Who would support a homosexual justice?

I've seen absolutely no evidence, none whatsoever, that Miers is a radical feminist or is anything like Senator Clinton politically.

Where are these backhanded accusations coming from on this board?

 

KenH,

Since I have not made an accusation, I consider your accusation as trying to cause a controversy and not discussion. So I am just going to ignore it.

 

I consider using "if" in a statement about a person to be making an accusation toward that person.

I am sorry that you think I am trying to cause a controversy by responding to your statements.

 

Okay.

My basic position is that as long as a nominee believes that the legislature should legislate and that the courts should adjudicate and keeps his/her sexual practices to himself/herself, then I would not have a problem with supporting a nominee who was a homosexual.

 

I only said "if" in response to your question about my first statement. But we are ok. I think Miers is an open question, but I think Bush probably knows what he is doing. But enough about Miers, I am glad to see the poll fromtheright set up is solidly not in support of any openly gay person becoming a Justice. But it will happen someday on another president's watch.

 

I have hired openly gay people to work with me, but then again the job did not require them to take on one third of the federal governments governing responsiblity. And it did not give them the power to decied what the constitution says about marriage and such. I think an openly gay person who would be true to the founders and constitutions intent as far as marriage and family go, is a hypothetical person who does not exist. Log Cabin republicans aside.

 

""While I'm not in support of it, though, the poll seeks to find out if others are.""

I must have confused you. I did understand that. So far it is 0percent would support.

 

I think a person could be even openly homosexual and not want to use the courts to force onto society what a legislature refuses to do. Just as I am openly heterosexual and if I was a justice I would not attempt to use the courts to force onto society what a legislature refuses to do, say, in the area of legalizing prostitution(please do not read into that I am saying that prostitution should be legalized but it does make for an interesting discussion about how we want our law enforcement resources utilized).

 

I don't guess I would have a problem with it. Even though many wish to make sex a matter for political fodder(?), I wish eveyrone would keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves. Just seems like a private matter to me.

Really would be one interesting confirmation hearing.

 

I think that an openly gay candidate for justice on the court could not in the course of many future years on the court grasp the essential Christian nature of American jurisprudence or be friendly towards that Christian foundation. It is too much to expect to ask people who are not in tune with the freedom and mercy of American law to unhold those freedoms and mercies against their true nature.

Gays and lesbians are stateless persons who belong to a city-state and kingdom that was destroyed once and for all in the days of Abraham. However, their allegiance is still to that destroyed political state.

Although Christians have hopes for Miers, other conservatives challenge her intellectual abilities. But she is White House Counsel so she is no fool. True she is from Texas, but she has not been working with Bush that long. Actually, her religious doctrine strikes me as more conservative than Bush's even though she is a Campbellite--Indiana being a headquarters of the fading Campbellite movement.

As for her being a spinster, I agree with Ken that it doesn't mean a thing. Nor do I think that it indicates feminism. I thought St. Paul said that it was good to be married and good not to be married.

No, due to his personal character defects, no openly gay or secretly gay justice belongs on the supreme court.

 

But don't we all have character defects of some kind? Following that line of thinking wouldn't we all be disqualified?

 

Yes, we all have character defects, but not all of us are engaged in practices classified by God as an abomination. I would never support a homosexual person for any office.

 

"""As for her being a spinster, I agree with Ken that it doesn't mean a thing. Nor do I think that it indicates feminism. I thought St. Paul said that it was good to be married and good not to be married"""

OK, I just want to put this to rest. I said it makes ME worry. I did not say there was any evidence that should make anyone else worry. I was just trying to answer KenH's question. It's not an issue, really, other than the fact that she is an unknown quantity, which puts us in an awkward posisition of having to speculate. But this thread is really not about her, as fromtheright has pointed out.

 

""Another concern that has just occurred to me is a concern that such a nomination might lead to the expectation of a permanent "homosexual seat" on the Supreme Court which, given the agenda of the homosexual lobby, is dangerous, IMO. ""-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point, Just as we have the defacto black seat, and the defacto women's seat we will probably end up with the defacto homosexual seat. I would hate to see a seat reserved for someone based not on racer or sex, but on sexuality

 

Sorry, that is my fault--I picked up on Ken and not you. I regret the error.