Gay Justice?

Shouldn’t we have a transgender judge on SCOTUS? Isn’t it time for that?
How about a sexually ambivalent judge?
How about the most qualified candidate- period?

Hows about an openly Left Pedophile? Don’t they have a voice and according to a recent move by a black congressman, doesn’t everyone with a phile attachment need to be covered in rights?
Gawd…..will we ever regain sanity and govern from the middle again?
Here is a statement from the gays back in the 90′s……
“We’re here, we’re queer and we’re in your face!”
Damn tootin’ you are111

It is pathetic!

President Obama, who said during his campaign “I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman” is firing a U.S. Army officer, and Iraq War veteran, for being gay.
—Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.—

Sullivan’s problem? She recently failed the California bar.

Truth, that is why we need to pay careful attention to what people do even more than what they say.
The old adage, “Actions speak louder than words” is still relevant.
Obama said lots of things while campaigning, his actions as President cancel out at least half of them. Look at the budget.
Will you forgive President Obama if he appoints a Gay justice to the Supreme Court if he keeps “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and “DOMA”?

Inconvenient Truth—thanks for your concern for gay rights. the president doesn’t fire soldiers, commanding officers do. i think Obama will reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell” (it was a campaign pledge, if i remember correctly) and i hope he will allow gay americans to serve openly.

This is from the moderate liberal (and always thoughtful) Stuart Taylor at NPR:
“Such an appointee [a crudading liberal] might push to expand racial preferences, abortion rights, and especially welfare rights for poor people; to strike down the law barring openly gay people from the military; to recognize gay marriage (which Obama has opposed); to end the death penalty and curtail gun rights (both of which he has supported); to free Guantanamo detainees unless they can be convicted of crimes (which would reject Obama’s policy); and much more.
“The preceding parentheticals suggest some of the reasons I’m cautiously betting that Obama will choose a moderate liberal who believes in judicial restraint. By this I mean deference to elected officials unless they violate clear constitutional commands or show gross irresponsibility. The lack of such restraint is what I mean by ‘judicial activism.’
“A restrained liberal justice might, for example, hope for legislative recognition of same-sex marriage (as do I) but decline to rewrite the Constitution to override the democratic process on the issue by judicial decree.”
I recommend you read the whole thing.

We should also consider Shannon Minter. He was the lead attorney arguing against proposition 8. Shannon was born a female, but now he is a man, and a very bright, constitutional lawyer.
I couldn’t think of someone who is more aptly suited to sit on this extremely one sided majority court. He would satisfy the gender, and sexuality aspect, and his legal credentials are impeccable, and revolutionary.

HeteroDefenseLeague—you already have Scalia, Thomas and Roberts serving the interests of your heterosexual defense fund.
hatred of homosexuals is palpable, but remember where the discrimination is coming from: there is no federal law protecting gays in the workplace against arbitrary termination. the state of Texas, where i live, has no state law protecting gays against arbitrary firing. are you enduring the same? have you been fired for being a christian or because you have a family? there are laws protecting you so you may practice your religion and you are protected from being fired for having a family. it is a shame that with all of the rights you have as a (i assume) white christian (i.e., every right there is) you relish in denying those rights to others. you need no defense, you have all the power.

“… couldn’t think of someone who is more aptly suited to sit on this extremely one sided majority court.”
Extremely one-sided majority? Until he announced his retirement you had Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens on one side, and Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts on the other. Where would you put Kennedy?

Officers in the military are asked to resign. They are not fired!
Do not use the military for social engineering…..it does not work!!
American Infidel
U.S. Marine
’71-’76
Now labeled and profiled by the Obama regime as a Right Wing Veteran Extremest!

Somebody–I think it was C.S. Lewis–once wrote a story about a girls’ school in which the girls had been thoroughly indoctrinated in progressive sensibilities. They fervently hoped that a race of people would be discovered living on the moon, so that they could be the very first to declare that they weren’t prejudiced against Moon People.
***************************************************
What I have to say has nothing to do with supreme court justices, Mr. Facist Hyena, anymore than what you wrote a while back. But you’re really mangling CS Lewis. You’re refering to The Silver Chair from the Tales of Narnia, something that really helped me with my dyslexia because I loved reading the books so much. The school you mention is a coed “Experiment School” which doesn’t punish bullies, not an all girls school that sounds like it indoctrinates them into Women’s Lib!! Sounds like you;re not too cool about a woman getting the seat. But anyway, as far as fantasy and the supreme court goes, since you brought it up to begin with, I wouldn’t want a supreme court justice from there either.

