Delicious irony: Justice Scalia’s warning about gay marriage proves true


When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act this past June, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, warning that the decision inevitably would be replicated in the states.

And now Scalia’s theory is proving prescient, as we see HERE:

For the second time in a week, a federal judge embraced U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent from this summer’s ruling overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a case challenging a state’s ban on gay marriage.

Scalia was adamant in his dissent that the logic of the DOMA decision would result in state bans being overturned. In his decision Monday declaring that Ohio must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages on death certificates, federal district judge Timothy Black wrote:

And now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted — the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.


Black’s rhetorical nod to the Court’s most outspoken conservative justice was the second such instance in four days. Last Friday, a federal judge in Utah cited Scalia’s DOMA dissent four times across 40 pages in a decision overturning that state’s ban on gay marriage.



  1. Andrew Carlan

    Next to the telephone directory supreme court decisions are the most boring “documents” to read. There like quicksand. That’s the major reason even intelligent non-lawyers don’t read them. Justice Scalia’s humorous and pithy writing advances the likelihood that some ordinary citizens might at least read his opinions rather than depend on the skewed interpretations of far-out liberal law professors and professional legal reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post and Huffington.

  2. Andrew Carlan: Perhaps Scalia was waxing “humorous and pithy” when he wrote the following in his majority opinion of four years ago in a ruling that overturned a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.:

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…

    “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms…”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *