E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tracy A. Woodward / The Washington Post via Getty Images
Virginia Republican delegate Robert Marshall says Tracy Thorne-Begland's past activism makes him unfit to serve as a judge.
Law experts are taking issue with a Virginia legislator’s comment that “sodomy is not a civil right” in explaining why he opposed a gay prosecutor’s bid to become a judge.
Virginia GOP delegate Bob Marshall spearheaded the effort to block Tracy Thorne-Begland, an openly gay prosecutor in Richmond, from becoming a judge, saying the attorney’s past activism and outspokenness on gay rights could bias his decisions on the bench.
The Virginia House of Delegates this week voted to reject Thorne-Begland’s bid to become a general district court judge in Richmond.
Speaking Thursday on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Marshall expounded on his reasoning.
“Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks never took an oath of office that they broke. Sodomy is not a civil right,” he said.
Marshall argued that Thorne-Begland’s past advocacy of gay rights would interfere with his neutrality on the bench, particularly in cases involving homosexuals. “He can be a prosecutor if he wants to, but we don't want advocates as judges," Marshall said.
William Eskridge, a Yale Law School professor and author of “Dishonorable Passions,” a book about the history of sodomy laws in America, rejected the contention that sodomy isn’t a civil right. He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which struck down the criminal sodomy law in Texas – and by extension, other states – as unconstitutional.
“The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence that anal or oral sex, commonly known as sodomy, when performed in private by consenting adults, is constitutionally protected -- which makes it a civil right,” Eskridge said.
Video: Conservative group targets 'Harvey Milk Day'
Though the Lawrence case involved two gay men arrested for having sex in one of the men’s apartment, Eskridge noted that the protection applied equally to heterosexuals, since the overwhelming majority of cases of sodomy occur between men and women.
“The representative has the same civil right as the gay prosecutor,” Eskridge said of Marshall.
“That is something you have a constitutional right to do. Adults have that right without being subject to criminal punishment,” agreed Kim Forde-Mazrui, a University of Virginia School of Law professor.
Mazrui also took issue with Marshall’s suggestion that Thorne-Begland’s sexual orientation could hamper his impartiality as a judge.
“If you mean that people are always biased in favor of members of their own group then that would suggest that a straight male or a white judge could not be impartial in a case involving a crime between a straight and a gay person, a man and woman, or a white and black person -- which would render most judges and juries suspect by his conception,” Mazrui said.
“I think that kind of categorical presumption is misguided and there’s no support for that,” added Theodore Ruger, a law professor the University of Pennsylvania. “Many judges -- most famously judges like Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- were well-known advocates before taking the bench and they went on to distinguished careers.”
Thorne-Begland, a former fighter pilot who lives with his partner and two adopted children, came out as a gay Naval officer 20 years ago to challenge the military's now-defunct "don't ask don't tell" policy, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The announcement triggered his honorable discharge from the Navy. He has spoken out frequently on gay rights since then.
His boss, Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring, has said Thorne-Begland “would have been an outstanding judge.”
“It's hard to think about what happened in the General Assembly and not conclude that it's a form of bigotry,” Herring told reporters on Tuesday.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Republicans don't want advocate judges as long as they are liberal. Republicans are perfectly fine with advocate judges that will support their retarded views.
There is a TV spot in TX for a local Judge election saying that he opposed "Obama care". That tells you I am right.
Republicans and their tea-bagger friends are the biggest hypocrites in the world.
Wait a minute! Then someone please explain to me again how corporations are people. That decision wasn't corporate advocacy?!?
Is LMFAO a protected civil right?
Only if it occurs in support of the radial right
It seems remotely possible that a gay judge could make biased judgements. The Virginia legislature? Not much doubt of their bias.
Once again we have proof of the fact that you can be dumb as dirt and still get elected to political office. To call this legislator a moron would be an insult to morons. The level of ignorance and hypocrisy shown by politicians of the radical right is just breathtaking. If there is any way we can goad the South into once again seceding from the Union I say good riddance and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
What happens in peoples bedrooms is their business. Is social engineering to believe otherwise, and violates our right to privacy.
I was with you until your last sentence Bluelake. Idiocy is far and wide and not limited to the south.
I think a gay judge would no doubt be bias in cases involving gay issues and crimes involving gays. Keep the guy off the bench !
If one man wants to butt slam another man, that's fine. But what I do mind is having to know about it.
Eskridge noted that the protection applied equally to heterosexuals, since the overwhelming majority of cases of sodomy occur between men and women.
What an idiot. Is he going to start asking around the question to heterosexual people?
I am sure that many Republican men and women have engaged on this type of behavior. Where does it end? The language of this man is unconstitutional, a violation of privacy.
Let me get this straight please. This nut is questioning if Thorne-Begland would be neutral in cases involving homosexuals??? Shouldn't we assume, as well, that a heterosexual judge would not be neutral in cases involving heterosexuals? Once again, another totally insane statement from a Southern, Republican lawmaker.
Experts say a lot of things. Would they have agreed if their children were victims of rape?
Experts don't have the RIGHT to be WRONG!
To continue to use the argument that gays will have a bias for gays just doesn't make sense. Do we not allow women judges because they will show bias for women? Do we not allow Black judges because they will show bias towards blacks? I suppose we should not allow White men to be judges because they will be biased towards white men.
Virginia GOP delegate Bob Marshall is a cranial sodomite, he has his head up his @ss. I bet Mr. Marshall eats Chesapeake blue crab that is a sin too! He is also clean shaven. That is also forbidden in Leviticus 19:27. From the looks of him he has a a pork chop or two in his life. Yep that too is forbidden by god.
If there are any fellow Virginians here, please take note, this is exactly why we need to take the House of Delegates out of the hands of Republicans. Ken Plum (D-Reston) is the most intelligent Virginia Delegate and would make an excellent Speaker. Republicans have done nothing but hurt the Commonwealth, by doing things like setting up contracts with mafia run company Waste Management, making Virginia the #2 importer of out of state garbage, behind Pennsylvania. That led to trash from the West Nile Virus infected mosquito infested Freshkills Landfill in New York being diverted to VA, causing an outbreak of WNV here. The same deal led to massive, leaky trash barges crowding the Chesapeake Bay, making our waters polluted and causing outbreaks of pfiesteria in the bay's fish populations, killing local fish markets.
Republicans are bad for Virginians, bad for Americans, bad for animals, bad for the environment and bad for the world.
If that is so, then the corollary conclusion would be that a heterosexual judge would suffer from the exact same problem.
Yeah- no. Either could have bias but not contingent upon their sexual orientation.
Unfortunately Virginia loves being sodomized by their elected officials.
GK, we should also ban Human judges, as they will show bias towards Human Beings.
The bias seems to be with the Republicans. They find it unfathomable that someone would have an open mind and rule based on existing laws, versus the Republican social engineering agenda. So what if the guy is gay. If he's shown himself to be a good lawyer, then that should trump any paranoia about gays ruling in cases.
Roger,
I also have a problem with a guy "butt-slamming" a chick. I heard that anyone that likes that could easily go "gay". We need to investigate any potential judge as to his "hole" preference during sex so that we are sure he won't go gay halfway into the job.
Better yet, we need a Constitutional Amendment defining sex and marriage as between one penis and one vagina (and BTW, it would be un-American if the penis was uncircumcised, so we should add that in, too. Don't you agree? Tea-baggers, take note.
There is a big difference between being a member of a particular group and being a vocal advocate for that group. If he was simply gay it would not have been right to keep him off the bench. The fact that he was a very active gay rights activist is a pretty clear indication that he could not be impartial on cases involving gay rights or offenses against gays. It was right to keep him off the bench. I would not want him on the bench anymore than I would want a white supremacist or anyone else with strong feelings towards a particular group or issue on the bench. Judges need to be impartial and having a history of strong advocacy for one group or one side of an issue shows a clear problem with being able to maintain impartiality when that group or issue is involved in a case.
As for this lawmaker's comment, he needs to join the current century.
So someone is paronoid because voting in favor of homosexuality is against their moral judgement?
JSinSD: So Thurgood Marshall should have been kept off the bench because he was a vocal advocate for African American rights and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have been keept off the bench because she was such a vocal advocate for women's rights?
B707320C
Do you call that sar-chasm? Punny, don't ya think?
Can anyone explain to me why Republicans are so obssessed with what people are doing in their bedrooms?
doesnt it bother any of you that this professor is saying that sodomy is a civil right.......WOW the devil has truly crawled in to our society
kat-1015719
It is not all Republicans. My post 1.6 while not a direct quote is Ron Paul.
Bedroom issues have no business in the political arena what so ever. My point is that it becomes a very slippery slope (no pun intended). Today its homosexuality. Tomorrow, we add a little nuance to include some racial consideration and the day after that, there is a tiny religious or party affiliation test. You wake up one day and you realize that you, too, don't fit someone else's definition of "normal". So, it starts as something as private as what you do in your bedroom.
BTW, if a judge believes he is conflicted in a particular situation, he can recuse himself.
olga: it's not a professor who's saying that sodomy is a civil right. The Supreme Court made that finding in Lawrence v. Texas. Nothing to do with the Devil; everything to do with freedom.
B707320C
You know you intended the pun. Funny though.
I don't think that anyone could say it better.
Homosexual marriage has lost every time it was presented as a vote by the people.
Tennessee's Marriage Protection Amendment, for example, would not have passed the General Assembly in 2005 without the support of Democrats, who held the gavel in both chambers, a majority in the House and the governorship at the time. Furthermore, the referendum passed in 2006 with 81 percent of the public vote.
It has been judicial activism which has propelled the notion - not a vote of the people.
you are all crazy....marshall has it right .....he did not say that there should not be a gay judge he said that there should not be judge who is an outspoken advocate for gays
He can't be a judge because he's outspoken on gay rights? If there was a prosecutor who stood infront of a abortion clinic ranting about the death of innocents to a crowd of people, would this guy even bat an eyelash?
Despite this stupid comment, he doesn't take the cake for me. The crazy politician from Indiana who did "Extensive internet research" and concluded that the girl scouts are a breeding ground for feminazis is.
Do you know what happens when judges come across cases where there's a potential conflict? They recuse themselves from the trial. Denying someone the ability to be a judge period because they might one day have a conflict of interest is completely irrational and short sighted.
nevermind what GOD thinks he doesnt matter right... and dont think that for one minute that just because the supreme court says that sodomy is ok that it is.....liberal bull@!$%# more nasty filthy liberal bull@!$%#
Olga, the judge will be involved with many kinds of cases...most not even dealing with sexual orientation. In those situations, he should do what all judges do when they are conflicted; recuse themselves. If you own stock in Exxon, and are hearing a case involving Exxon, you would recuse yourself if you thought the case. Judges do this all the time. Sexual orientation and/or advocacy of that orientation should be no different.
olga: the problem with your argument is that so many different people seem to think GOD says so many different things!
B7073: a gay judge absolutely should NOT recuse himself from a case involving gays. Would you say a Black judge should recuse himself in a case involving a Black defendant??
What I do in my bedroom and when, with another consenting adult is my business. You politicians, judges, and religious nuts stay the hell out!!
The Constitution guarantees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sodomy is not forced. If it is, that is called rape. That's still illegal. Social Conservatives are really just Fascists who dare to take away your Constitutional Rights. They are traitors to the very foundation of the Nation. When the leaders actually conspire to destroy the President's success in the midst of the worst financial crisis of our generation, they are conspiring to destroy us, the Nation. It's treason. They should be arrested. The VA fool should be given help, he's obviously an imbecile.
Olga, the real problem is that people of certain faiths believe they have a mandate to tell others how to live, when their main concern should be how they live, and minding their own @!$%#ing business.
Sorry about the bluntness.
I just remembered, didn't Virginia at one time have a tourist ad campaign, the slogan for which was "Virginia Is For Lovers"? I wonder who were they referring to?
I just gotta chuckle at that one.
I seriously don't understand why the Republican party decided to start courting the religious right. They're bloody idiots and an embarrassment to the entire party. You can't make decisions for the rest of us based on your 2000 year old moral beliefs. Surely you see that's wrong.
Remind me, which parts of Leviticus are relevant again?
Leviticus 7:22 -
The Lord said to Moses, 23 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep or goats. 24 The fat of an animal found dead or torn by wild animals may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it. 25 Anyone who eats the fat of an animal from which a food offering may be[c] presented to the Lord must be cut off from their people. 26 And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. 27 Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people.’”
I'm sure any god worth his/her salt would be more offended at your language (which I have deleted from my copy/Paste).
..well. ...ok...it's a right...but the most important right is still the right to a job that makes people relf-reliant - instead of a dependent on others. But thanks to Bush and his recession, many people can't have that.
It's the economy, stupid.
Actually you have my full support on that one. Kind of gettin' tired of the Good Ol' Boys club ruling the world. Not such a great track record.
JD, wtf - white-supremacists and gays are interchangeable to you as unwanted judges. I have a hint for you. You're homophobic.
sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, pederasty...anyone remember Hair? The musical? Once upon a time all those activities were against the law, for all peoples, not just gays, except for pederasty, which should always be against the law as it involves children. Children and animals are off-limits, no exceptions.
Far as I am concerned, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their business. Now, if they take their activities to the streets where all can see...well, I say smack them hard, on the peepee's, with a metal ruler. Twice.
Olga,
Did you ever give your husband a hummer? If so that makes you a sodomite. If not, I feel sorry for your husband.
It's sickening watching these Republicans trying to turn America into a right wing,religious dictatorship. I can't wait for the American people to vote these GOP fashcists out of office. That's when the fun will really begin, seeing them run for cover like roaches when the lights come on.
PointingOutTheObvious- Yeah, and Democrats have done such a great job. Explain to me how Pelosi can get inside information on stocks, and not go to jail? She is on the committee that gets stock information and she uses that information to buy and sell stock. She made 2 million on the stock market last year.
There is freedom of speech, but Marshall just killed his political career.
Democrats have done as much damage to this country as Republicans. Both only care about their party first. They could care less about the country. They are turning into Shia and Shiites.
Anyone recall Allen West's recent comments that "there was no discrimination in the US based on sexual orientation"? Seems his fellow Republicans are determined to prove him wrong! That the Republican governor had even supported his being named a judge until the right wing group and Bob Marshall, acting as their mouthpiece, began their campaign to halt his career. Demonstrating the Republicans will go to any lengths to hurt people they disagree with. When are voters going to stop these neanderthals from holding office?
@Freedman, The US is not a pure democracy and the citizens do not have the right to use the ballot box to determine what rights a minority enjoys when they already enjoy the very same rights. That concept is known as tyranny of the majority, it is the antithesis of freedom and it is very the reason why we have a Bill of Rights.
I would have thought that the citizns of NC and other bigoted states that have recently passed anti gay marriage laws would have learned from California Proposition 8 because those laws are going to be declared unconstitutional as soon as the Supreme Court hears the appeal of Prop 8.
Even though we have the opinion of a legal expert, the haters will hold the fingers in their ears, while jumping up and down screaming "We can't hear you"!
Some might argue that putting fingers in your ears would violate the same rules.
The Constitution guarantees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sodomy is not forced. If it is, that is called rape. That's still illegal. Social Conservatives are really just Fascists who dare to take away your Constitutional Rights. They are traitors to the very foundation of the Nation. When the leaders actually conspire to destroy the President's success in the midst of the worst financial crisis of our generation, they are conspiring to destroy us, the Nation. It's treason. They should be arrested. The VA fool should be given help, he's obviously an imbecile.
Actually, it doesn't. That sentence is in the Declaration of Independence. It's too bad the inaccuracy detracts from a fairly decent point.
John,
Sure that would be called "aural self-fingering" and is just another way of perverse self-pleasure.
It must be in tune with the perverse pleasure of master-baiting.
So, will a heterosexual judge be able to maintain his/her neutrality in cases involving homosexuals? In the end, this argument holds absolutely no water.
This jackass legislator and others like him are another reason to loathe conservatism. Now everytime I ask the wife for oral or go knocking on the back door she has a plausible excuse and begs off b/c she doesn't want to break the law and turn us into criminals :(
Marshall is simply vermin. He represents a district where a majority of the alleged humans are vermin. Increasingly Americans are devolving before our eyes and Marshall is one of the ringleaders.
Funny - but stupid.
freedman1,
One of the main responsibilities of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of legislation. Legislatures can make all the laws they want and people can vote for whatever they want, but it doesn't mean it's constitutional. That's why it's up to the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to determine if people's rights are being protected, or if there is a rational reason to curtail those rights. When the court overturns a law because it's not constitutional, they're not being "activist" they're doing their job!
I'll just be Gwaddamned! No wonder this country is so screwed up. After reading Marshalls pontification, and his supporting basic logic, one sees a bona fide, pathological fool. Too goddamn many of 'em in high places, tittie nursing too goddamn many infantile imbeciles.
Privacy IS a civil right. Where are all the "government, get out of my life" people?
If sodomy isn't a right, alot of straight people need to be arrested.
Don't worry, it is a right.
In this instance, it is Robert Marshall himself who is guilty of exactly the type of bias that he projected upon the candidate. Marshall has allowed his own biases (against gay people, apparently) to override his view of the U.S. Constitution.
Moreover, based upon Marchall's reasoning, no one would be able to objectively adjudicate any issue involving any group to which the adjudicator belonged. - which is nonsensical.
I'm sure Robert Marshall thought that his stance on this issue made reasonable sense, but in reality, the gay issues of the day, like the racial issues of a few decades ago, are revealing the casual, traditional, quiet bigotry that such bigots always harbored within themselves.
Well well well ... another elected legislator that is totally ignorant about the Constitution. Why am I not surprised that this bonehead is Republican. How did this guy get elected despite his ignorance?
Yes, Virginia, Sodomy is a civil right - a constitutionally protected civil right.
These miscreants who talk about "activist judges" are ignoring the fact that under our constitution, judges are the ultimate arbiters of all legislation. States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional, and the Judicial branch of our government is tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of all laws.
If they enjoined an obviously qualified jurist from becoming a judge based on his sexual orientation, they engaged in bigotry and discrimination.
Hey everyone, instead of carping here, how about sending Delegate Marshall a note thanking him for saving us from the horror of making a patriotic military hero a judge, and request he also vote against all straight judges too, just in case, you know, they might be biased too.
DelBMarshall@house.virginia.gov
I know he'd love to hear from everyone!!!
A lot of foolish and misinformed people complain about "activist" judges, sodomy being only a gay issue and referring to gay marriage as sodomy union would prefer to put sodomy to a vote like a lot of issues that pertain to the rights of gay people. What would be so interesting if it was actually put to a vote...since in most people's minds, sodomy only applies to gay people, if a law to ban sodomy was put on the ballot, they would by their own prejudice make illegal the activities they themselves enjoy.
You get what you vote for....
Jeez, sodomy is 2/3 of of a good "around the world" night! Pusillanamous prigs like Marshall and the other legislators who used their votes to discriminate against a valued & trusted public servant don't deserve their seats. They used anti-discrimination as their excuse for discriminating against Beglund. Typical conservative, republican, fundamentalist christian bullsh/t, doubletalk and hypocrisy. How many blowjobs has Marshall gotten from his girlfriend, wife... or secret homo boyfriend for that matter. Is he also so unimaginative in his sexual repertoire that he never went tap, tap, tapping at the backdoor? Or is it that he's jealous that the gays are having all the fun? I say its all of the above and probably more.
Just because Marshall looks and dresses respectably doesn't mean he IS respectable. Anyone who has had sex with him in the past should come forward and tell everyone what HE likes and does. Lets see if it affects HIS voting.
My bad, the Constitution actually says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Same dif.
You can tell what was most important to the Founders by viewing the list of the first nine amendments;
We only care about the first two, because what they did took care of the other 7! Now we want to hand it all over to a plutocracy and competing theocracies all over again.......Boy, are we blind!
(note: OMG the word WELFARE is in here...the FOUNDERS were WELFARE KINGS,)
America began it's headlong rush towards destruction the day God created the first rethugli-con. There is no more biased or hateful group of people in this country than the right wingers who profess to love this country so dearly.
Maybe, I don't totally agree. But if you're going to direct quote one of our most important documents, it behooves you to cite the RIGHT ONE. By citing the WRONG one, you have lost credibility before you even start to make a point.
"...since the overwhelming majority of cases of sodomy occur between men and women.". I think that pretty much says it all in these ridiculous hipocritical media driven matters. Those who cast stones etc etc blah blah blah. I wonder what Marshall's wife's backdoor looks like after all these years....
Right. I am sure he watches anal porn and doesn't have a problem with that.
Gee, didn't I see you doing that once?
lol...
Up the butt or in the mouth what a ridicules topic to discuss—it's the hole issue that brother some people..
Considering there are WAY MORE straight people than gay, yes, sodomy is performed far more by straights than gays.
Not exactly a constitutional law bell-ringer. It is based entirely on interpretation and assumption that males have a right to insert bodily parts into the orifices of other males in places not intended for said insertion. Taking into context that which the founding fathers would have seen as being entirely contrary to nature, one must question any such conclusion.
Consenting adults Arx.
So then you admit you have abcolutely no notion of what the Founding Fathers would have thought.
Right Bob!
Has nothing to do with that. I agree that 'consenting adults' should do as they please in this sense... but it doesn't roll over as a constitutional right. It is something we do in private, in our bedrooms... where we SHOULD NOT want government alongside.
Actually it has nothing to do with male on male it has to with citizens of the Unite States male or female being able to have consensual sex anyway they wish. that would include male with female and female with female. Your homophobic slip is showing....
Oh and the Supreme Court ruling that the government can not legislate against it makes it a right. You're now zero for two in your arguments....
sorry Arx - it's not based on interpretation, but on actual adjudicated law from the Supreme Court...
jquest - The term 'homophobic' is entirely political... it suggests a fear of homosexuality when, in most cases, none exists. One may disagree with a concept without fearing it... unless it serves to plaster your opposites with tags that serve your specific purpose.
Bob, well the Founding Fathers put in "Seperation of Church and State" for a reason...yet its been completely ignored as it pertains to gays these days. Whether you like them or not, they have the same rights as everyone else. Period, THE END! Further, if they want to get married, why not let them? lol they should have a right to be miserable like everyone else right? haha all kidding aside though, its repulsive that this prosecutor, who all say has done an oustanding job, was not allowed to advance because he is gay. Im pretty sure that violates everything that makes this country great..IE being yourself, and not being punished for it.
BobbyG - Please quote constitution law that covers this... with proper linkage to back up the claims. Thanx :)
Alex - tomorrow, when you're lunching with the founding fathers, ask them about their slaves.
not so - I guess staying on topic is too much to ask?
Never mind.
David- where is separation of church and state ever mentioned in the constitution or any other document written by the founders?
Arx, you're a bit narrow between the temples. Seems like you're arguing just for the sake of it
TJames, why attack me? Why not stick to the subject? Is it that important to take down your opponent from the knees? or can you stick to the subject?
Thanks for all the political bashing though, I am not against gay marriage. I am against it being taken as a constitutional issue when it is a civil matter. Nothing more... nothing less.
By the way... some of you would do well to try and learn how to argue points rather than attack your opposite on a personal level. Most of us are complete strangers and thogh it is no longer important to show an ounce of respect for someone you don't know, it sure makes your arguments look better when read.
have a nice day :)
Arx Ferrum:
Here is the Supreme Court ruling, i.e. the Constitutional Law that covers this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Quote "The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment"
Who ate my soup - Right before it says you have the right to own a gun...oh wait, the constitution doesn't say that...at all...hmm...
Arx you say it is a civil matter nothing more nothing less, not a constitutional matter. Civil Rights are a constitutional matter. So your argument fails. Just Saying!
Mildred Loving in 1967's Civil Rights Case of Loving v. Virginia said:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
People have an interesting perception of the founders. 1 Most of them grew hemp, and most likely partook. 2 Ben Franklin was commissioned to roam around Europe gaining friends for our revolution. He was a whore and orgied in most countries, gaining many friends. 3 They had faith, but found religion to play too large of a part in society.
They were hardly hyper religious prudes. But boy the hemp made them write eloquently.
Happy to Arx,
Even better I'll paste a quote the the actual story...
"
William Eskridge, a Yale Law School professor and author of “Dishonorable Passions,” a book about the history of sodomy laws in America, rejected the contention that sodomy isn’t a civil right. He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which struck down the criminal sodomy law in Texas – and by extension, other states – as unconstitutional.
“The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence that anal or oral sex, commonly known as sodomy, when performed in private by consenting adults, is constitutionally protected -- which makes it a civil right,” Eskridge said."
Arx:
You master of the passive aggressive style of debate, your initial post says
something about inserting body parts into places not intended for said
insertion. So from that I guess we can conclude that you have never had a BJ
from your wife or girlfriend, because I'm pretty sure that God didn't intend
for you to stick your penis in her mouth. But I'm guessing that you have had a
BJ which makes you quite the passive aggressive hypocrite. Also, civil rights
are always a Constitutional matter since all of our rights originate from the
Constitution or were you getting a BJ in the closet at school when they taught
that in civics class?
Bob - Who cares what the founding fathers would think? We have their documents to refer to and they would never have predicted the insanity that this issue has brought up. They are dead and, in addition, most of them owned slaves. You need to include some substance in your posts instead of being a goofball.
The key words are "consensual" and "in private." Sodomy should NOT be a civil right, or we'll have the likes of Gingrich claiming that he has a right to anal and oral sex with his current spouse (and future partners).
So, although I do not want to see our government in the bedrooms of the nation, I do not want some hedonist claiming that all sexual activities involve some sort of right. You can buy a dildo, but I'm not sure that SCOTUS will let you use it without consent. [Not that several members of that court do not deserve to be vigorously sodomised twice a day with the furry end of a broomstick.]
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all [people] are... equal and endowed... with certain [in]alienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
If it's sodomy that makes 'em happy, then they've got a right to do it.
Why don't the Republicans just propose that we pass a law that requires that all of us have to have a camera with a live feed to the local Sex Police. They can then give us a list of "do's and don'ts" and if it is discovered that you are doing something that SOMEONE finds objectionable, they can come and arrest you or whatever they deem appropriate. Never in my long life, so far, have ever seen a group of people so concerned with what other people do in the privacy of their own home.
Whoatemysoup
Per your request for the phrase by a founding father about "separation of church and state":
Here's Thomas Jefferson:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
And here's a whole bunch of quotes from James Madison, aka "the Father of the Constitution":
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm
"...we don't want advocates as judges," Marshall said.
Bob Marshall is the one being an advocate here. He's making an assertion that's demonstrably, factually false. He's just plain wrong about the "is", and he's espousing a "should" that goes directly against current established law. Advocacy, no?
Arx tactics are very typical. He makes a statement, gets his azz handed to him on a platter, tries to change it in another, gets his azz handed to him again, then plays the victim card.
I don't see where anyone made a personal attack on you, however, they did, quite nicely I might add, rip apart your statements AND provided you the very thing you claimed they couldn't!
Nice job, guys.
Who ate my soup
Ta da!
I just remembered, didn't Virginia at one time have a tourist ad campaign, the slogan for which was "Virginia Is For Lovers"? I wonder who were they referring to?
I just gotta chuckle at that one.
Not to mention that it was the state involved in Loving v. Virginia...
@ Toasty McGrath
No! Are you serious? Talk about irony!
Actually, technically it doesn't. That phrase didn't come about until later, 1802 to be exact when Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church Association.
And yet another inaccuracy ...
A great quote, Mikey Mike, problem is, it's not in the Constitution, which is the law, rather the Declaration of Independence.
So Arx, you're saying that what people do in the privacy of their own home is a civil right? Then what are you arguing against?
It just seems to me that you defeated your own argument.
Arx, this was settled back in 2003.
