Throughout the push for the judicial overthrow of California’s marriage amendment, arguments were made about how it was time to quit peeking into people’s bedrooms, or allegedly singling out those who practice homosexual behavior. Sexuality was a private matter, some argued, and that shouldn’t affect public decisions, or so the argument went.
However, that was then, and this is now. The Administration Office of the Courts in California is now making sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench (in other words, the AOC is singling them out). And to accomplish this, “the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation.” (In other words, the state of California is asking for a peek into the bedrooms of California judges.)
The AOC began compiling information on female and minority representation among California justices in 2006, when Democrats in California feared that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t putting enough of either on the bench. But in 2011, the focus was broadened by California state senator Ellen Corbett “to include gender identification and sexual orientation.”
One can only imagine how outraged California legislators and homosexual behavior advocates would have been if defenders of marriage in their state had suggested the inclusion of gender identification and sexual orientation prior to the August 2010 decision in Perry v. Brown. Talking heads in the media would have been stepping over each to get a microphone within shouting distance of any left-leaning member of the California legislature and would have smiled approvingly as the representative pointed to the pro-marriage “assault” on the private sexuality of California justices.
Now, however, that Proposition 8 has been attacked in court, and the ruse no longer needs to be maintained, it’s okay to ask questions about who is and who isn’t “gay” or “lesbian” because the answer to that question will help ensure there are enough like-minded justices to the keep the homosexual agenda afloat in California.
A question that needs be asked is, “What will the AOC do if they find there are more people practicing homosexual behavior on the court than voter or constituent proportions dictate?” In that case, wouldn’t a new question regarding heterosexuals on the court be needed to be sure heterosexuals are properly represented on the California bench? Somehow, I doubt we’ll hear anything about that.
Oh, and if the “sexual orientation” of a California judge changes, as happened with one of the Plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown, will that judge need to report the change to the AOC?
Austin R. Nimocks is senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that has defended marriage and religious liberty in courts throughout the U.S.
Awkward: CIA Shuts Down Climate Research Program After Obama Frames Climate Change as National Security Threat | Leah Barkoukis
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa