http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=547050
Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?
by Jim Brown
Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual
behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told
liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a
Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. "Our
concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy," Hausknecht said.
"Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging."
(See original Greg Sargent report:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-righ…)
[Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a
judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It's not even pertinent
to the equation."]
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s
ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.
"Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things
should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone
who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will]
practice judicial restraint," Horne explains. "Those are the things we look
at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme
Court."
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan,
contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of
"moral retreat."
"It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on
the issue," Glenn argues. "[That explanation] will be used by homosexual
activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and
delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical
standard."
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family
that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court
nominee. He argues in blog comments that "even Supreme Court nominees
deserve some zone of privacy, and.there is at least a hypothetical
possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has
experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint
and the original intent of the Constitution.
"In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge
who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances
of a camel passing through the eye of a needle," Sprigg concludes. "So don’t
hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ‘support’ a ‘gay’
judicial nominee."
–
J Young
Jvisi…@live.com