Top Religious Right Group: We Won’t Oppose Gay SCOTUS Pick
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.”
Their sexual orientation “should never come up,” he continued. “It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”
Gay activists had expected that the group would oppose an openly gay nominee, since the group has been an outspoken foe of gay marriage and has worked to convert gays to heterosexuality.
In an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sessions, the key Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said: “I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job.”
“We need to be looking for a person that can gain full respect of the American people, who can apply the law fairly, when they put on that robe will be non-partisan and non-biased, no promoting any agenda, personal, religious, or moral, and follow the law faithfully,” Sessions continued.
“Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” FOF spokesperson Hausknecht continued. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.” For example, he said, “If someone says, `I don’t care what the law says, on the next case involving sexual orientation, I’m going to decide the case in favor of the openly gay party,’ that would be a breach of judicial duty.”
To some degree, the group’s surprising statement reflects the fact that an openly-gay SCOTUS nominee would take religious rights groups, and the rest of us, into uncharted political waters, since there hasn’t been one before. And it also suggests that some leading members of the Republican Party may find themselves to the right of leading religious groups on the question of whether to tolerate an openly gay Supreme Court justice.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Well now! That’s very interesting. That gives Obama a good opening to pick Pamela Karlan. She’s worked with him when he was a professor, they appear to have the same legal philosophy, she’s wicked smart, and from I heard is witty as all heck. By many, she’s considered to be the “Scalia of the left”. I hope Obama does make the leap and picks her.
Man if anybody believes these people I will sell you a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. They can’t just come out and ADMIT they are bigots. So if there happens to be a gay nominee they will just have to prove that his or her gayness has affected their judicial rulings. But make no mistake, they WILL oppose any gay nominee.
Sgwhiteinfla, Focus is actually being philosophically consistent. They oppose hate crimes, which creates a “special class.” What they’re saying here is that they don’t want to discriminate against **** (consider them as a class), but will consider the judicial philosophy of the individual nominee instead.
I do agree with you, however, that Focus will probably oppose whatever gay nominee Obama introduces… because that nominee will almost certainly NOT be an originalist in terms of constitutional interpretation.
Note: I don’t know why the Web site automatically changed the word I wrote (g*ays) to all ****. I didn’t say anything bad that needed to be censored.
Denise
.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth but are you saying that a gay person would necessarily “not be an originalist in terms of constitutional interpretation” strictly because of their sexual orientation?
Love the judge but not the judgments.
I’m very surprised. Their “theological” position is not gay-friendly or even gay-neutral. And court nominees are very important to this group. I’m with sg on a cynical reading here.
As you mentioned, greg, we can certainly count on them to challenge ANY likely Obama nominee in co-ordination with the rest of the movement (their website judiciary ‘talking points’ are boilerplate Federalist Society memes). Of course, the notion or possibility of a gay SC justice hadn’t really crossed many peoples’ minds until Souter’s announcement and the elevation of a couple of possible candidates who are gay. This statement could we walked back. Or, they have had time to think about it and have concluded that an anti-gay position would decrease their credibility and influence. Or, they’ve concluded that the chances of a gay constructivist candidate are zero so why cause themselves unnecessary grief on the point. It might be on the level but I kinda doubt it.
As a gay man, I personally could care less whether Obama’s Supreme Court pick is gay or not, whether they are Black, White, Brown, Red, Yellow, Green or even Purple. I care about whether or not the person he picks believes that we, ALL CITIZENS, are to be considered equal under the law and the separation of church and state. If they are, I’m on board.
Thus far, I find the president’s silence on issues important to the LGBT community very deafening.
Although that sounds like a modern and enlightened position, I believe they are tactically thinking ahead. They will fight for that person to recuse themselves on any issue involving equal rights for gay people. Which means the votes would always sway in favor of the conservative court. I see what they did there.
“Gay Tendencies???” The Right’s bigoted, outdated ideology is firmly, immutably in place. Their cynicism is transparent. They will NEVER back a nominee with “Gay Tendencies!”
I was just about to ask….WHAT are “gay tendencies”?
This is a semantic hair-splitting, nothing more.
Sure, Focus on the Family says they wouldn’t oppose an openly gay/lesbian Supreme Court nominee solely because of their sexual orientation.
That may be true, but it is irrelevant — Dobson and his followers will doubtless oppose ANY nominee put forward by President Obama (whether that nominee is gay or straight). They will oppose such a candidate based on a claim that they are an “activist judge” — and all of the hot button “social” issues (choice, gay equality, affirmative action, etc) will be the issues they use to mobilize their base.
Any openly gay/lesbian candidate might not be explicitly opposed because of their sexual orientation — but you better believe that such a candidate would be grilled endlessly by right wing Senators on issues relevant to gay equality (such as whether sexual orientation is a suspect class, how far equal protection goes in protecting all people, if there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution, what the full faith and credit clause means in light of the different state views on marriage, etc).
