In May of last year Greg Sargent, host of the Washington Post's "Plum Line" blog, reported that a spokesman for the anti-gay Focus on the Family told him the group would not necessarily oppose a gay Supreme Court nominee. Focus' judicial analyst Bruce Hausknecht had stated that “The issue is not [a gay judge's] sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not.." Sexual orientation, Hausknecht added “should never come up. It’s not even pertinent to the equation.” In the same month, Focus' federal policy analyst Ashley Horne told One News Now that sexual orientation should not be a litmus test and that "decisions based on precedent under the law [and] practice judicial restraint" were the most important considerations.
The statements attracted some opposition, with Gary Glenn of the American Family Association (AFA) in Michigan accusing Focus of a "moral retreat." However, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council expressed qualified agreement, although he referred only to a hypothetical judge "who has experienced same-sex attractions."
Sound too tolerant to be true? Well, of course it was. Last Thursday Peter ("Porno Pete") LaBarbera commended Focus on the Family for "wisely correct[ing] their statements." Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy at Focus on the Family, characterized Hausknecht's remarks in "The Plum Line" as "one of those conversations we’d like to 'do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity."
Not to be outdone, LaBarbera added that " Judicial nominees who practice [homosexuality] -- or worse, practice it proudly -- have a mark against their character that absolutely should be considered as a potential source of bias, and even anti-religious animus, in their future rulings."
No comments:
Post a Comment