The socially conservative Scalia remarked, from the depth of his heart, I have no doubt, that the majority in Lawrence seems to have signed on to "the homosexual agenda." I think the combined majority in Lawrence would be almost amused to think that's what they'd done.
_____________ I believe Scalia's words were "the so-called homosexual agenda." But what's the big to-do about the existence of an agenda, anyway? Of course there's a homosexual agenda. And there's a conservative agenda. And a libertarian agenda. And a feminist agenda. And an Islamist agenda. Etc. etc. (Of course there is more than one agenda under each heading, but the word "agenda" is already plural -- the singular is "agendum" = thing to be done). I can see getting passionate about one agenda over/against others, but why the flying feathers over the EXISTENCE of an agenda? One can always do a word-play on "agenda" that makes it look silly: this consists of deliberately confusing "agenda" in the sense of "list of political and social goals" with "agenda" in the older sense of "a piece of paper or other medium of communication detailing my appointments for the day, or, as the case may be, the topics to be dealt with at this meeting." I've used this word-play myself. Once at a meeting, the mild-mannered facilator began by asking, "Does everyone here have an agenda?" -- meaning, of course, the paper kind. I said, "This is Washington: OF COURSE everyone here has an agenda." But it was, like, a JOKE. -- David Wagner "Pardon me but your agenda is showing."
