Recently, I wrote disparagingly on the behaviour of a law student in disrupting a Q&A session with Justice Scalia. At the time, I had not read the SCOTUS ruling on this matter, it can be found here. I think Justice Thomas’ dissent said it best, in agreeing with Justice Scalia’s take on the matter but including point that the law before the Court today is “is … uncommonly silly”. That is to say, it should be repealed, but is Constitutional. It seems clear that Law and a societies morals are entwined in an intimate embrace and that a State should be allowed to pen laws that address the moral behavior of its citizenry, which the majority ruling attacks. The main thrust of the objectionable questions raised by Mr Brandt actually give rise to doubt whether he even bothered to read the ruling. J Scalia writes:
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. 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.
J Scalia was not passing judgement on homosexual behavior, but on the rights of people (legislators) to pass laws respecting the conduct of its citizens. I heartily agree with J. Scalia (and I think most people should agree) that it is better for the legislators where possible to pen our laws, not our judiciary for they are more accountable to the electorate. The gay rights aspect of this matter muddies the waters and just acts to raise passions and to obfuscate people like Mr Brandt.