ASHEVILLE With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.
We arent qualified, Scalia said.
In a speech titled Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters, the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the judge moralist. In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.
Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no scientifically demonstrable right answer.
As such, he said, its a communitys job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts.
The justices 35-minute speech at the bar associations annual meeting was met with two rounds of applause, laughter and, afterward, some pointed questions.
During his speech, Scalia acknowledged that his opinion is not universally shared. Many legal scholars and judges including some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court believe in a living Constitution that reflects evolving standards of decency. This also has given rise to what Scalia decried as a sprawling application of the provisions of human rights and equal protection under the law.
In response to a question, he said he does not ascribe to a Constitution locked away from change. The law must evolve to deal with new phenomena, he said, but it should do so while remaining firmly moored in its founding principles. And most moral issues, he added, dont qualify as new.
One of those moral debates gay marriage is now before the high court. The justices are expected to rule next week on two same-sex cases. One involves the federal Defense of Marriage Act; the other, Californias Proposition 8. Both oppose gay marriage.
A majority of states, including both Carolinas, have same-sex marriage bans in place. But polls show that most Americans now support a gay couples right to marry.
Scalia, known for his provocative comments and writings since being appointed in 1986, is barred from publicly discussing pending cases. But during his half-hour speech at the Grove Park Inn on Friday, the 77-year-old frequently listed homosexuality among the issues that should be decided by the public and not unelected judges.
His comments during the March oral arguments for the same-sex marriage cases followed a similar bent. When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? he asked.
His earlier statements about the legal rights of gay couples are even more outspoken. During an October speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Scalia described the death penalty, abortion and homosexual sodomy as easy constitutional issues. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years it was criminal in every state.
And in an dissenting opinion from a 2003 case that overturned Texas anti-sodomy law, he said Americans have the clear right to enforce traditional moral restrictions against homosexual behavior to protect themselves from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.
Raleigh attorney John Sarratt said he expects the thoughts Scalia expressed Friday to be reflected in the judges upcoming opinion on gay marriage that the courts should leave the existing laws alone.
During a question-and-answer period that followed the judges speech, Sarratt asked Scalia if he would have taken a similarly hands-off approach to Brown v. Board of Education, the legal cornerstone of school desegregation across the country.
Scalia said he would have voted with the majority on the case to create more educational opportunities for blacks. He added, however, that a good result doesnt make for good law. Had the courts not interceded, he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.
The question is when, Sarratt said later. The Raleigh attorney said he enjoyed Scalias speech but didnt agree with its central message.
I tend to be outcome-based, he said. And if the outcome is equality for all people, then Im for the courts moving in that direction, before the people are ready.
John Lassiter, a former Charlotte City Council member who was sitting in the front row, said Scalias remarks were consistent with his longstanding originalist view of the Constitution and a restrained judiciary.
Observer researcher Marion Payner contributed.
The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.
Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email firstname.lastname@example.org to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.Read moreRead less