Bush-nominated candidate for the Supreme Court, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. apparently agrees that Christian students should be able to speak out against homosexuality, at least in State College, PA.
In an opinion filed February 14, 2001 with the US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit striking down a school district anti-harassment policy, Saxe v. State College Area School District, Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. agreed with the right of the appellants in the case, two unnamed students at State College School District, State College, PA., and Mr. David W. Saxe, a member of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education and legal guardian of both student-plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers for the American Family Association which is described thus: "American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values."
The crux of the case was described:
"Plaintiffs openly and sincerely identify themselves as Christians. They believe, and their religion teaches, that homosexuality is a sin. Plaintiffs further believe that they have a right to speak out about the sinful nature and harmful effects of homosexuality. Plaintiffs also feel compelled by their religion to speak out on other topics, especially moral issues."
I guess God does hate gays.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Sean
Good for Judge Alito. Not because he is a homophobe, but because he believes in the first amendment.
2 - Craig Lyndall
Come on now... when a judge supports the rights of the KKK is (s)he a hood-wearing member of the Klan?
I am not saying that I know anything about Alito, but this is certainly not what I would consider good evidence.
3 - Dave Nalle
Ok, let me get this straight. Alito would be bad on the Supreme Court because he supports the 1st Amendment? I would think that would be a fundamental qualification for the job.
Dave
4 - mark
I agree with everyone else here I dont understand anything your saying???? All I know is that you dont like Bush so therefore you try to find anything you can to bash him with. And Im sorry buddy but the twisting of the facts here just doesnt work for you! You just dont have a case. Sorry! You might want to take this off your blog because Im sure Im not the last one that is totally going to disagree with you and trust me I am no hardcore Bush supporter only those on the extreme Left are going to agree with you on this one and that is only because they are just like you.
5 - wayne
I really love the typically stupid "I guess God does hate gays" comment. Neal you have just proved again that fools exist on the left as well as the right. Not to mention another shining example about how ignorant so many of you on your side are of us.
A little education: God does NOT hate gays. God loves gays. God loves Osama bin Laden, David Duke, little children, and even Hillary Clinton. Only people hate other people.
God hates their sins. This is a huge difference. God hates lying, sex outside of marriage, stealing, disrespectful actions, anything that we do that causes harm to eachother and (especially harm to children) and he hates being cursed at. But He does not hate anyone. As a matter of fact he grieves for us. Every sin brings him to anguish and the totally of all of the grief we give him is unimaginable.
That was why he sent Himself down as the person of Jesus to be slaughtered for our sins. Only the death of Himself was enough of a punishment for the multitude of the evils we have done to Him since He created us.
He accepted responsibilty for His creation and the only thing we have to do to be saved is to accept his sacrifice and to try to understand Him and how he wants us to treat eachother. Not much of a price from our perspective, really. the most important part of that "treating eachother thing" is in not hating someone for what they do, but just hating their actions.
Yes, Neal, one of the problems here is Christians are often hypocrites. They are human and humans are evil. They/we struggle against hypocracy and our own sins constantly. The difference is that we try to be aware of our evils and avoid them and to take strength from the Love of Him who saved us.
In the case to which you are referring, all that the judge was saying was that these folks had the right to say why they think homosexuality was wrong. Its called free speech and the left doesn't have a monopoly on it. We too have a God-given and Constitutionally-mandated right to disagree demonstrably and in public.
6 - Dave Nalle
I have to say that if this is going to be the line of attack the extremist left uses on Alito then we might as well just skip the confirmation hearing and put him on the bench now.
Dave
7 - Nancy
Calm down, Mark: no one here has said anything about Bush. They've been commenting on Alito.
At this point, I don't know what I'd like to see in the new SC member. I sure don't want anyone who's going to rule that government at any level can confiscate private property to give it to their rich developer buddies! From what (little, admittedly) I've read, Alito is pretty strict about sticking to basics & not inserting his personal agendas, OR taking orders from either the WH or anyone else. But as I've said, I haven't heard much about him, yet. I'm sure we all will before this is over.
8 - Michael
How about a moderate on the bench for the american people?
If this pick is making conservative and the christian coalition, it is completely against what I believe America is. Yet, since the President won, he is only responsible for making this small group happy.
How about a pro-choice homophobe that is a staunch supporter of civil rights and guns.
Or at least someone who makes up their mind as the case is before them, not someone who we already know what side of the fence they are on. They are judges, which I believe comes from judgement, which allows you to look at both sides and make a decision.
9 - Dave Nalle
>>How about a moderate on the bench for the american people?<<
The first Bush tried that and look how it turned out.
Dave
10 - Matthew T. Sussman
Conservative judges are not the same as conservative politicians. States' rights is really the only thing that binds them.
11 - Michael
Dave,
My historical political context goes back about 1994. What did the first bush try?
