One of the things that upsets me about modern society is the coarseness of manners. You can’t go to a movie—or watch a television show for that matter—without hearing the constant use of the F-word—including, you know, ladies using it. People that I know don’t talk like that! But if you portray it a lot, the society’s going to become that way. It’s very sad.Yes, the ladies on TV are sadly quite pottymouthed these days.
And you can’t have a movie or a television show without a nude sex scene, very often having no relation to the plot. I don’t mind it when it is essential to the plot, as it sometimes is. But, my goodness! The society that watches that becomes a coarse society.
But at least they aren't weighing in on landmark Supreme Court decisions with opinions to the effect that legalizing gay marriage discriminates against homophobes (Specifically it hurts their feelings.)
The most notable portion of Scalia’s dissent isn’t the point about the court’s lack of jurisdiction, but the portion where he engages in straight-up right-wing victim-complex self-pity of the sort that would not be out of place in a Maggie Gallagher column. (Indeed, Maggie approvingly quotes this very passage.) Scalia moans at length that Justice Kennedy’s decision is mean to anti-gay marriage people. It is so mean to them! People who oppose gay marriage are the Real Victims here, because Justice Kennedy has accused them of demeaning gay people simply by wishing to deny them the right to marry:
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
I suppose the coarse ladies could also move to strike down key parts of the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that it "perpetuates racial entitlement." The pottymouth ladies haven't done that. Nor have they engaged in any of this coarse language.
Another great thing about the coarseness on TV or in the movies is that it doesn't carry the kind of legal weight that affects how people are allowed to live their lives. Which is different from what Scalia's can do.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who once made headlines nationwide after the Herald photographed him making what he called a “Sicilian” gesture with his hand under his chin, said in Medford yesterday he’s not afraid of the Boston newspaper.
“Can’t scare me,” the famously feisty judge told a Herald reporter yesterday in front of a laughing crowd at Tufts University. “I have life tenure.”
Also he believes in the Devil. But, of course, this is a man who has gone hunting with Dick Cheney so that's understandable.