Daily Archives: April 15, 2005

Truly remarkable how useful Wonkette has suddenly become to Greater Blogistan. Only last week she was distinguishing herself at a Washington D.C. Press Club gathering about Gucky, questioning the two-bit whore far more sharply than the otherwise estimable Matthew Yglesias did. And now here she is doing the wrap-up on a recent appearance by Chief Justice Antonin Scalia at NYU that was met with very pointed student protest most memorably on the part of one law student
in particular.

We’ve been following the, uhm, fallout of the New York University law student who asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “Do you sodomize your wife?” (Shouldn’t it have been, “When did you stop sodomizing your wife?”) To our surprise, the, ahem, bone of contention seems to be whether the law student has “right” to ask that question. Because it’s really humiliating to have your private life scrutinized in public or something. Yeah! Can you imagine making laws about it? Whew. Now that would be humiliating.

And then she reproduced said student’s follow-up letter — which as you’ll see deserves to be disseminated as far and wide as humanly possible.

Fellow Classmates,
As the student who asked Justice Scalia about his sexual conduct, I am responding to your posts to explain why I believe I had a right to confront Justice Scalia in the manner I did Tuesday, why any gay or sympathetic person has that same right. It should be clear that I intended to be offensive, obnoxious, and inflammatory. There is a time to discuss and there are times when acts and opposition are necessary. Debate is useless when one participant denies the full dignity of the other. How am I to docilely engage a man who sarcastically rants about the “beauty of homosexual relationships” (at the Q&A) and believes that gay school teachers will try to convert children to a homosexual lifestyle (at oral argument for Lawrence)?

Although I my question was legally relevant, as I explain below, an independent motivation for my speech-act was to simply subject a homophobic government official to the same indignity to which he would subject millions of gay Americans. It was partially a naked act of resistance and a refusal to be silenced. I wanted to make him and everyone in the room aware of the dehumanizing effect of trivializing such an important relationship. Justice Scalia has no pity for the millions of gay Americans on whom sodomy laws and official homophobia have such an effect, so it is difficult to sympathize with his brief moment of “humiliation,” as some have called it. The fact that I am a law student and Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice does not require me to circumscribe my justified opposition and outrage within the bounds of jurisprudential discourse.

Law school and the law profession do not negate my identity as a member of an oppressed minority confronting injustice. Even so, I did have a legal point: Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence asked whether criminalizing homosexual conduct advanced a state interest “which could justify the intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” Scalia did not answer this question in his dissent because he believed the state need only assert a legitimate interest to defeat non-fundamental liberties. I basically asked him this question again – it is now the law of the land. He said he did not know whether the interest was significant enough. I then asked him if he sodomizes his wife to subject his intimate relations to the scrutiny he cavalierly would allow others – by force, if necessary. Everyone knew at that moment how significant the interest is. Beyond exerting official power against homosexuals, Scalia is an outspoken and high-profile homophobe. After the aforementioned sarcastic remarks about gay people’s relationships, can anyone doubt how little respect he has for LGBT Americans? Even if no case touching gay rights ever came before him, his comments from the bench (that employment non-discrimination is some kind of “homosexual agenda,” etc.) and within our very walls are unacceptable to any self-respecting gay person or principled opponent of discrimination. The idea that I should have treated a man with such repugnant views with deference because he is a high government official evinces either a dangerously un-American acceptance of authority or insensitivity to the gay community’s grievances. Friends have forwarded me emails complaining of the “liberal” student who asked “the question.” That some of my classmates are shallow and insensitive enough to conceptualize my complaint as mere partisan politics is disheartening. Though I should not have to, I will share with everyone that I am neither a Democrat nor Republican and do not consider myself a “liberal” except in the classical sense. I hope that we can separate a simple demand for equality under the law and outrage over being denied it from so much dogmatic ideological baggage. LGBT Americans are still a persecuted minority and our struggle for equal rights is still vital. 4 out of 5 LGBT kids are harassed in school – tell them to debate their harassers. Suicide rates for them are much higher than for others. We still cannot serve in the military, have little protection from employment and other forms of discrimination, and are denied the 1000+ benefits that accrue from official recognition of marriage. I know some who support gay rights oppose my question and our protest. Do not presume to tell me when and with how much urgency to stand up for our rights.

I am 17 months out of a lifelong closet and have lost too much time to heterosexist hegemony to tolerate those who say, as Dr. King put it, “just wait.” If you cannot stomach a breach of decorum when justified outrage erupts then your support is nearly worthless anyway. At least do not allow yourselves to become complicit in discrimination by demanding obedience from its victims. Many of our classmates chose NYU over higher-ranked schools because of our reputation as a “private university in the public service” and our commitment to certain values. We were the first law school to require that employers pledge not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Of Scalia’s law schools that have “signed on to the homosexual agenda,” our signature stands out like John Hancock’s. We won a federal injunction in the FAIR litigation as an “expressive association” that counts acceptance of sexual orientation as a core value. Those who worry about our school’s prestige should remember how we got here and consider whether flattering those who mock what we believe and are otherwise willing to fight for appears prestigious or pathetic. We protestors did not embarrass NYU, Scalia embarrassed NYU. We stood up to a bigot for the values that make NYU more than a great place to learn the law. I repeat my willingess to discuss this issue calmly with anyone who respects my identity as a gay man. I have had many productive talks with classmates since Tuesday and I hope that will continue.
Respectfully,
Eric Berndt

Obviously Mr. Berndt understands the law in a way that Justice Scalia chooses to ignore, which is to say how it created, how it has been altered and the all important question Cui bono?

Obvious too is the fact that Berndt understands the fact that “sodomy” while culturally conflated into anal intercourse between men actually refers to any sexual act not executed in the “missionary position” regard less as to the ratio of penis and vagina betwixt the participants.

Most obvious of all is the fact that we have not heard the last of Mr. Berndt.

And I hope this isn’t the last we’ve heard of the New Improved Wonkette.


Trackback Ping(s)
So, does Scalia sodomise his wife?
Excerpt: And if not, why not?
Weblog: progressivegoldbeta.blogspot.com
Tracked: April 20, 2005 03:56 PM