Michael
12 - Michael J. West
Michael, I believe that Dave is referring to Justice Souter, who Bush nominated thinking he was a moderate-to-conservative swing vote and turned out to be steadfastly liberal.
And Neal, much as I hate to admit it, the fact remains: hate speech is protected speech. I suspect that every SCOTUS justice would have voted that way.
13 - Al Barger
And I'll call bullshit on anyone automatically labeling Christians saying that homosexuality is a sin as guilty of "hate speech." Begin with the fact that most stuff labeled "hate speech" is totally legally protected. But get past that, and recognize that not everyone who disagrees with your behavior and lifestyle is automatically an evil "hater."
Don't know much about this Alito guy yet a couple of hours after his selection, but if he had supported this suppression of free speech, I'd definitely be ready to go to the mattresses against him.
Seriously Neal, are you even intending this as even a little bit of an argument AGAINST Alito?
14 - gonzo marx
so that means it ain't "hate speech" and is covered under the First Amendment if someone speaks out that "born again christians" are pawns of the anti-christ and do the work of the demi-urge?
if so, then i got no problems...the Equation balances and it's all "free speech"....fine by me
Excelsior!
15 - Matthew T. Sussman
Free speech isn't free; it costs a buck-o-five.
16 - Silas Kain
Actually, Alito was right in his ruling. That being said, it is incumbent upon society at that point to accept or reject the premise handed down. When a Christian fundamentalist speaks out against anything that is classified as a "sin" it is done from the perspective of morality and religious belief. Therefore, any stance taken by a Christian isn't hate. A Christian is doing it from the perspective of love through the teachings of their Lord, Jesus Christ. How can the adherence to religious beliefs be misconstrued as hate? Over 2,000 Americans have perished in the efforts to deliver Iraq from the oppression of Hussein and the Bath Party into the light of religious freedom and democracy. There's a new bumper sticker making it's way around Iraq: What Would Allah Do? It warms my heart to see people basking in the warmth and comfort of their religions. It so lessens the hate in the world.
17 - Dave Nalle
Despite the sarcasm, Silas. Even you agree that every whacko has the right to express his lunacy publicly so we an judge him on it. Whether he's right or left and whether he's christian or atheist or pagan, the constitution guarantees the right of free speech - even unpopular speech. Actions on the other hand, can be judged. So when the preacher tells his congregation to go out and kill gays, then we lock him up.
dave
18 - Michael J. West
so that means it ain't "hate speech" and is covered under the First Amendment if someone speaks out that "born again christians" are pawns of the anti-christ and do the work of the demi-urge?
It's covered under the First Amendment even if it IS "hate speech."
Anti-semitism too.
19 - Michael J. West
Even you agree that every whacko has the right to express his lunacy publicly so we an judge him on it.
Personally, I PREFER to have them express their lunacy publicly. Why work so hard to demonize and discredit whackos when you can just sit back and let them demonize and discredit themselves?
20 - Silas Kain
Good point, MJW. I believe that "born-again" Christians are working for the anti-Christ and are the harbingers of the Apostacy. I am blessed to live in a country where the protections of the First Ammendment give me the right to express that view in public even if I don't really believe it. If I were asked to make the same statement under the penalty of perjury, I would probably refuse. So help me God.
21 - steve
good. He should be anti-gay along with 7/8 of the american population. great choice dubyah!!!
22 - Michael J. West
Ya see? Who wants to censor Steve when we can just let him make such brilliant statements?
23 - steve
Michael...I am making the point that 7/8ths of the nation should not change their lifestyle because of a minority of gay americans. I dont believe in gay marriage...and I dont believe that they have the right to enjoy the same benefits as a rightfully married couple.
I do believe in civil unions. They should recieve recognition of a relationship....but NO BENEFITS!! Otherwise, I am going to marry one of my good buddies to get tax breaks. when my old lady is ready to get married, Ill get divorced, get remarried and continue to pay less taxes!
now do you see what I mean? even straight americans can work their way around the system.
24 - Fiona de Londras
Coming from outside of America I find it so difficult to understand how the First Amendment can be applied almost without limitaiton: no matter what you say you have the freedom to say it, even if it makes someone else's life a misery! I've never understood it and never will: it's so different to how the right to expression is usually applied in domestic law. HOWEVER that is the law of land in America and as an Appeals Judge Alito was forced to apply it. All this tells us is that he applies the law as is and in accordance with precedent. It doesn;t help us figure out how he's likely to decide on gay rights in the Supreme Court
25 - Dave Nalle
>>Coming from outside of America I find it so difficult to understand how the First Amendment can be applied almost without limitaiton: no matter what you say you have the freedom to say it, even if it makes someone else's life a misery!<<
This is exactly why America isn't Europe and why it should never become like Europe.
Dave