Sure, they won’t oppose a gay candidate based on sexual orientation — but you better believe that they will oppose any gay candidate who might be nominated by the President, and they would do everything they can to whip up anti-gay sentiment — don’t fall for this kind of cosmetic word-play designed to cover up their hate-filled agenda.
Aravosis’ take on why this matters seems right: http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/top-religious-right-group-has-no.html
They oppose hate crimes, which creates a “special class.”
**********
Do they oppose the “special class” created by hate crimes or do they oppose expanding our existing hate crimes laws to include LGBT people?
I do not recall FOF or the GOP ever trying to repeal our existing hate crimes laws.
As far as I know, they claim they are opposed to treating anyone differently… but have no problem with the fact that we already have “special class” protection.
Any judge that is a judicial activist should be filibustered and opposed. Judges need to follow the Constitution and not impose their personal agendas in their court rulings. Yes, it is true that Focus On the family will probably oppose any nominee that Obama picks based on their record and their ideology on the various social issues that is exactly what Obama did with Justice Alito and Justice Roberts even after saying that they were qualified to be on the bench. Obama voted NO solely based on his ideological disagreements with these two justices so he has no leg to stand on if Republicans take a stand against his judicial nominee based on ideological principles. If the nominee is gay and has a track record of keeping his/her personal life and agenda staying out of the court rulings than I am sure that Focus On The Family would endorse such a person, if in existence. The Democrats opposed highly qualified Bush judicial nominees so if Republicans do the same thing to Obama’s nominee there is no difference.
“The Democrats opposed highly qualified Bush judicial nominees so if Republicans do the same thing to Obama’s nominee there is no difference.”
Ah, but there is a difference. In this case, the Democrats have a strong enough supermajority to force through nominees over the objections of the Republicans. Previously the Senate was close enough for the Democrats at least to give Bush headaches over nominees. Now, the Republicans are in effect irrelevant.
Elections have consequences.
“I’m going to decide the case in favor of the openly gay party,”
Yeah, Focus on the Family is okay with teh gay.
As a moderate Republican, I am pleased to see that the dialogue on social issues is becoming more tolerable and less divisive in the GOP. However, I wonder if this isn’t a sort of reverse pander by the Focus on the Family group that finds itself backed into a corner by their previous extremist remarks on homosexuality, and whether or not they would truly support a centrist gay judge. I also wonder if this means that their views on other social issues have changed- much like Senator Sessions, who recently stated that he would be not be a major obstacle for a pro-choice judge on the Court. Perhaps the far right-wing has finally learned the costs of a small tent GOP, and understands that all Republicans need to be able to work together to win back the majority.
Unfortunately, the historical trend has consistently proven there are no unbiased SCOTUS nominees. They are all either left or right, no middle. A gay SCOTUS would be the tip of the iceberg in the liberal’s quest and pursuit for gay marriage. I’m very surprised at FOFs stand on this and although their intentions are pure, they are being quite facetious. Either way, God is in control, and He will have placed on the bench whoever He decides… ultimately for His glory.
I don’t believe it. Not too long ago there was a story going around saying James Dobson was retiring from FOF saying he lost the “Culture War” and that proved to be 100% false.
Glenn Greenwald would be an exceptionally capable counterbalance to Scalia/Alito/Thomas/&Robers.
Greenwald has a better legal mind than all four of those right wingers combined.
Does anyone recall that when Souter was nominated, a significant number of people thought that He was gay? Many people still do believe so.
“In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals…”
It will only shock them because they are under-informed and rely on the “boogeyman” stereotype of the “evil” Republicans and Christians.
Excuse me, the Word of God does not say we are to be tolerant of blatant sin. I am just amazed at views and decisions of people that are old enough to have some common sense but DON’T! It’s plain to me that they haven’t studied God’s Word enough if at all.
Anyone who believes two man having anal *** is a normal alternate lifestyle, and that homosexuals are very center when it comes to their ability to judge fairly, it is obvious that the individual is mentally challenged, therefore he is deficient in contributing to the welfare of the people, he must be barred from public office alongside homosexuals.
Number 1- I hope we are not going to see in the very near future that this spokesmen from a Christian organization is not about to come out of the closet himself- This isn’t a precursor to that by saying it is ok for this judge. Collect your big fatty paycheck that Focus gives to you and feel great about doing a poor job for the kingdom of God. Number 2- Does this man who said this comment have ANY clue whatsoever about what a worldview is and how that affects how law ( and all of life) is interpreted and spelled out. Study a worldview and then get a Christian one if you work for the Christians, as you collect your big check from donations. You ought to be fired!
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.I DON THINK THAT RELIGIOUS GROUP LIKE FOCUS ON THE FAMILY WILL SAY THAT,YOU GUYS ARE LAYING.GREG YOU MADE IT UP.