RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/15/2011

Pass the Bar(ber) exam: Judges must get appeal of opposite-sex coitus to understand Equal Protection

by Jeremy Hooper

Matt-BarberAnd now here's Matt "Suicidal gay teens know they're 'unnatural, wrong, immoral'" Barber on why a gay judge can't be trusted to work on a case involving the right to marry under civil law. it's because sexual orientation is like gambling or pot smoking, don't cha know:

...On a case concerning the novel question of radically redefining marriage to include same-sex pairs, a heterosexual judge, by definition, would not possess a personal “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” A heterosexual judge is precisely what Federal law requires under such circumstances.

By analogy, if a Federal Judge were presiding over a case to determine the merits of a new gambling law, and that judge happened to have a gambling addiction, law would require that he recuse himself due to a clear conflict of interest. At a minimum, “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Or consider an instance where a judge crossed state lines to legally use medical marijuana for cancer treatment. If he were later presented with a case covering issues related to the legality of medical marijuana, he would necessarily be disqualified and also expected to recuse himself.
Calif. Judge Who Ruled Against Prop 8 is Gay [CNS News]

So wait --what about a female judge deciding a matter or women's rights? An African-American judge on a matter disproportionately affecting Black Americans? A Christian judge deciding on a Ten Commandments monument? A heterosexual judge weighing in on no-fault divorce as it pertains to current federal marriage law? And so on and so.

This is a beyond absurd controversy from a movement that has been desperate to discredit the Prop 8 federal trial from the very beginning. The Matt Barbers of the world know they will not win this thing on merit, not ultimately, so they've been meticulously laying the groundwork to paint any outcome favoring equality as being wrong-headed, agenda-laden activism. It's exactly what they've done with every other pro-LGBT development to come down during the past century, from the APA's embrace of homosexuality as a sexual orientation to nondiscrimination laws to historic court rulings like Lawrence v. Texas. Within the "pro-family" cause is an aggressive PR wing that's rivaled by only its fundraising unit. And those two units work in tandem to discredit that which a benign, de-politicized world would easily see as credible.

The primary problem, of course, is that Matt simply won't tolerate the idea that homosexuality is analogous to any other characteristic of the human condition, not even heterosexuality. Never. Not even a little bit. So of course to Matt, an innate characteristic like one certain form of sexuality can just willy-nill-ily be likened to one's penchant for slot machines or bong rips, even though those things are actual chosen behaviors that exist regardless of any other fixed characteristics. The same goes for civil marriage. Any judge, gay or straight, can hold any kind of personal view regarding the right to marry under the laws of this nation (as groups like NOM even claim when they testify to having gay supporters within their stable). The issue is the fully fleshed out, constitutionally-backed decisions that said judge brings forth. Judge Walker's ruling is a clear cut, fully reasoned opinion that cuts right through the embarrassingly bad showing that the Prop 8 proponents presented before his court (which, interestingly, Matt's own Liberty Counsel admits was a terrible effort). What matters is what flowed through the judge's hand, by way of his brain, as guided by his eyes and ears. What Antonin Scalia does with his penis is his own, unrelated business. So too, Judge Vaughn Walker.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails