Bigoted lawmakers block gay judge
In the wee hours of the morning, homophobia prevailed in the House of Delegates.
All humans have biases. We are unique individuals, shaped by our DNA and our upbringing. No two people walk the same path through life, and every decision and experience influences how we act in the future.
For some people, one belief becomes all-consuming. It shapes every decision. They become incapable of parsing the world through any lens but that one.
May 16, 2012 - 12:29 AM
36 people didn’t vote. Embarrassing. Vote them out.
“incapable of parsing the world through any lens but that one” Yes, like through the lens of anybody who disagrees with me must be bigoted and homophobic because of course that’s the only way that what the House of Delegates did can be construed.
Perhaps the all too popular heterophobia is prevailing upon you.
Bigoted lawmakers elected and re-elected by bigoted citizens. Just look south at North Carolina. Lawmakers didn’t vote for that amendment, citizens did.
We don’t need “activists” of ANY kind, Gay or otherwise, in that position.
So as long as a person can keep their bias undercover it is not a problem? If he had been an activist against gays in the military and a supporter of discrimination of gays, I think he would have his appointment right this moment.
Because you know if you were in the same room with him, you could “catch gay”!
I see nothing bigoted about any of this. One need only look around to discover NATURE does not favor Gay anything. Religion doesn’t have to be the convincing factor but it would seem those who call others bigots, base it all on religion. Odd isn’t it? We, the smartest of all animals have these same sex relationships. Loving a same sex person is normal. Making love to a same sex person is not, period. Yet, let someone point out what is normal and what isn’t begets bigotry from those who obviously don’t believe in a God and they prove it by disputing gay relationships in that fasion. “Only believers in God say it isn’t right”, right? Not so. One need only open one’s eyes and observe “Natures” plan. The fact that God points out this un-natural act should not be a mute point when our surroundings SCREAM it. Does one really need to be religious? I would say it helps but it certainly isn’t necessary.
Can a person with this mental handicap be a good judge? I don’t know but it would seem since an issue has been made of it, it lends credit to they may be biased.
Many, if not all gay’s say it is a birth defect, that they have no choice in the matter. If this is so, then they admit they are ABNORMAL. Something went awry in the womb. All anyone is saying is, they are abnormal and there is nothing bigoted about what is true. If anyone is bigoted at all, it is the one picking sides. One being in favor of gay people and their un-natural activities is displaying a preference. Playing favorites if you will. There is no place for that in the court system. I think this is the message that was conveyed in the decision made recently. People can spin it any old way they wish but they can’t cover up the fact that the act of homosexuality is not normal. The mentality of such people must be examined. It does not make them a bad person, just a SPECIAL one.
The particular person wishing to be a judge is also raising children with his PARTNER. The writer of this article admits people are influenced by their upbringing. Perhaps we should also decide whether these particular children should be brought up in such a confusing envirnment. A judge has to make decisions on what is a GOOD envirnment. What kind of decisions would this judge make? Him raising children in a gay envirnment bound to rule in favor of gays. How could he rule otherwise.
The bottom line in any of these arguements is, a gay person is the product of a heterasexual relationship. The very existance of a gay person could not be if not for the NORMAL act of nature. Nature being a Man and a woman or male and female. Any arguement made against this admits there was an abnormality. Thus, the person is not NORMAL.
Can anyone see the confusion a child might have when asking a gay parent how they came into this world. I mean someone had to do a disgusting thing to another in order for them to exist. Were they then a mistake? Something that was not intended? “I thought I was normal for a few minutes and nine months later, here you are but we love you anyway?” How do you explain this away to a kid? The fact of the matter is, it can’t be explained away. “In my mind, I had to do something ABNORMAL in order for you to be in this world.” The gay parent had to lower themselves to reproduce? Or let’s say they adopt. They are so against the norm that they had someone else do the nasty so they didn’t have to divert from being gay. What does that tell the child? I know this is getting deep but it is truth and these truths are what we are all wresling with. We all know what is normal and what isn’t. Bigotry does not enter into the equation.
haddit’s rant may be the most ignorant and arrogant I’ve read in a long time…but it was good for a laugh.
That was a lot of things “haddit”, but “deep” was not one of them.
They didnt block a gay judge. They blocked a activist judge.
They dont want anyone on the bench like the Gay calif. Judge that struck
down the will of the people. If you want to make law get your butt off the bench and get elected. Otherwise sit back down, shutup and apply the law as it is written by elected officials.
Openly gay public activists should not be judges just as abortion, union/labor, African-American, creationist, or any other public activist for a political cause, religious or ethnic group. That brings their ability to be impartial into question.
Judges cannot have taken public stands on such issues either in their past or present lives and be considered impartial. Even their political party preference should not be publically apparent, only their judicial temperment and knowlege of the law.
Past public political positions are legitimate considerations for a judicial appointment. If you want to be judge, keep your controversial positions to yourself.
Words of wisdom there Herb, “ If you want to make law get your butt off the bench and get elected. Otherwise sit back down, shutup and apply the law as it is written by elected officials.” Would you pass that along to the SCOTUS?
John R, does that activism and impartiality matter if it is the judges wife that is the activist?
You are seriously positing that anyone who has taken a stand on anything is an activist and cannot be “impartial” or judge fairly but someone who closets their position can? Seriously?
Absolutly Sandi. Even though I cant stand the Obamacare or the way it was passed.
It was done by our elected officials. It needs to be overturned by our elected officials. That is why we vote. We dont vote for Justices in Va or the federal system. This gives the Judicial branch to much power when they can override anything on a whim. Period
14 – well, not really. It is the judicial branch’s job to rule on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress and signed by Congress. It is SCOTUS’s job to overturn a law based on dubious constitutional grounds.
John R. in #11 says
Judges cannot have taken public stands on such issues either in their past or present lives and be considered impartial. Even their political party preference should not be publically apparent…
That pretty much eliminates anyone and everyone from taking a seat on the bench, I would say. Show me someone who would qualify as a judge and who hasn’t taken a public stand on an issue or hasn’t made a political party preference known and you would have to go pretty far back into the woods to find him or her. Most judges already have stood out as attorneys, have made themselves known to one political party or the other in order to get their foot in the door for the nomination process, and probably somewhere along the way in their life took a stand on some issue. Or are you only talking about your issues, those things you don’t like, don’t support, don’t think should mentioned in polite company, like gay rights, abortion, unions, African-Americans, and creationism? If someone wants to be a judge, if he or she has breathed a word about any of those issues “in their past or present lives” then they are immediately suspect and not worthy of sitting in your idea of a fair and impartial court. Sorry, but I don’t care to live in your world because I don’t think anyone but those who think like you would get a fair trial if he or she even made it as far as the courtroom.
So could a divorced judge serve on the bench in a Juvenile and Domestic Relations court?
89hoo..where does the will of the people come in according to the bill of rights….Right now we have a very power hungary judiciary that doesnt have to answer to anyone. Very dangerous. This is how Nazi germany started.
Well Herb #18, I think you are about half right except the courts in question “was set up outside the operations of the constitutional frame of law” by Hitler for his own machinations.
And he too wanted to suppress the liberals, workers, and all sorts of political opposition. Sounds more “right wing” to me.
Thats the problem. Our courts are set up under the constitution yet continually operate and use there own idiology for purposes outside or to change what the founding fathers wrote.
This country is no longer for the people. I say we need to get it back by any means possible. Thomas Jefferson”
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.”
Herb, I fear that like Timothy McVeigh and many TP/GOP right wingers, you have misunderstood what Jefferson was saying and why.
He was writing from Paris so he was not all that on the pulse of Shay’s Rebellion, but he feared in the context of the Constitution, it would cause the ruling elite to strengthen the federal government to suppress such sedition and he did not want that.
He speaks of the fact that some segment of the public will always be ignorant and feel called to action (as opposed to being evil tyrants) and that the government could easily subdue the rebellion when it came. Which is what he meant by “The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them”. In other words, kill a few if needed (watering the tree) persuade them to the facts, pat them on the head and send them on their way as it were.
I don’t believe it says what you think it says.
Either way, it is a moot point because the Civil War settled how much we will EVER trust the states or parties and the vote is all the rebellion you will EVER be allowed again.
Bigoted Or Reasonable Lawmakers Block Gay Judge?
A tirade against Va. lawmakers who voted to not seat Thorne-Begland as a General District Court judge alleging that this person has no disqualifying history other than being an outspoken advocate of gayness.
-
It would be a good thing for openness and fairness for the Editors to get and publish a copy of Thorne-Begland’s military discharge.
If it is an Honorable discharge – the editors may have a point.
If not – what were the conditions of the discharge designation?
-
I would be pleased to send the editors a copy of my Honorable discharge should they wish to publish it, and I’m not running for anything.
-
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2012/05/bigoted-or-reasonable-lawmakers-block.html
-
@22 He received an honorable discharge.
Why would anyone want you discharge information pray tell?
Why isn’t anyone questioning the Dems who abstained or didn’t vote about WHY they didn’t vote?
Could it be because they don’t like gays?
Nah…that can’t possibly be it. Everyone knows only Republicans are homophobes!
Good question, on something like this, I think they should all have to explain themselves. Some have.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/18439558/nbc12-investigates-why-did-36-delegates-not-vote-on-gay-judge-nominee
#25 Onzlee Ware’s failure to vote on this matter might cost him my vote. Barring another explanation from him, I have to think he might be a homophobe.
There, Michael.
Bob Marshall absolutely is a homophobe. I’m not sure he would even bother denying it.
#27 Actually, Michael, Ware is NOT a homophobe and I think we all know it. He simply could not be there to vote.