With Supreme Court Justice John Stevens announcing his retirement, speculation about whom President Obama will nominate to replace him is running rampant. Some have even speculated that Obama's nominee could be a homo. Sen. John Cornyn said, "As long as it doesn't interfere with their job, it's not a particular issue," while Sen. Jeff Sessions even said he'd be open to a judge with "gay tendencies," whatever that means.
But Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association says, "Aw, hell no!" No candy-assed pansy judge is going to sit on the bench in his America.
For one thing, in an April 15 post to the AFA website he says "a gay judge's sexual preference will, without any question whatsoever, interfere with their job. It's not possible for it to be otherwise."
How so? Well, for one thing, homos are sex criminals, says Fischer. "Sodomy is still a felony in the criminal code of about a dozen states," he says. "We simply should not elevate to the highest court in the land people who are known for engaging in sexually abnormal behavior which would technically make them felons in a quarter of the states over which they will have jurisdiction."
But wait, what about Lawrence v. Texas? Doesn't count in Fischer's view. "The Lawrence decision of 2003, an egregious act of judicial activism, prohibited enforcement of these laws, but the fact remains that 25 percent of the states in the Union still regard it as criminal behavior," he says.
That's right. Just because a law is struck down as unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't still a crime. Racially mixed couples and integrated schools please take note.
"With an active homosexual on the bench, Lady Justice will no longer even pretend to be blind," Fischer continues. "She will be peeking out from under her blindfold to determine the sexual preference of those standing before her, then will let the fold slip back into place before ruling in every case to legitimize sexual deviancy."
First of all, I'd like to know how Lady Justice determines someone's "sexual preference." I've heard of gay-dar, but "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" aren't the same thing. Homosexuality is an orientation.
"I like to dress up like Spider-Man and rub my genitals on Chatroulette" is a sexual preference, and if Lady Justice can see that just by looking at someone, maybe she spends too much time on the Internet.
Fischer also trots out the old anti-gay stand-by that homosexuals are automatically child molesters, which isn't true. "For this reason alone, no homosexual should be elevated to the United States Supreme Court," he says.
Not that he doesn't have other reasons.
Fischer claims that gays are incapable of being impartial. "A homosexual judge cannot help but give the home-field advantage to every legal team appearing before him who represents homosexual causes. It will be impossible for the visiting team, the team representing sexual normalcy and natural marriage, to get a fair shake in his courtroom," he writes. "The scales of 'justice' would be tipped irrevocably toward the homosexual agenda and it would be moronic to think otherwise."
That's right, morons. Gay judges will always rule in favor of gays. It's called "same-sex partiality." It's also true that straight judges will always rule in favor of straights. Only when straights do this it's called "traditional partiality" and it's what God intended.
