“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said. He added that legislative bodies can place bans on what they find to be immoral.
“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,'” Scalia told Duncan Hosie, the freshman student who asked the question. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Scalia said he was drawing parallels between the two bans, not equating sodomy with murder. “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”
Hosie told the AP that, indeed, he was not persuaded and felt Scalia’s writings, which some find offensive, tend to “dehumanize” gays.
The Supreme Court recently decided to take on the constitutionality of both California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as between a man and a woman). Scalia has been promoting his book, Reading Law, across the country.