The Supreme Court v. History, The Law and Homosexuality

by

R.E. Prindle

 

Posted on Medium is an essay by Zach Herz discussing law, history and Justice Alito.  Zach says (my interpolations):

On April 28, Supreme Court watchers got an impromptu lesson in Greek history from none other than Samuel Alito.  While hearing arguments on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Alito decided what we really needed to be talking about was Plato:

Justice Alito:  But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality.

Prindle:  Name one.

Justice Alito:  That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures.

Prindle:  Name an exception.

Justice Alito:  Ancient Greece is an example.

Prindle:  Do you have any evidence to prove that?

Justice Alito:  It was well accepted within certain bounds.

Prindle:  Certain bounds?  That is not universal but exceptional.  You disprove your own point.

Justice Alito:  Well, they had marriage didn’t they?

Prindle:  Where are you going with that?

Justice Alito:  …they had same-sex relations did they not?

Prindle:  That’s why they were despised across all times and cultures.

Judge Alito:  So thus limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based against gay people, was it?

Prindle:  The period of which Justice Alito speaks was the triumph of the Patriarchy over the Matriarchy.  Men had discovered their part in the reproductive process.  They had learned, as they expressed it, that the female warehoused the foetus during incubation, the male being the true progenitor or inseminator.  Therefore the wife was sequestered within the home, not allowed to come in contact with any man not her husband who might impregnate with his genes rather than the husband’s.  Viz. current Moslem customs.

There was no need for debate about gay marriage since all gay unions were sterile.  Marriage between gays was and is a farce.  Even so, no one cares whether gays marry but there is no need or requirement for the State to recognize it.  The marriage is meaningless.  Let them go through a ceremony, something like a Black Mass that mocks the Holy Mass.  Who cares?  What’s the fuss?  Why is the Supreme Court even listening to such nonsense?

-2-

In my reading I have found no society that didn’t despise homosexuality.  The Araucanian Indians of Chile for instance made ‘gays’ wear their clothes inside out and walk backwards.  All the Indian tribes of America despised ‘squaw men.’  All societies imposed civil disabilities of some sort on them.

In Greece homosexuality was not universally accepted.  In the Theban army Homos were segregated into a unit called the ‘Sacred band.’  In this case Sacred means untouchable.

There are no obvious homosexuals in Homer’s Iliad which means either that there were no Homos in the Greek army or they were unmentionable.

Juvenal, the Roman poet, speaking of homosexuals in his Second Satire says:

You’re castigating vice, you the most notable dyke among all our Socratic fairies?

 

Juvenal clearly designates homosexuality as a vice while castigating the sin as one of Socrates and his followers, not specifically Plato or anything universal , as Justice Alito alleges.

Whether homosexuality was a matter for marriage or acceptance is beside the point.  There is nothing in the Constitution dealing with sexual matters.  Nothing in the Constitution gives Supreme Court Justice Alito who is totally ignorant of history or the nature of vicious homosexuality authority to legislate about it in any manner.

It is always a treat to hear the Justices’ opinion on whatever but they should keep their drawers up and zipped.  Sexual mores and customs are beyond their competence.  If the Court can tell me who or what to fuck this is expressly denied by the Constitution.  They call it slavery.  A real no-no in that there amendment.  Fuck the Court decision.  Nice to have their opinion.  Now they should get straight.