Arx, those founding fathers were people who practised ceremonial magic (like witches) as Freemasons. George Washington performed a ceremonial magical ritual at the founding of Washington, DC.
What would Jesus do?
Yes, that is a phrase,"separation of church and state" uttered by a founding father --which is what David asked for. Unless you don't consider Thomas Jefferson to to a founding father, which seems odd.
If he felt that way in 1802, but not in 1789, why didn't he make a big fuss about it? And why does the same phrase occur in the writings of James Madison, who actually wrote the First Amendment? I am thinking it's because they'd seen the effect of religious wars in Europe, and didn't want the US to go down that road. Shame it's happening now, in spite of their efforts.
I sincerely doubt you can equate a motion in Supreme Court on the same level as entire countries physically embroiled in mortal combat. Silly liberals, trying to equate things that aren't even remotely on the same plane.
Not nearly as "silly" as the conservatives (like you) who want to equate immorality with being homosexual -- which aren't "even remotely on the same plane".
DRK- a letter written by Jefferson is not a document of law. It was one man's opinion on a subject.
Toasty - Swing and a miss.
WhoAte,
Toasty actually hit it out of the ball park. Let's look at the 1st Amendment again...
Everything that's in bold, prior to the comma, is your freedom FROM religion. This is why...
If it wasn't, you'd have no freedom to PRACTICE religion. The freedom to and freedom from, in this case CAN NOT BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If you weren't free from religion, by default the government could sanction a specific religion, conferring benefits for those who practice it or forcing people to practice it, thereby putting those who don't believe in it, don't want to practice it, or those who practice a different religion at an automatic disadvantage.
Continuing, what does religious nuetrality by our government look like? What does the government not placing no religion over religion look like? Well, it looks like nothing, and nothing doesn't equal something. A great example I read on this vine was, if you're pushing against a wall and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No, of course not. If this wasn't true, the only way the 1st Amendment could work would be to print a disclaimer on every government building, in every government EVERYTHING, saying that the lack of religious content, or whatever, didn't constitute a government sanctioning of Atheism.
To have COMPLETE freedom TO practice your religion, you need COMPLETE freedom FROM all other religions.
Furthermore, whether the words are specifically said within the Constitution doesn't matter. You have a lot of rights guarenteed to you that aren't enumerated, but rather interpreted. You can thank the 9th Amendment for that.
Finally, don't even try to give me that 10th Amendment crap. The 10th Amendment was written prior to the Bill of Rights being applicable to the states. Once we instituted the 14th Amendment, or the "incorporation amendment", the 10th in regards to anything contained within the first nine amendments, became null and void.
Who ate my soup, what you asked was:
DRK gave you the answer. It was used in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, as well as James Madison. The phrase has been quoted by the US Supreme Court in numerous First Amendment rulings.
People please- I asked
"David- where is separation of church and state ever mentioned in the constitution or any other document written by the founders"
I'm looking for the phase "separation of church and state" written into any official document. Jefferson's letter, famous as it is, is not an official document.
WhoAte,
Are you doubting the existance of separation of church and state? If not, why are you asking for an official document containing it? If so, go read my post #4.42. It explains the existance, the necessity, and where that separation is derived from.
Or, stop being willfully obtuse.
The phrase has been "written into" a number of Supreme Court decisions -- and those are pretty "official," I think.
Sarah-3043284, I would like to apply for the position of president of your fan club. I always think, after reading a post of yours, wow - I wanted to say that exact same thing, but probably wouldn't have said it quite as well.
Indy,
Thank you so much, and the position is yours. :)
You guys didn't read what started this, Dave wrote "Bob, well the Founding Fathers put in "Separation of Church and State" for a reason...yet its been completely ignored as it pertains to gays these days." And I asked him where theyever wrote that, that's all. Please quit trying to make me look like the hard-head here. I'm well aware of where people get that at, just because Jefferson said it doesn't make it a law.
WHOATE,
No, it's law because of what my first post says. THAT'S why it's law.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, never mind.
Marshall sounds like a cave man. Interacial marriage acceptance faced the same uphill battle of people telling you how to live.
Well the man has never experienced oral sex, AKA 'sodomy'. It's understandable he'd be niave.
Um, Rob, oral sex is not sodomy.
Yes it is.
Um, flbikerchick, Yes oral sex no matter the gender of either participant, is considered "sodomy". Its not just gay anal sex that is so classified.
man. reading compreshension is not some folks strong suit, is it. Any number of comments can be rebuked just by reading the article.
Um, Rob, oral sex is not sodomy.
Back in the 50's when I was growing up sodomy was legally define in many state statutes as "That foul and detestable cfime against nature," and in many laws it was was defined as any sex act other than insertion of a penis into a vagina.
So yes, oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, lesbian sex, use of sex toys, et al, were considered to be sodomy.
It's incredible to me that in this day and age we are still fighting over basic human rights and a great part of our population being discriminated against because they are gay, old, female, dark skinned, minority, non-religious, unemployed or even poor. What kind of country have these people turned the US into!
It's time we all stand up and put a stop to this! Stop all this corruption, racism and all else NOW!
Unfortunately, the right-wingers in this country have waged a very successful psychological warfare campaign that people (most specifically in the south and mid-west) buy hook, line and sinker. We certainly have the power to get rid of these corrupt clowns. But we have too many people with the ability to vote who are clearly incapable of thinking on their own and are led like sheep by politicians spouting nonsense about abortion, gays and other irrelevant issues. Meanwhile, they are laughing at us as they continue to rob us blind and take away our basic rights.
@Devin o get rid of these corrupt clowns. But we have too many people with the ability to vote who are clearly incapable of thinking on their own and are led like sheep by politicians spouting nonsense about abortion, gays and other irrelevant issues
There's also being led by preachers in the churches..They do what they're told ..,how to vote. Awful
Another big government Republican with then sick need to spy on people in their bedrooms.
