Skip to comments.Sexuality no longer a private matter in California (Judges must declare their sexual orientation)
Posted on 03/12/2012 6:20:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The relentless advocates of identity politics don't care about antique notions like privacy in their campaign to make everything subject to quota. Three weeks ago, Lee DeCovnik wrote about the State of California requiring all judges to make a declaration of their sexuality. He asked:
Now that the beastly camel has poked its nose into the tent, can we expect a question on sexual orientation as part of the admissions process for colleges and universities? Just how soon until sexual orientation becomes a factor in receiving preferential treatment in hiring for state jobs, bidding on state contracts, and granting professional licensees from state boards?
Lee has proven prescient. CBS Los Angeles reports:
The next influx of UC students may be asked to state their sexual orientation.
In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Given that homosexuality is a comprehensive worldview, doesn’t this question amount to an unconstitutional religious test for officeholders?
I would tell them that my sexual orientation is GFY...
though the activist judges brought this on themselves...
RE: though the activist judges brought this on themselves...
Maybe most of them really WANT people to know...
Smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen...oh the irony...
My response to such a questio would be - “normal”.
Jim Quinn, of the Quinn in the Morning radio show, has what he calls “Quinn’s First Law”.
Liberalism always generates the EXACT OPPOSITE of it’s stated intent.
Since this appears to be the end result of the whole 1960’s Sexual Liberation Movement, a disc jockey who dropped out of college appears to be right once again.
- From Atlas Shrugged
“In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation, reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A copy of Prices memo was obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Providing complete and accurate aggregate demographic data is crucial to garnering continuing legislative support for securing critically needed judgeships, Price writes.
The process of self-revealing ones sexual orientation is an element of a now yearly process. To ensure that the AOC reports accurate data and to avoid the need to ask all judges to provide this information on an annual basis, the questionnaire asks that names be provided. The AOC, however, will release only aggregate statistical information, by jurisdiction, as required by the Government Code and will not identify any specific justice or judge.”
California Asks Judges: Gay or Straight? (Feb 24, 2012, The Weekly Standard )
This is one of the main reasons why I never bought into the “Why can't we just let them love each other in peace?” argument that liberals and libertarians make to re-write marriage laws. I know what they are really up to.
Where is Ron Paul on this one?, Affirmative Action based on sexual desires? Gender identification?
How about Racial Identification? How come I can't get affirmative action for claiming I am a African American trapped in a while Male's body?
Sexual Orientation? yes.
if pressed, put “questioning”, since they are indeed “questioning” you.
How about “Unsure at this time” as an answer?
In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or pedophile.
isn’t this part of the homoagenda?
This should be tested in court.
Very few that claim to be ‘African American’ have ever been there, much less were born there. It isn't a race, Negro is but damn few claim that.
I think anyone could be on firm legal ground claiming to be ‘African American’ by that standard.
Actually, this is really interesting. Think about it; if they do start giving preferences to the sodomites in California in education, hiring and state jobs......maybe all the sodomites from the other states will flock to California! Then when Mexico annexes California, (with some prompting from the other states), Mexico can deal with them. That wouldn’t be such a bad deal!
“How about Racial Identification? How come I can’t get affirmative action for claiming I am a African American trapped in a while Male’s body? “
Do you HATE yourself? It just might work!
what if a person changes mid semester? or just declares for special rights? will there be a “homosexuality” test?
too bad judges are positioned on external factors, rather than adherance to the Constitution...
anybody still believe that the electorate can *change* this Republic back to how it was designed ???
Obama is a constitutional scholar and he assures us that the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil war to protect transgender individuals trapped in the wrong bodies from being discriminated against. Treating them like their actual sex is like imposing ‘identity’ slavery on them. Lincoln attacked the South to end that.
Chapter 5 of Public Schools ‘Social/Victim Studies ’ textbook
That doesn't sound legal. I can't imagine the judges standing for this.
You miss the point silly. The point is to use affirmative action to select gay judges that will make this legal.
As Dems are saying NOW when they lose same-sex marriage referendums on the ballot, “Civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. They should be decided by liberal judges.”
I read a clarification that what they did was to add sexual preference (or “orientation,” to use the liberals’ Orwellian term) to the questions asked in a questionnaire sent to judges, but that judges could leave it blank (and many do). On The Corner on National Review, someone (John Derbyshire?) posted that a far worse development was the fact that the percentage of judges who had refused to answer the race question that has been asked for years had dropped from 9%-10% a few years ago to less than 2% this past year, so judges are going along with the scheme.
Sometimes I see individual trees rather than the forest. ;)
This reads like science fiction. It’s not so much that I care about the private lives of judges, it’s just that using certain bedroom activities as prerequisite for judicial appointments is un-American and a direct affront to the ideas of individual liberties and opportunity.
Over the years, some Freepers have posted about expelling certain (liberal) state from the U.S. or perhaps splitting the U.S. into two nations, given the growing divide between what’s known as Red America and Blue America. Most of them have been in jest (Barry Goldwater joked about it a long time ago), but a few have said it warrants serious consideration. California has become an embarrassment to the entire nation.
Yes, they're even ahead of Massholechusetts on this one.
“Over the years, some Freepers have posted about expelling certain (liberal) state from the U.S. or perhaps splitting the U.S. into two nations, given the growing divide between whats known as Red America and Blue America.”
Barring a bloody civil war, it's the only way I can see “America” surviving. No way it can continue like this. The libs live “1984” - I see it everyday.
And God Forbid if this sack of sh*t POTUS gets reelected, because we ain't seen nothing yet.
Circumstances don’t exist for that yet but they could in the future if we keep going down hill.
We should encourage the Hawaiian Independence movement. And if Vermont ever wanted to join Candada I’d say Bon Voyage, there wouldn’t be any civil war to keep them in as long as it wouldn’t effect the price of maple syrup.
If a state doesn’t want to go independent, I wouldn’t kick it out, but I wouldn’t shed a tear if HI went independent (aso long as we kept the military bases) and VT joined Canada (or declared independence again).
As for CA, I’m sure you’re tired by now of reading about how it should be split up into 5 states, 3 of which would be Republican.
I’m not tired of that at all as I find it an excellent idea that’s fun to contemplate.
Can a state be expelled?
Vermont is a liberal mecca.
What makes me laugh about that are the gun laws in Vermont - there aren’t any.
Given that no state may be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, one doesn’t even have to look at history or tradition to conclude that Congress can’t expel a state.
Having a Congress (and military) that would back this would be critical, but I was thinking in terms of an EO.
My thinking on this is, in theory, you could have a crackpot POTUS who could declares the Constitution null and void (think Obama, term 2). If that could be done, why couldn't a POTUS look at the the diseased carcasses of states like CA or MA and to quote a Rat: “A stroke of the pen, the law of the land, pretty cool heh?”
Irrespective of how large a president’s testicles may be, he could not expel a state (or admit one, for that matter) by executive order.
Thank you for the feedback.
Yes it’s odd. I guess the hippies like to pop off shotguns.
Must be the rural nature of the state.
Oddly enough half of DU is pro-gun rights. Probably cause they want to shoot at George Bush.
Indeed. Perhaps they are “EARTH PIMP” wannabes?