Scalia Expects Homosexual Marriage Will Come Before Supreme Court
by Fred Jackson and Jenni Parker
March 18, 2004
(AgapePress) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says issues of homosexual marriage will likely end up before the highest court in the land, but after that, he cannot say what will happen.
In an address to a crowd of several hundred at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, Scalia said the court will likely have to determine whether laws in one state must be recognized in another state. However, the justice says, he does not know how that issue will come out.
According to USA Today, Scalia also chastised his Supreme Court colleagues who misinterpret the U.S. Constitution as something that must change with the times rather than trusting in the founding fathers. The judge believes the principles of the Constitution should be upheld, even if they happen to conflict with a judge's personal feelings or political stance.
Justice Scalia told the crowd of 700 at William & Mary that he personally dislikes seeing "bearded, sandal-wearing weirdos" burning the American flag. Nevertheless, he says he voted in favor of a decision upholding a person's First Amendment right to burn the flag as a form of protest or other free speech.
Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan on June 17, 1986, to fill the seat vacated by William Rehnquist, who had been elevated to chief justice. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, Scalia said he considered the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government to be the most important part of the Constitution because it prevented any branch from being "able to 'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people." Scalia was unanimously confirmed (98-0) by the Senate on September 17, 1986.
According to the Supreme Court Historical Society (SCHS), Scalia has since come to be known as one of the most consistently conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and one whose "textualist" approach to constitutional interpretation compels him to resist finding constitutional rights that are not explicitly set forth in the document's language or firmly rooted in American tradition.
An SCHS biography of Scalia illustrates his commitment to this approach by citing two notable cases, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), in which Scalia "rejected any constitutional basis for a right to an abortion or a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Adhering to his view of the limited role of the judiciary, he has said that such issues are essentially 'political' and should be decided by elected legislators, not life-tenured judges."
Scalia is described as a "strong presence" on the high court bench -- one whose conservative views, though not endorsed by the majority of the justices, are making a definite impact.
