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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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