humanity.)

    Posted by: nic | Mar 25, 2009 12:46:26 PM


  9. barney frank is, once again, correct. sidebar: NIC has always been a spot-on (imo) commentator...his sexy use of language being the coup de grace... took me a year of reading his threads to mention that.

    Posted by: shane | Mar 25, 2009 1:07:32 PM


  10. Go on Barney. Tell the truth about the homophobe on the Supreme Court.

    Posted by: DB | Mar 25, 2009 1:23:41 PM


  11. SHANE,

    thanx.

    Posted by: nic | Mar 25, 2009 1:48:14 PM


  12. Let's note that Scalia didn't just write his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, he took the odd step of dramatically reading his dissent from the bench, a move that's considered rare for USSC justices, and one that Scalia has notably not employed on many decisions invoking more literally life or death issues. Scalia isn't just a garden-variety homophobe; he's kind of an obsessed nut on the issue. That' what Barney Frank is getting at, when he draws the distinction between Clarence Thomas and Scalia.

    Posted by: bobbyjoe | Mar 25, 2009 2:03:57 PM


  13. More excerpts from Scalia's dissent:

    Quotes from Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:

    “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”

    “Texas Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

    “Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

    “It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

    Posted by: Grant | Mar 25, 2009 2:05:47 PM


  14. Scalia is a theocratic thug who would be more at home in the black shirts of the SS or his Italian ancestors fascisti than the black robes of an "objective" US Supreme Court justice.

    Nothing reveals his true nature than his foaming at the mouth dissent in "Lawrence v." He seemed on the verge of a fatal heart attack. Too bad it wasn't.

    "Scalia charges that the majority "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and "taken sides in the culture war." The ruling, he warns, entails "a massive disruption of the current social order." It effectively calls for "the end of all morals legislation" against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity," he writes." - "The Washington Post.

    That's right: rabid Catholic Scalia [rumored to be a member of the Opus Dei cult] would LEGALLY PUNISH anyone who masturbates or has sex outside of marriage. Public flogging? Cutting off their right hand [or left if that was their preference]? Castration? Prison? But he'd clearly like to enforce his fascism well beyond the bedroom door. Also from his dissent:

    "[m]any Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home."

    Barney simply has the balls to say what other public figures don't.

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Mar 25, 2009 2:13:50 PM


  15. Frank tell the truth - Faux News makes similar comments that are rarely based on facts/truth. Bush's plan for the Supreme Court is working.

    Posted by: 2nd Class Citizen | Mar 25, 2009 2:24:43 PM


  16. Frank's comment for Logo, a gay news channel, spoke to all in the LGBT community.

    Posted by: 2nd Class Citizen | Mar 25, 2009 2:29:26 PM


  17. LELAND,

    you always manage to iterate my opinions in much more words than i would 'judicially' use. but, you bring so much to the discussion. there is much to be said for circumspectness (is that a word?), but i luvs ya anyhow.

    Posted by: nic | Mar 25, 2009 2:35:28 PM


  18. We could all do better than Frank, whose love of AIG/Frannie/Freddy money has cost the country a couple of trillion. Of course, none of that matters to monomaniacal obsessives that appreciate shibboleths over substance.

    Lawrence 6-3 overturned Bowers, which was 5-4 17 years earlier, so Lawrence got two more votes, essentially, the second time around. The important vote change was O'Connor's, in concurrence only (she went for a very narrow appeal), and Powell's replacement by Ginsburg made up the difference. Powell was already very old in 86 and spent only 30 minutes on the case apparently. He later changed his mind in retirement.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 25, 2009 3:31:51 PM


  19. "We could all do better than Frank, whose love of AIG/Frannie/Freddy money has cost the country a couple of trillion. Of course, none of that matters to monomaniacal obsessives that appreciate shibboleths over substance."

    This is total unsubstantiated garbage. Frank voted for regulation of fannie and freddie proposed when the REPUBLICANS controlled the house. Frank couldn't stop the republicans from impeaching clinton, he couldn't stop the patriot act and its renewal from running roughshode over the constitution, he couldn't prevent the apocalyptic tax cuts--all when republicans controlled the house for twelve years, and he certainly couldn't have prevented the mortgage catastrophe that he WARNED everyone about, and got behind bills proposed to avoid it. He didn't have the chance, and has been working to correct it.

    As to this, anyone who wasn't aware of Scalia's lawrence dissent before this has their head up their ass. Scalia MAKES his clerks attend catholic mass with him and his family every week. He's a rabid homophobic dog.

    Posted by: TANK | Mar 25, 2009 4:48:46 PM


  20. roughshod even

    Posted by: TANK | Mar 25, 2009 4:49:04 PM


  21. Read the end of Scalia's dissension in Lawrence v Texas. It looks like that because of that rulung, he actually says there is a rational basis to SUPPORT gay marriage:

    "...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples..."

    The full paragraph:


    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. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

    Posted by: Clayton | Mar 25, 2009 11:15:49 PM


  22. No, he doesn't. He's clearing his throat by showing what the issue at hand is about and what's it not about; the justification isn't his own.

    Posted by: TANK | Mar 25, 2009 11:46:37 PM


  23. here is the point, the constitution means what is says or it doesn't. i do not want to try to get into the writers' minds. that is scalia's task. they were all too busy dipping their pens in the darker inkwell, if you know what i'm saying, parum pum. am i right ladies?

    when all is said and done, the founders wrote what they wrote. and all of us were taught to sign in to that contract. scalia and other ne'rdowells have no right to break it.

    will i get in trouble if i say i want to meet him in a dark alley one of these old days? maybe. what if i simply want to slap him upside that fat head of his. scalia has the imprimatur from the catholic church and the whole weight of the govt, not to mention that big fat ass of his. so, who knows? look for my obit, guys.

    Posted by: nic | Mar 26, 2009 4:37:46 AM


  24. isn't scalia the one who went duck hunting with dick cheney after the 2000 election/2001 sc decision? no conflict there...

    how many opus dei-type catholics are on the sc? too bad they can't separate religious beliefs from the law, unlike many catholic democratic politicians.

    i love barney's balls. god bless 'im.

    Posted by: rick in robbinsville, nj | Mar 26, 2009 4:58:39 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Jim Carrey Too Convincing at Gay Sex for U.S. Audiences?« «