You really don't have to be a lawyer to evaluate quotes from Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent on the legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court.
1. Justice Scalia called the majority decision a "threat to American democracy." Which American democracy is Scalia talking about? It is certainly not the United States of America. Benjamin Franklin termed our form of government a republic, and indeed it is. We have guaranteed rights that cannot be overturned by a simple majority of voters, the characteristic of a democracy. We must have participation of a supermajority to lose these rights. It is appalling that Scalia doesn't understand the simple fact that we are a republic, not a democracy.
2. Justice Scalia says the Court ruling lacked "even a thin veneer of law." However, it is difficult to understand what law Scalia is talking about here, and he does not say. Is he talking about the numerous state laws (applicable because of the 14th Amendment) on sodomy commonly violated by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. These laws have not withstood the inspection of the court because of privacy. Most Americans do not want the federal and state governments in their homes much less in their bedrooms. Are these laws the "thin veneer" Scalia mentions? If not, it is difficult to see what he is talking about here.
3. Justice Scalia apparently quotes the majority opinion that "the Constitution promises liberty to all ... to define and express their identity." Then he says he, Scalia, would "hide his head in a bag" if this is so. Is this a constitutional objection by a justice who insists on basing opinions on the Constitution? He does not cite the particular part of the Constitution here because he can't. James Madison said whatever is not prohibited by the Constitution belongs to the people. I am sure "expressing identity" was a concept foreign to the Founders. Nevertheless, it is not prohibited by the Constitution and so it is allowed to the people. Of all the people, Justice Scalia should know this.
4. Finally, having excoriated the idea that a majority of nine lawyers are rulers of 320 million Americans, Justice Scalia says, "The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story ..." It was that very John Marshall who, virtually ignoring the facts in Marbury v. Madison, eagerly gave the Supreme Court the power to be rulers over Americans. (However, consistent with the concept of a republic, a supermajority can overturn its decisions.) Here, Scalia cites a reference that destroys his own argument.
Whether they believe in gay marriage or not, Americans should expect a better performance than this from a Supreme Court justice.
Otto Henry Zinke
Fayetteville
Editorial on 07/22/2015