Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org), urged potential Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan, Republican Reps. David Dreier and Patrick McHenry, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist… to answer the question: “Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?”
“In an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that constituents should be left guessing as to whether a judicial nominee or politician has a special, personal interest in homosexuality,” LaBarbera said. “Speculation is rife over whether potential Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a practicing lesbian. Kagan has a radical pro-homosexual record, including fighting to keep military recruiters off the Harvard campus because the military bars homosexuals. So Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.“
Note that LaBarbera isn’t saying that Kagan shouldn’t be a judge because she’s a closeted lesbian, he’s saying that she shouldn’t be a judge because she’s a lesbian, period. He’s arguing that she would be too biased in favor of a pro-gay perspective to rule fairly and objectively.
But why stop there? Why not ban all female judges because they would be too biased in favor of other women, and all minority judges because they would be too biased in favor of other minorities? In fact, we should only allow straight white men to be judges, because only straight white men can be trusted to be perfectly objective and untouched by identity politics at all times.
(As a side note, I got an extra-special kick out of LaBarbera’s statement that “Homosexuals’ privacy interests simply do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their representatives and judges,” considering how hard his fellow homophobes are pushing their own privacy interests to try to keep “defense-of-marriage” ballot petition signatures secret.)