So is buggering your cat, but only if you are a politician or lawyer.
I like a little sodomy from time to time.
Who ate my soup
I guess that makes you a silly sod.
Don't we all?
Nothing wrong with that! Don't knock it till you've tried it my friends!
just further proof of the GOP hypocracy thats plaguing their party. Its pure hatred and vitriol from the same party that claims to be Christian. Jesus never taught hatred, intolerance, or bigotry. Instead, he taught compassion, tolerance, and respect for our fellow man. Yes, it does say "admonish" those that partake in homosexuality, however there is a difference between admonishing and ostracizing. People need to get that straight, because when i hear pastors or people that claim to be Christians spewing the kind of vial hatred they have been about gays, they give good Christians a bad name..and further show what the Lord meant when he said ""Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"..or "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."
Funny, all these Republican conservatives who supposedly favor small, unobtrusive government that says out of your life always want to tell you how to live your life.
Stay out of people's life, Mr. Representative.
LMAO now that was awesome! and well put sir! Im not gay, but i have a lot of friends that are...and they are all good, hard working, honest people.
PhillyFan: My thoughts exactly.
You did see the recent article on HuffPo (I think) about a new study, recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that confirmed what many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community have suspected for some time: that homophobic attitudes are likely to be more pronounced among those who’ve experienced unacknowledged attraction towards members of the same sex.
Methinks thou doth protest too much, Mr. Marshall...
It is mind-blowing to me the hang-ups Republicans have with homosexuality. Absolutely amazing. Just goes to show you this nation is DECADES away from becoming a nation of intelligent, free-thinkers instead of bigoted, religious political whores. I'm sure this guy would be 10x a better judge than this scumbag "representative" could ever be.
I love how they talk about "activist judges." Translation: they will do everything in their power to prevent advanced-thinking people from destroying their ignorant ways. But I guarantee you if this US VETERAN had been straight and fought against gay rights, this representative would have his arm around him.
Again, Repubilcans stepping into your bedroom and peaking under the covers. See why Republicans like to blame Democrats for their record of overstepping their bounds? They know exactly what they are doing...taking rights or freedoms away based on their beliefs and only their beliefs. No comprimise dictorial Republicans.
The Christian Taliban in action once again.
Very radical when they enter you bedroom.
....Overheard at the gay bar: "Mind if I push in your stool?"
the reply overheard was ... "only if you are a republican like me"
Lol, a poop joke! How very mature!
Last time I heard that, I fell off my dinosaur.
Beware those who campaign against "immoral behavior." As they are typically guilty of said behaviors behind closed doors, but care more about appealing to hateful people to keep them in office.
And yet they also cannot explain how such behavior hurts anyone else, which is the definition of immoral.
Well, this is what we've elected. Amazes me every friggin' day.
I hate to admit that I now live in Virginia. The "representation" we get from these clowns is unbelievable. I wish that just one of these candidates would run on the basis of being against the status quo. Ah, to dream the impossible dream!
Me, too. Everyday it is another shaking head moment with these people. This country is trying to move forward, but you get people on the right who continue with this archaic and backward thinking and they pander to the weak minded tea party folks(my belief) who are so deep in their denial and beliefs that the road is going to be an uphill battle for a long time. People need to stand up against this and some of the other crap that the conservative party is throwing at us. Show them how wrong they are at the polls come November! If we don't try to stem the flow, this country will bleed out because of folks like them. Enough is enough!
Obama/Biden 2012 FORWARD!
Shane C,
Well, thats what you get when you keep on voting the same people/parties back into power even when you know they fvck everything up! THE PROBLEM MAKERS WILL NEVER BE THE PROBLEM SOLVERS! This is why we need to dump the reps and dems and vote new blood in. There are more than 350 MILLION people to choose from! We don't need to accept the offerings of these 2 present parties as they've sold out- and not to the American people. REBEL WITH WRITE IN VOTES IF NECESSARY!!!!
That is like putting an ex con on the bench. No matter what he says this yahoo would feel compassion for a fellow gay defendant and rule in his favor. Couldn't help it.
Deviant lifestyles have their price.
Deviant to whom? You and your nanna? Who are you to define deviant? Would not a homophobic judge be an equal liability passing judgement impartially?
Looks like you intentionally went for dumbest comment yet.
Are you being serious right now?
I totally agree Jim. We should get all the white male judges off the bench - they can't help but feel compassion for fellow white men.
I'm always happy when morons post (and yes, being unable to extend your own pathetic reasoning past your irrational bigotry does make you a moron), I get to feel better about myself.
Voting is like driving. If you want to go backward, choose R. If you want to go forward, choose D.
Jim,
What a stupid comment- no matter how one reads it.
You know its just "common sense" Anal sex is just way off. i wouldn't put my hand in feces(crap),why would i want to put any other body part in it... Your anus is a exhaust port,not a focus of "love". God help us...
Sodomy includes oral sex also so if you've ever had that pleasure from a female, you to are guilty of sodomy. Maybe you can answer this - why is anal sex the only thing folks that are against gays bring up? It almost seems that there are a lot of latent 'foot tappers' that protest too loudly.
I hear ya old man. I feel the same way. But it is not for us to judge others' preferences.
Maybe you should take that up with GOP-er Diaper David Vitter. Is it really the feces that bothers you, or the fact that they're out of the closet? Hm?
Nowhere near 100% of gay men even engage in anal sex. Did you know that?
