"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said, the Associated Press reported.
Scalia defended his anti-gay position to a gay student who had asked why he compared the two. The AP reported Scalia's response:
"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told [freshman Duncan] Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
"Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both."
Scalia went on to say the U.S. Constitution is not a "living" document. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead," he said. He meant the Constitution should be interpreted in its 1787 context, ie, we should seek to understand and then enforce the founders' intent. Some call it a "textualist" approach.
This is all a rehash of Scalia's prior arguments. In October he said the death penalty and abortion were two issues states should decide as the Constitution does not explicitly address either:
"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said.
Yesterday Scalia repeated this claim. "There's nothing in there about abortion. It's up to the citizens. ... The same with the death penalty," he said.
All this comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear two cases on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans.