I think the context of the interview would help some: http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1. I think it's quite a stretch to conclude that Scalia thinks women and gays are not persons. I think, for the sake of negating cognitive dissonance, that we should probably find some other explanation on why he'd say what he said. From the rest of his answer that you didn't quote, he's running with the idea was that the original intent didn't consider discrimination -- that the people back then implicitly allowed it. I think 'original intent' is a very wrong-headed track to go down, but I don't think it says anything at all about whether Scalia thinks women are people.
Exactly. Deckard, BetterThanI and rhadamanthus, you're arguing against a position Scalia is not taking, and so your arguments are useless. It is rather easy to disagree with him and yet still use reasonable and rational arguments as JuanValdez has shown.
There were two questions asked: 1. Was the amendment originally intended to apply to women's or gay rights? My answer would be: if it wasn't, they shouldn't have used such universal language. His answer is "no". 2.Does that mean it's a mistake to apply the amendment to those groups? His answer is "yes". That's where the problem is. To say that the amendment doesn't apply to women and gays is offensive and wrong-headed (and that's putting it nicely) because THEY ARE PEOPLE. Whether or not the amendment was MEANT to apply to them in the heads of the original authors (which none of us can ever know, in truth), it DOES apply to them. To say otherwise is to say that they are not people or citizens.
But you're inferring a reason for his answer to #2 that is not really his reason. His reason for #2 is apparently that only the original intent of the amendment should be honored. That has nothing to do with women or gays and everything to do with a judicial philosophy. If that is in fact his judicial philosophy, then it would be hypocritical of him to not apply it in this case. So you are being offended by a belief that he does not hold.
He thinks that equal protection as outlined in the Constitution does not apply to women or gays, because in 1868, the term "person" didn't apply to women or gays. Yeah, that's not any better. It's myopic and offensive. Unless you truly believe that women and gays are not people/citizens, there's no reason NOT to apply that term to them.
You keep avoiding his actual argument. As long as you do that, then you're not making the case for yours. If you disagree that "person" meant women and gays at the time the amendment was written, then you disagree with him. That doesn't mean he thinks women and gays aren't people. If you disagree that amendments should be interpreted exactly and solely as they were originally intended by the people who wrote and passed them, then you disagree with him. That doesn't mean he thinks women and gays aren't people. He has provided a perfectly valid line of reasoning for his belief, and that line of reasoning does not include the position that women and gays aren't people. You are claiming that because you disagree with his line of reasoning, he must believe that women and gays aren't people. But such a conclusion is not logical and you have provided no logical reasoning for it. Saying it another way, you think the only way a person could believe X is because he believes Y. He believes X but has given reason Z to support that belief. You're saying that you disagree with Z so therefore he must believe Y. That's illogical. Just because you disagree with Z doesn't mean he can't believe it and doesn't mean it can't be the basis for his belief in X. I hope I've made the distinction clearer.
