Skip to comments.Top Religious Right Group: We Won't Oppose Gay SCOTUS Pick
Posted on 05/08/2009 3:49:08 AM PDT by steve-b
In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, a top religious right group, tells me that his organization has no problem with GOP Senator Jeff Sessions' claim today that he's open to a Supreme Court nominee with "gay tendencies."
The spokesperson confirms the group won't oppose a gay SCOTUS nominee over sexual orientation.
"We agree with Senator Sessions," Bruce Hausknecht, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, which was founded by top religious right figure James Dobson, told me a few minutes ago. "The issue is not their sexual orientation. It's whether they are a good judge or not."...
(Excerpt) Read more at theplumline.whorunsgov.com ...
First off, it's not an "orientation", it's a "preference". Preference meaning a choice is made. If that choice happens to be having intimate relationships with someone of the same sex, it's a very bad choice that will ruin a person's life and after life.
Second, a "good judge" should be able to make good choices. A judge that chooses to have intimate relationships with those of the same sex, will make bad choices. Many bad choices.
“It’s whether they are a good judge or not.””
Failed on the first test. IMO were the individual a good judge, the individual wouldn’t be gay.
> a “good judge” should be able to make good choices. A
> judge that chooses to have intimate relationships with
> those of the same sex, will make bad choices. Many bad
I wouldn’t want a drunk or a drug addict on the SCOTUS either.
Constitutionally you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
The text clearly reads "orientation".
Wasn’t thinking about the Constitution. Was posting my opinion.
I know plenty of gay folks who are pro-RKBA, pro-life, pro-smaller-government, and against gay marriage. I suspect that BHO will not pick someone like that.
Maybe there’s a political motivation here. If they keep attacking the O administration it will continually make the right wing conservative the bad guy. This way the right wing conservative flies below the radar, sort to speak, until it is ready to strike.
The Gay Mafia’s annual convention, no wonder the family groups are intimidated!
I ran into a guy I grew up with yesterday and he told me that he was gay. It seems he was the last to know because I figured it out when we were teenagers. (really more my sister’s friend)
He’s very conservative. Says he doesn’t talk about being gay because it doesn’t define who he is. He’s still a pro 2nd amendment avid hunter who opposes gay marraige.
It’s a PERVERSION!! Why not be OK with a PEDOPHILE??? We are so damn over as a decent country!!
Their sexual perversion RULES their LIVES and their THINKING!! What has happened to Focus on the FAMILY???
Caving early this time.
That depends on what your definition of the word "is", is.
You and I must have the same friend.
My friend says he doesn’t really have so much a sexual attraction to men as an emotional one.
Just wondering if FotF would advocate a drug addict or alcoholic be seated on the bench?
To beat the rush.
My friend is very conservative. He sends me messages about God and he's very big on the Second Amendment.
Don't know if I came across right on this, but I am amazed what happens with some of these so called "religious groups".
How do they identify with being a conservative religious group and not oppose a supreme court nominee who might show gay tendencies?
People with religious beliefs can't be so naive, or perhaps so moronic or full of rage.
I've been discussing a matter with a so-called religious individual lately, and man oh man the hateful words that come out of this individual's mouth in the name of religious rectitude. Goodness Lord, the hate and lack of compassion often attributed to extreme Muslims are alive and well with certain people among us. Some people are just so rigid, with no room for compassion, while others are so nonchalant with the word of God. And at the same time, both groups call themselves religious.
It's a crazy world, if you ask me.
That doesn't mean they support homos for judges. That doesn't mean they think a homo judge would be a good judge. What they are saying is when they oppose the homo it will be because, first and foremost, they are not a good judge, not just because they are homos, although that enters into being a bad judge.
Bozo isn't the only one who can play word games.
Much is being made out of a statement trying to make it seem this group actually supports a homo judge, when in reality they said no such thing.