A lot of couples (and we're talking about hetero couples as well here, just to be clear) who enjoy anal sex use enemas and stuff to flush all that stuff out before doing it. Think about one of the gay stereotypes you've probably been exposed to: very meticulous and clean, right? Isn't it kind of weird to imagine those guys getting knuckles deep in poo? Well, maybe they're really meticulous and clean when it comes to their orifices as well. Ever think of that? No, I'm sure you'd prefer not to.
Now, personally, butt stuff is not my cup of tea, but if someone else digs it - be they gay OR straight - good for them.
You do realize that sodomy is anything BUT intercourse, right? Now, tell that to any hetro couple and see what they tell you. You might just want to use a bit of common sense cause there's NOT a judge/jury anywhere that can justifibly set in judgement UNLESS they're a virgin.
How many of you all have had your girlfriend/wife/husband/boyfriend engage in something OTHER than intercourse?
Old people have a tendency to die off. That is why support of gay rights is consistently increasing. I hate to admit it, but most won't miss you Old Man.
Hey, I'm 70 years old and straight. We have gay members of our family and several friends who are gay. We just never have chosen to care who anybody sleeps with as a criteria for including them in our lives. Quit the generalizations about old people!
Jean,
Good for you for being open minded. But I am not sure which generalization you are objecting to from EngEsq: the one about old people having a tendency of dying off or the increase in support for equal rights for the LBGT community.
If it is the latter, then I believe that EngEsq implication's is statistically correct. If you look at the polling on people's opinions about the acceptance of homosexuality by age groups, the strongest resistance is amoung older people and trends towards acceptance as you go down in age groups to where for 20 and unders this is a none-issue.
But as an interesting anecdote, I once heard a elderly gay rights advocate make the interesting point that eventually it will be the grandparents who finally bring the acceptance of the inherant equality of gays and lesbians. His argument was that as gay couples settle down into fixed couples and start to raise families, the new grandparents of the childern of gay parents will be forced to confront the realities of descrimination agianst gays in a whole new way and be changed by thier love for grandchildern. Nice idea, hope it comes to pass.
.
So do young gay men Eng. Neither will be missed.
And how do you pee OLD MAN? Try an enema. I vomitted a few times but I still kiss my wife, timing is everything.
On the one hand I'm kind of proud of Bob Marshall for having the balls to say he's voting against this guy because he's gay. On the other hand, fuc* you Bob Marshall.
Now we can combine 2 laws which are in the news now. Stand Your Ground and Sodomy. You can't have one without the other.
I just feel kind of bad for the dude, since he's apparently not getting BJ's at home.
Kyle,
And if he were, he'd be guilty of sodomy!!! :-)
And people, can we please stay on topic. It's not about whether gay is right or wrong, it's about whether it should disqualify you from a job...which it should not.
The Selective Campaign for Human Rights.
Same-sex activists claim a fundamental right to sodomize one another, but trample on the fundamental right of children to be born to a mother and a father.
Mark Adams Brown
San Angelo, Texas
May 17, 2012
So what would you say about unwed mothers, or single parents? Kind of goes against your mantra, doesn't it? Also, if I had my choice I'd put the Constitutional Rights of two ACTUAL people over what you perceive as the rights of people not yet even in existence.
everyone has a mother and a father. That's just genetics. Whether they are both around is circumstance. Your opinion is oversimplified and offensive to anyone who had to divorce an abusive spouse or raise a child alone. None of them wanted that. That's just how it worked out. Go away and think about trying empathy for once.
Mark: can you quote for me the part of the Constitution that guarantees children the right to be born to a father and a mother? Thanks.
Jacobs, you make no sense and your comment is idiotic. You try to cast me in a bad light like I'm some villain by misconstruing my words and then saying I lack empathy. The people that gave your comment a check are even more moronic than you are.
I'm not saying it doesn't take a male and female (or at least their DNA) to make a baby. I don't know how you even though I was, but I'm not saying anything against unwed mothers or single parents, in fact, my original comment was asserting that it's Mark Brown that feels that way.
The main point of my comment was that real people have civil rights, not imaginary people that are not even conceived yet.
Why don't you re-read what I actually said and try for some comprehension? Go away and try for some literacy.
Hey Jacobs, surprise surprise, children of GAY couples have a mother and a father too, even if one of them is not around. And many times, all of them are around. Or the child is unwanted by either and they are adopted. I've had step dads and a step mom. Does that mean my family should be denied rights because we are not traditional?
Why are you guys going after Jacobs? The way I read his post he is supporting your positions and attacking Browns!
Hey Mark, my father died when I was a child. Why didn't you demand the government take me away from my mother and give me to a household with two parents? After all, you seem to think it's a fundamental right.
Good point, Dave. It looked on my other computer like it was under my comment. Sorry, Jacobs!
Mark
if you would bother to read the article you would notice that the right to sodomize one another was not limited to being gay, just that it be between consenting adults.
and where do you come up with this malarky about trampling the rights of childern to have a mother and father? the institute of dubious thinking? in my experience, most kids just want to be loved and cared for and don't really thing about the gender of the care giver.
I suggest you stop going around and sticking your tongue in wall sockets.
Sodomy is not only homosexual - what a dumbass.
This is shameful. I will tell you, I am not for gay marriage. However, to say someones sexual orientation has anything at all to do with them being an impartial judge is just crud. EVERYONE has preformed opinions on topics. EVERY person ever nominated to be a judge goes in with baggage. What should be an issue is has this man shown behavior that would point to him not being able to act impartially according to his oath of office as a judge?
His sexuality should not be part of this equation. Just completely unacceptable that it would be.
Is bigotry a civil right? Not when you try to enforce it.
All I have to say to this fellow is, "I'm sorry your wife is boring."
What you should say is, "Sorry your wife is bored."
Just tell your bored wife," Hey Honey! Let's try some sodomy tonight!"