Skip to comments.Virginia General Assembly rejects openly gay prosecutor for Richmond judgeship
Posted on 05/16/2012 7:09:18 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
RICHMOND Guns, gays and organized labor.
Three outspoken champions of these hot-button issues in Virginia were on the list of people the General Assembly planned to appoint as judges this week.
The gun-rights guy, a former Republican state delegate who has pushed for lifting restrictions on concealed weapons in public buildings, got his judgeship. So did the pro-union Democrat, another former delegate, whose grandfather organized coal miners in Southwest Virginia.
But not the Richmond prosecutor who challenged the militarys now-defunct dont ask, dont tell policy, has advocated for gay marriage and is raising twins with his partner.
Virginias General Assembly rejected Tracy Thorne-Begland for a Richmond judgeship in the wee hours Tuesday, at the end of a 13-hour session devoted to wrapping up the state budget and appointing more than three dozen judges.
In that final legislative act, the General Assembly was consumed by a divisive social issue, just as it had been time and again this session. Some lawmakers feared Tuesdays move would bring back unflattering national attention to a swing state crucial to the presidential race.
Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax) was bracing for another Rachel Maddow moment, referring to the MSNBC host who skewered the state over a bill requiring vaginal ultrasounds before abortions.
However, conservative lawmakers insisted that Thorne-Beglands outspokenness on gay rights disqualified him from being an impartial judge. The chief deputy commonwealths attorney in Richmond had come out as gay as a naval officer 20 years ago on Nightline to challenge the militarys now-repealed ban on gays openly serving in the military.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If "unflattering national attention" equates to another scolding by Rachel Maddow, what exactly is the negative? First, no one with a brain gives two sh*ts about Maddow or MSNBC; second, it's Rachel Maddow, for God's sake! How is displeasing the likes of her(?) considered a bad thing?
That's reason enough, IMO. A person who does not even understand the basics of marriage and biology isn't safe on the streets, let alone as a lawyer or judge. To defend/practice homosexual marriage, one's conscience has to be corrupted, severely. This does not make one a sound judge.
There are many corrupt judges who are heterosexual, no doubt. But they are not at odds with the foundational truths of society and family that all sane peoples have known for millenia.s reason enough, IMO. A person who does not even understand the basics of marriage and biology isn
Yep, this is the same newspaper that didn't think a mob assault on two of their reporters was newsworthy enough to publish - afraid it would stir up the masses.
O’Reilly has been all over it.