In some ways, I was happy to read this little piece of anti-gay bigotry on the American Family Association’s website regarding a hypothetical appointment of an openly gay Supreme Court justice. At least it’s honest – there’s no need to read between the lines, and more importantly provides no conceivable way of allowing the author to pretend that no, really, he is not prejudiced against gays. In that sense, we need more writing like this, not less.
Indeed, what is particularly remarkable about it is that it is so self-refuting that it can only make sense if one not only believes that the act of homosexuality is immoral, but that gays are in fact sub-human. I shall now delve into the hatred so you don’t have to.
The problem with Cornyn’s position is that a gay judge’s sexual preference will, without any question whatsoever, “interfere with their job.” It’s not possible for it to be otherwise.
If we elevate an open homosexual to the Supreme Court, we will be elevating someone who freely admits that he (generic use) engages routinely in behavior that was still a felony in every state in the Union as recently as 1962 and a felony in the other 49 states until 1972.
As recently as 1967, in a substantial number of states, it was a felony for a white person and a non-white person to marry. Justice Clarence Thomas is openly married to a white woman, and indeed even resides in one of those states in which interracial marriage was a felony. I do not recall the American Family Association in 1991 raising any objections to Justice Thomas’ appointment on the grounds that he “freely admits that he engages routinely in behavior that was still a felony” in his state of residency in 1967 (which was closer to 1991 than 1972 is to today). So clearly this cannot be the real source of the objection.
Sodomy is still a felony in the criminal code of about a dozen states. The Lawrence decision of 2003, an egregious act of judicial activism, prohibited enforcement of these laws, but the fact remains that 25% of the states in the Union still regard it as criminal behavior.
We simply should not elevate to the highest court in the land people who are known for engaging in sexually abnormal behavior which would technically make them felons in a quarter of the states over which they will have jurisdiction.
Uh-huh. I look forward to liberals challenging the fitness of a gun-owning conservative judge with a CCW permit to serve on the grounds that, well, technically, handguns are still illegal in the city where the Supreme Court sits since the Heller decision was, in their view, “an egregious act of judicial activism.” This, of course, will never happen, but if it did, I’m quite certain that the AFA would object vociferously. Oh – and going back to the Justice Thomas example – it should be pointed out that several states didn’t formally repeal their miscegenation statutes until well after Justice Thomas was appointed. So this can’t be the reason.
A fundamental requirement of a judge is impartiality. He is to be as impartial as an umpire or a referee. His responsibility is to take rules written by others (including and above all the Constitution) and faithfully and neutrally apply them without bias or favoritism, and without changing the rules in the middle of the game to give the advantage to the team he happens to like best.
Uh-huh. But what does this have to do with gay people?
A homosexual judge cannot help but give the home-field advantage to every legal team appearing before him who represents homosexual causes. It will be impossible for the visiting team, the team representing sexual normalcy and natural marriage, to get a fair shake in his courtroom.
There it is. Gays are physically incapable of avoiding bias on issues pertaining to homosexual causes. Oddly enough, though, straights are totally capable of avoiding bias on these causes even though it is the stated position of the AFA that these causes present a grave threat to married heterosexuals. Got that? Gays are physically incapable of overcoming their biases; straight people are, like, totally capable of overcoming their biases and being neutral arbiters.
So then we conclude:
With an active homosexual on the bench, Lady Justice will no longer even pretend to be blind. She will be peeking out from under her blindfold to determine the sexual preference of those standing before her, then will let the fold slip back into place before ruling in every case to legitimize sexual deviancy.
Bottom line: the American ideal of absolute equality before the law will inevitably be shredded by a homosexual judge. Neither the Constitution nor the American people should be subjected to that kind of judicial malpractice. We can and should expect more from those who occupy seats on the highest bench in the land.
So gays are not only incapable of being neutral on issues pertaining to the “homosexual agenda,” but they are completely and totally obsessed with figuring out the sexual preferences of the people that come before them. A gay judge would then just simply rule in favor of whoever the most gay-seeming party happens to be. Straight judges? They’re normal. They are perfectly capable of ignoring the sexual preferences of the parties in front of them.
Gay people are obsessed with sexual deviancy, you see. This is all they think about, and all they are capable of thinking about. They lack any capacity for fairness or for that most fundamental of human traits, reason.
The AFA is not saying that gays are merely sinners like the rest of us. They’re not even saying that gays are people who happen to engage in “sexual deviancy.” They are instead saying that gays are not fully human such that gays are utterly incapable of fairness and reason and objectivity.
At least the AFA was kind enough to tell us what it really thinks. No need to look for dog whistles here. No “plausible deniability.” At least it’s honest. We can be thankful for that.
(Via Andrew Sullivan).