• Nice piece… Please add quotation marks (or some indication) to make it easier to distinguish between the interviewers questions and Scalia’s response.


  • CarrotCakeMan

    Scalia routinely refers to loving, committed same gender American couples by an epithet plus a vulgar term for a sex act that mixed-sex couples enjoy as well. And he thinks we’d believe that he is “not a hater of” LGBT Americans? He can’t even use a respectful name.

    Or did Mr. O’Loughlin, or the New York Magazine interviewer, edit out Scalia’s cruder remarks?

  • Danny Berry, NYC

    He sounds just like the rabid teenager who’s just gotten religion – and then never reflected on what he had been taught or what he actually believes a day in his life ever since. Utter childishness.

  • Frank

    There is nothing respectful about sinful behavior.

  • Frank

    He’s much more intelligent and mature than you, that’s for sure.

  • Oh dear

    So your name is carrot?Sayes it all dosen’t it?

  • Duane

    Indeed, the printed format of this interview leaves quite a bit to be desired. How could it possibly have come to us in this fashion?

  • Duane

    Could it be, CarrotCake, that behind Scalia’s alleged vulgar remarks lies enmity for what is generally known to be the aim of all the vocal LGBT “spokespeople”: the abolition of the very concept of marriage? If you doubt this assertion, please visit some of the more vigorous gay websites and bloggers.

    It is one thing to legislate rights of homosexuals living together; it is quite another thing to redefine marriage.

  • gilhcan

    Michael O’Loughlin asked Scalia what he thought of Francis’ concern about helping the poor and giving less attention to divisive issues was answered with typical Scalia diversion. Scalia responded that he thought the church should be more evangelistic. That is not a concentration on the poor. It is just as with Scalia’s work on the Supreme

    Court. He is divisive with his own narrow, super-conservative judicial evangelism. Scalia did not answer O’Loughlin’s question. If any lawyer before a court on which Scalia sat provided a non-answere like that, Scalia would have called him on it. Scalia has shown throughout his career that he cares nothing about ordinary people, especially the poor. Study how his decisions have always been on the side of the wealthy.

  • gilhcan

    How, in the name of heaven or earth, do you come to the ridiculous conclusion that just because gay people expect and demand the same rights regarding love and marriage and everything else that straight people have legislated for themselves that the result is any kind of infringement on what you consider “the very concept of marriage,” much less its abolition.

    That is a stretch beyond any reality, and it is integral to the ignorance that contributes to all the ugly bigotry and prejudice toward gays. It’s the same as the history of racial prejudice. After all, whether same-sex orientation is genetic, cultural, or both, it is straights who “make” gays and then are so ready to throw them away. How very Christian! How very religious!

  • gilhcan

    The above comment has no meaning whatsoever.