This strikes me as more than a little
over the top. A news
story suggests that President Obama is under pressure to name
the first openly gay Supreme Court justice. Even the religious
right leader quoted in the story says his organization will focus
on the nominee's judicial philosophy. The ranking Republican on
the Senate Judiciary Committee says, "I'm not inclined to think
that would be an automatic disqualification." But it is the
Republicans who are focused on sexual orientation?
None of the Republican senators quoted say they will vote against
a judicial nominee because he or she is gay. The closest any of
them comes to saying such a nominee would be unwise is Sen. John
Thune (R-S.D.). But it's okay for the president to nominate
someone because of their sexual orientation. And
anything less than unbridled enthusiasm shows an unhealthy
obsession with sexual orientation. We live in interesting times.
You sure we don't already have a gay Justice? I've been kind of
surprised that gays aren't demanding that the gay seat stay in
gay hands.
Dean| 5.7.09 @ 12:39PM
Richard John Neuhaus used to say, "Where orthodoxy is optional,
it will soon be proscribed."
Do you really think that the gay rights movement will stop at
live and let live? Orthodoxy in human sexuality -- traditional
marriage -- has become optional, and is now on its way to being
prohibited.
Carlos| 5.7.09 @ 11:41AM
You sure we don't already have a gay Justice? I've been kind of surprised that gays aren't demanding that the gay seat stay in gay hands.
Dean| 5.7.09 @ 12:39PM
Richard John Neuhaus used to say, "Where orthodoxy is optional, it will soon be proscribed."
Do you really think that the gay rights movement will stop at live and let live? Orthodoxy in human sexuality -- traditional marriage -- has become optional, and is now on its way to being prohibited.