Why is this all about the gays and not about the family unit. Marriage and the family unit has been upheld in societies because it is a stabilizing factor in communities.
It’s a clear message to children as to how a family works, how people procreate and sustain the species. Gayness is clearly confusing for children, harder to explain for parents as it is a departure from pairings in other nature. If gays argue their civil rights are violated by not being able to participate in something set aside for male/female pairings, how can we refuse polygamy or other groups that want the economic & social privileges afforded by traditional marriage. I find this troubling.

Amber, I think the story I am remebering may be “That Hideous Strength.”
And in the matter of Supreme Court Justices, emanations from penumbras have been important ever since Mr. Justice Douglas’s opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut. Some judges believe that important, never-before-discovered constitutional rights can be found in such places.

Kary:”Why is this all about the gays and not about the family unit. Marriage and the family unit has been upheld in societies because it is a stabilizing factor in communities.”
Monogamous and committed same-sex family units are also a stabilizing factor in communities. Same-sex couples take care of each other during sicknesses, unemployment, and other times of trial reducing the strain on society and charity’s safety nets.
Marriage is not just about children, as anyone who knows an infertile couple or has seen a joyous pair of 50 year old newlyweds can attest.
“how can we refuse polygamy or other groups that want the economic & social privileges afforded by traditional marriage.”
Anything other than a pairing of two people opens up a host of unresolved and tricky precedence issues under law. The consequences and benefits of a two person legal union is very well known and established as beneficial to society, the same is not true for polygamy. Polygamy has it’s own raft of completely different legal and social issues that it must address.

American Infidel | May 8, 2009 11:46:35 AM, while i respect your service to our nation i don’t think that entitles you to disenfranchise american servicemen and servicewomen from the military based on your (prejudiced) views on homosexuality. there have always been homosexuals in the military and whether you like it or not (or knew it or not) you served with them. gays enlist and die for their nation, just as straight soldiers do. and “Officers in the military are asked to resign. They are not fired!” has to be one of the most disingenuous thinks i have read today. gay officers are just asked to resign? what if they chose not to resign? they are dishonorably discharged? or do they just keep on serving after being asked to resign and ignore the letter. they are basically forced to resign correct? and what about enlisted soldiers?

” i don’t think that entitles you to disenfranchise american servicemen and servicewomen from the military based on your (prejudiced) views on homosexuality.”
There simply is no such thing as enfranchisement into the armed services. There is absolutely no such thing as a right to serve in them.
“there have always been homosexuals in the military and whether you like it or not (or knew it or not) you served with them.”
True. But they were prohibited from disclosing or demonstrating their sexual preference, and as long as they continue to do so they are permitted to serve.

there is no justification for discrimination, none. soldiers can serve as long as they keep secret their orientation. we should have one or the other: a) both homosexual and heterosexual soldiers must keep their sexual orientation secret or b) allow both to serve openly. why should gays not have the right to serve openly when their heterosexual counterparts do? this is america and this bigotry and discrimination is intolerable and embarassing as to our standing in the world. Israel does just fine with openly gay soldiers (as do most European countries).

Why go to all the trouble of granting gay citizens their equal rights when you can instead placate them with tokenism?

I expect that Obama will soon arrive at one of his photo-ops, or the Jay Leno show dressed as a, Spandex clad, Drag Queen in, 6-inch black leather, spike heels to show his solidarity with the Gay & Lesbian community who got him elected.
Question: How will Americana react to a Gay / Lesbian Supreme Court Justice nomination?

paul wall, israel didn’t do so hot in its last 2 conflicts in Lebanon. Are you saying it is because they have a lot of gay soldiers?

Fascist Hyena—”heterosexual males and females are kept separate from one another in may respects to avoid the kinds of sexual tensions that can affect combat readiness.” sounds like the problem then is with heterosexual males and heterosexual females. gays are already serving, as they always have with full control of their sexual tensions. absolutely not a rational arguement for denying gays the right to serve. they are already serving, Fascist Hyena! they are already controlling their sexual tensions. what’s new?

We live at a moment in time when what it means to be human in the sense of being human as has been held for centuries is undergoing re-definition. If the new definition, allowing universal acceptance of homosexual behavior with all rights and priveledges to homosexual persons is codified in law, a revolution will have been accomplished and not one of the traditional sacrosanct beliefs held prior to this re-definition will remain unchallenged. We will have abandoned the Judaeo-Christian foundations of Western Civilization. Will that Civilization survive the seismic shift?

Polygamy? Sure. Polyandry? Most certainly. Polyamory? How can the Courts deny citizens this? On what grounds? Religion? Surely not. After the Stonewall Riots, the modern movement for homosexual rights took off with an emphasis on homosexual men. Then Lesbian rights became a focus, then, in recent years, an outpouring of empathy and support for transgendered persons. What happened to the “B” in LGBT? Not quite ready for primetime is the “B”. Why? Because Bs are attracted to both sexes and hence polyamorism will be battering the craven courts for approval.