Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sexuality no longer a private matter in California (Judges must declare their sexual orientation)
American Thinker ^ | 03/12/2012 | Thomas Lifson

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; prop8; sexuality

1 posted on 03/12/2012 6:20:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Given that homosexuality is a comprehensive worldview, doesn’t this question amount to an unconstitutional religious test for officeholders?


2 posted on 03/12/2012 6:23:32 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Maybe it IS about contraception. Read "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" decision, 1992.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I would tell them that my sexual orientation is GFY...

though the activist judges brought this on themselves...


3 posted on 03/12/2012 6:24:54 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

RE: though the activist judges brought this on themselves...

Maybe most of them really WANT people to know...


4 posted on 03/12/2012 6:28:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

LOL!


5 posted on 03/12/2012 6:30:10 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Maybe it IS about contraception. Read "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" decision, 1992.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen...oh the irony...


6 posted on 03/12/2012 6:34:22 AM PDT by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My response to such a questio would be - “normal”.


7 posted on 03/12/2012 6:40:12 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


8 posted on 03/12/2012 6:43:07 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . .you may know that your society is doomed."

- From Atlas Shrugged

9 posted on 03/12/2012 6:50:43 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; ...
To get to the source reference I had to click through three links as each editorial references another. The last one finally referenced and linked to The Weekly Standard :

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 Price’s 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 one’s 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?

10 posted on 03/12/2012 7:04:04 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sexual Orientation? yes.

if pressed, put “questioning”, since they are indeed “questioning” you.


11 posted on 03/12/2012 7:31:15 AM PDT by married21 (As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: married21

How about “Unsure at this time” as an answer?


12 posted on 03/12/2012 7:34:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


13 posted on 03/12/2012 7:43:06 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (Pedophiles pedal bikes on UC campus??? ? ?? ``?? Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

isn’t this part of the homoagenda?


14 posted on 03/12/2012 7:51:07 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
If one can legally claim to be of a gender they very clearly are not, then it stands to reason one could also claim to be of a race of their choice.

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.

15 posted on 03/12/2012 8:04:36 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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!


16 posted on 03/12/2012 8:12:46 AM PDT by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; SeekAndFind; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; ...

“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!


17 posted on 03/12/2012 8:23:22 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

what if a person changes mid semester? or just declares for special rights? will there be a “homosexuality” test?


18 posted on 03/12/2012 8:28:25 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; sickoflibs
“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? “

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 ???

19 posted on 03/12/2012 9:10:36 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3; stephenjohnbanker; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Impy; ...
RE :”“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? “
.....
too bad judges are positioned on external factors, rather than adherance to the Constitution...

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.

Reference
Chapter 5 of Public Schools ‘Social/Victim Studies ’ textbook

20 posted on 03/12/2012 9:27:18 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Thanks sickoflibs.


21 posted on 03/12/2012 9:33:53 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; justiceseeker93
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.

That doesn't sound legal. I can't imagine the judges standing for this.

22 posted on 03/13/2012 4:27:47 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Impy; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; justiceseeker93
RE :”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.....
......
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.”

23 posted on 03/13/2012 5:16:22 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Impy; sickoflibs; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; justiceseeker93

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.


24 posted on 03/13/2012 5:41:35 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican

Sometimes I see individual trees rather than the forest. ;)


25 posted on 03/13/2012 5:49:21 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Impy; sickoflibs; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; justiceseeker93; ...

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.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/eastern-seabord


26 posted on 03/13/2012 3:54:51 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A chameleon belongs in a pet store, not the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
“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 what’s 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.

27 posted on 03/13/2012 4:08:35 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Establishment is the establishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; GOPsterinMA; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

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.


28 posted on 03/14/2012 3:57:08 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Impy; Clintonfatigued; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

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.


29 posted on 03/14/2012 4:29:13 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I’m not tired of that at all as I find it an excellent idea that’s fun to contemplate.


30 posted on 03/14/2012 4:39:26 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Impy; Clintonfatigued; GSP.FAN; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

Good points.

Can a state be expelled?


31 posted on 03/14/2012 9:47:06 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Establishment is the establishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

Vermont is a liberal mecca.

What makes me laugh about that are the gun laws in Vermont - there aren’t any.


32 posted on 03/14/2012 9:57:42 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Establishment is the establishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

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.


33 posted on 03/15/2012 5:00:09 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued
Right. But, I'm not talking about Congress expelling a state. I'm thinking more of a POTUS with a set of balls that passes an EO and gets rid of a state or states.

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?”

34 posted on 03/15/2012 6:57:27 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Establishment is the establishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA; Clintonfatigued

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.


35 posted on 03/15/2012 7:21:16 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued

Bummer.

Thank you for the feedback.


36 posted on 03/15/2012 7:34:00 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Establishment is the establishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

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.


37 posted on 03/16/2012 4:55:55 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

Indeed. Perhaps they are “EARTH PIMP” wannabes?


38 posted on 03/17/2012 7:57:55 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Establishment is the establishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson