Doubling Down.

Wisconsin Law Prof. Althouse is back again today with lousy homosexual analogies, defending her and Reynolds' ignorant pedophile comparison in the post below,

"What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?"
"I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

and now restating Justice Scalia's comparison of homosexuals to murderers.

In his Lawrence dissent (he lost under the Due Process* of the law clause ), which he read from the bench, Scalia wrote:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are... sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
 

He criticized his colleagues for taking “sides in the culture war” and railed against those supposedly endorsing “the so-called homosexual agenda.”

For this, Scalia was rightly mocked at the time for his fears: 
"But... but... if we permit consensual sodomy, for gays as well as straights, how can we ban private MASTURBATION based on moral terms??" It was kinda funny actually.  (The gay student group at the Wisconsin law school posted a good cartoon mocking the justice on their group's community bulletin board;  we left it hanging up too, even when it was suggested through the official grapevine that perhaps we should consider removing it, lest someone's feelings be offended.)

Hoping to keep stirring the provocative pot, the Wisconsin professor writes today,

Now, it's rhetoric to act like he equated homosexuality with bestiality. It's rhetoric to say — as the Princeton student did — "Do you have any regret or shame for drawing these comparisons you did in your dissents?"

Remember how Scalia responded to the student?

“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything? I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.” ... 

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd.  If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

That one was rightly mocked too. (622 comments, mostly pushing back...)

Give it a rest, professors.
Keep on making all these negative homo references, and people will think you're deliberately limiting yourself to making that your negative touchstone.

Why keep picking on the queers, just because you're living in Wisconsin and Tennessee, professors? Aren't you clever enough to make these comparisons work using other marginally unpopular groups?

Don't you see the change that's gonna come?
Don't you understand how ignorant such continued "academic" taunting looks to the next generations coming up?

Now I get it: the closer and closer these types come to realizing game over -- their special straight/divorced privileges will be shared with others across the country, even the dread homosexuals -- the more there'll be backlash, especially in the still non-free states with state constitutional amendments affirming gays' second-class status.

Still, even the Pope uses gentler wording to defend his beliefs, which will stand in his private realms. You'd think two supposedly prominent law professors would take care of how they're coming out on this one, continually pushing an anti-gay meme**.  (Solely for rhetorical purposes, of course.)

Ignorance, indeed. Maybe when Scalia goes, he can take the Reynolds and Althouse dinosaur-style thinking with him? Not cool at all...
-------------------------------------------
*   Kennedy, writing for the majoity: 

"Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.  The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."
 

 ** I think it has something to do with serving two masters:  They're both primarily bloggers now. Nothing truly fresh in their legal writing work.   Eager to court controversy for page hits -- which is why I don't bother to link. You can find this stuff, if you like.

 Too bad the schools' reputations are being dragged down by their reputations for provoking solely for provocation's sake... That's not good teaching in the first place, never mind creatively limited. Pick on someone your own size, Straight White Entitled Boomers?