NOM BLOG

California Asks Judges: Gay or Straight?

 

A precursor to "affirmative action" for gays and lesbians?

In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.

“[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation,” reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A copy of Price’s was obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

... “Yes, the e-mail is authentic and accurate,” Carrizosa confirmed in an email. “The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.” -- The Weekly Standard

28 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    This is what tyranny looks like folks.

    Now we see this decadent horde of miscreants is demanding preferential hiring practices that are based soley on what you like to rub your reproductive organs against.

  2. Little man
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    So, they've gone from distinctions which can potentially be verified through genetics, to those which cannot. Big leap! Government believes in itself, so powerful they can even create reason.

  3. Ash
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    And to think Judge White said that gays and lesbians "lack meaningful political power."

  4. Ash
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Since being "gay" is rather subjective, unlike being a woman or being Black, we'd have to take the word of a White, male, heterosexual judge who claims he is gay in order to benefit from the new sexual orientation quota.

  5. Davide
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    ok this is really gay

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    A note to CA nutcases:

    Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

  7. TC Matthews
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Good point Barb.

  8. Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    With all due respect, I thought individuals who self-label as "gay" or "lesbian" wanted the govt. to stay out of their bedrooms. Now they're being forced to publicly declare their sexuality? I'm with Barb. This is tyranny.

  9. TC Matthews
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    What ever happened to common decency? Privacy? Don't judges deserve respect? I don't care one way or another what someone's sexual orientation is. Martin Luther King said it's the quality of the person, not the label, that really matters.

  10. Andrew
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Since when are we all sheepled into categories by label? Typical government meddling. What people do in their homes, and private lives, has nothing to do with their qualifications for judgeship. Let people have private lives. Good grief.

  11. Peter Thames
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Wasn't NOM interested in the sexual orientation of the first prop 8 judge?

  12. TC Matthews
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Not at all. NOM cared that the judge had a personal interest he didn't disclose. Big difference.

  13. ResistSSA
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    If they do this for judges, the should do the same for jobs in the media and in film, television and entertainment. Time to let some heterosexuals into those fields for a change.

  14. Bruce
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Efforts to ensure judges actually represent all Californians are tyrannical? Sounds like the OPPOSITE of tyranny to me.

  15. ResistSSA
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Let's make sure the pedophiles are represented, too. After all, the animus against that group is far greater than than against homosexuals and their political power is markedly lower than homosexuals. And Polish immigrants, let's make sure we have an adequate representation of Polish immigrants. And vegans! Yes, vegans! And Christia...no, no, no Christians....

    Honestly the attention and money being paid for a tiny minority of people who are sexually confused is remarkable. This country is so done.

  16. David Argue
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    I didn't think employers were allowed to ask these questions

  17. Posted February 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    "Efforts to ensure judges actually represent all Californians are tyrannical? Sounds like the OPPOSITE of tyranny to me."

    When identity politics is valued above constitutionality and blind justice.

  18. Louis E.
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    "Most qualified" should act to the complete exclusion of "have a similar demographic composition to" when one chooses those who "represent all".For decades now the only United States Senators from Hawaii have been Asian/Pacific Island males with the first name Daniel and middle initial K who were born in the second six days of September 1924...that doesn't mean other Hawaiians are "unrepresented".

    I think active involvement in a same-sex sexual relationship should be classed as moral turpitude disqualifying someone from appointment to the bench.

  19. Marilyn Theel
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Judges are supposed to be impartial but anymore the judges are making their own rules based on media hype. God created marriage between man (Adam) and female (Eve). They were created in the image of God. God did not create homosexuals or bisexuals.

  20. roger
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Why don't they ask about Scat, Golden Showers or other sexual predilections?

  21. John N.
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    What really needs to be looked at is what phony number are they going to demand represent them.
    They have long parroted the lie that 10% of the population is homosexual when in fact no more than 2% of the population is.
    Look for them to seek unfair representation in this endeaver. They have infiltrated the legal profession and are seeking to use judicical activism to impose their views on society and bypass democracy.

  22. Fedele Razio
    Posted February 25, 2012 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    Do we need any further evidence that gay ideology is totalitarian?

  23. Posted February 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Don't Ask, Don't Tell

  24. Leviticus
    Posted February 25, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    The homosexual recruitment process has begun. What children need to say before they can get a job.

  25. SC Guy
    Posted February 26, 2012 at 2:55 am | Permalink

    California sinks ever deeper into the abyss.

  26. C Warren
    Posted February 26, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    My proposal http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/we-must-be-gay

  27. QueerNE
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    I like how everyone get's all up in arms about this, but not that there were inclusions of gender and race.

  28. TC Matthews
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    I don't think they should care one bit what race or gender people are. It doesn't matter. What does matter is how well they do their job. That is well disputed territory. What's new is adding sexual orientation--- something that cannot possibly be measured, and which is only known by choice of action, not some scientific thing. It's ridiculous, insulting, and completely unnecessary.