Homosexual Supreme Court Justice? Not under any circumstances
Now the problem with starting off a diatribe with a headline like that is that you have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to justify your position. You can't just say "Ungh. Gay judge bad! Gay sex icky. Make Og uncomfortable! Og no like gay judge! Og hate gay!" Even thought that is the basis of your position, that kind of shit just ain't gonna play in Peoria these days. So you have to come up with BS like this:
Now any sane person is going to be a bit confused by this, since it doesn't seem to be, for instance, Scalia's heterosexuality that makes him an asshole, or Thomas's porn and harassment predilection that makes him a sort of Charlie McCarthy to Scalia's Edgar Bergen.
By the same logic, Clarence Thomas should be excluded from the court because his wife is white and mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states until fairly recently.
Also, any judge who has ever gambled in a Nevada casino is disqualified because gambling is illegal in many of the states over which he would have jurisdiction.
Just like Antonin Scalia has to recuse himself from any case in which one of the litigants is Italian. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor can not be involved in any cases involving any women. And Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedey, and Sotomayor all have to refrain from involving themselves in any case in which Catholics are involved.
Special rights like not being fired for no good reason? Or the right to not be harassed at work, or denied promotion because some asshole at your company doesn't like your private life?
Almost as moronic as not understanding how scales work. Even if we accept your retarded premise that a gay judge would be inherently biased in favor of gay litigants, that would be one gay judge one side of the scale, and eight breeder judges on the other. No matter how fat the gay judge is, the scales would still be tipped towards the heteros.
And God knows how much I treasure the principle of equality! The kind of equality in which the people I consider deviant are assumed to be less than equal.
Hey, Brian Fischer of the American Family Association:
Congratulations, you're a stupid, hateful asshole!
Now the problem with starting off a diatribe with a headline like that is that you have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to justify your position. You can't just say "Ungh. Gay judge bad! Gay sex icky. Make Og uncomfortable! Og no like gay judge! Og hate gay!" Even thought that is the basis of your position, that kind of shit just ain't gonna play in Peoria these days. So you have to come up with BS like this:
Sen. John Cornyn has regrettably opened the door to the possibility of an openly gay Supreme Court justice, saying he'd "have to think about" it, and adding, "As long as it doesn't interfere with their job, it's not a particular issue."
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.
Now any sane person is going to be a bit confused by this, since it doesn't seem to be, for instance, Scalia's heterosexuality that makes him an asshole, or Thomas's porn and harassment predilection that makes him a sort of Charlie McCarthy to Scalia's Edgar Bergen.
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.
By the same logic, Clarence Thomas should be excluded from the court because his wife is white and mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states until fairly recently.
Also, any judge who has ever gambled in a Nevada casino is disqualified because gambling is illegal in many of the states over which he would have jurisdiction.
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.
Just like Antonin Scalia has to recuse himself from any case in which one of the litigants is Italian. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor can not be involved in any cases involving any women. And Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedey, and Sotomayor all have to refrain from involving themselves in any case in which Catholics are involved.
Cases involving same-sex marriage are sure to arrive before the Court. Cases involving domestic partnerships and homosexual adoptions are sure to arrive before the Court. Cases involving special rights for homosexuals in the workplace are sure to arrive before the Court.
Special rights like not being fired for no good reason? Or the right to not be harassed at work, or denied promotion because some asshole at your company doesn't like your private life?
Cases involving homosexual service in the military are sure to arrive before the Court.
Only an utter fool could convince himself that an active homosexual judge could be impartial in rendering judgment on such cases. The scales of "justice" would be tipped irrevocably toward the homosexual agenda and it would be moronic to think otherwise.
Almost as moronic as not understanding how scales work. Even if we accept your retarded premise that a gay judge would be inherently biased in favor of gay litigants, that would be one gay judge one side of the scale, and eight breeder judges on the other. No matter how fat the gay judge is, the scales would still be tipped towards the heteros.
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.
And God knows how much I treasure the principle of equality! The kind of equality in which the people I consider deviant are assumed to be less than equal.
Hey, Brian Fischer of the American Family Association:
Congratulations, you're a stupid, hateful asshole!
