that was actually my point too :3
Also Virginia Republicans Deny Judgeship to Gay Prosecutor.
According to The New York Times' Sabrina Tavernise, Thorne-Begland received 33 "yes" votes to 31 "nays," in a vote held in the early hours on Tuesday morning, but needed a 51-vote majority of all the House delegates to be approved. All 31 nay votes came from Republicans, who claimed that Thorne-Begland's lifestyle and support for gays causes would make it impossible for him to be impartial.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha!!!all 31 nay votes came from republicans, who claimed that thorne-begland's lifestyle and support for gays causes would make it impossible for him to be impartial.
Wait... They were SERIOUS???
Last edited by Malanu; 16th May 2012 at 2:09 AM.
Who was turned away? I hadn't heard about this?
This is embarrassing! A nation founded on religious freedom, banning religious freedom! I'm going to have to rethink my political support. Can't stand the Dems, Loosing faith in the Reps... maybe its time to support Alfred E Newman again!
Last edited by Malanu; 16th May 2012 at 2:37 AM.
Anyways, all Republicans who opposed said he would not be impartial? How ironic.
Anyways about the article, here's Bob Marshall on why he denied the prosecutor.
Oh god, this is facepalm worthy.“He holds himself out as being married,” Marshall said, according to the Post. In Virginia, where gay marriage is not legal, he said Thorne-Begland’s “life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the (state) Constitution.”
I can't see the video thanks to work restrictions on Flash and other players...
I can't get behind any reason to decline a gay Judge because he may not be impartial! Unless he has shown a pattern of bias Outside of gay issues. Otherwise how impartial would a christian judge be regarding law and christian upbringing?
Big I did a little reading (lots more before I actually make a choice), Every state to have made bans against the Sharia Law are Republican. Now I do need to look into the reason some more. Cause I am seeing some reasons that sound acceptable. Our law is The Constitution and all articles. I can see paying attention to other religious laws and such, but only till they come in conflict with the laws of this nation. If this is what the Reps are trying to get accomplished then I'm am in agreement. But I need to read some more.
Last edited by Malanu; 16th May 2012 at 3:08 AM.
"Del. ROBERT MARSHALL, (R-Va.): He displayed a pattern of behavior that was inconsistent with what we have come to expect in Virginia judges. We've never appoint – I've been there 21 years. We've never appointed an activist of any kind along these lines, much less somebody who has a long history of this.
For example, he had to misstate his background in order to be received into the military in the late 1980s. There was a specific question. Are you a homosexual? He had to say no. He took an oath of office, which he had to defy. There were regulations he defied on going on television, there were superior orders of officers, there's a uniform code of military justice. In 2004 in Richmond Magazine, he made a blanket statement condemning the entire judiciary of the Commonwealth of Virginia as being overtly hostile to homosexuals and lesbians."
Take it for what its worth, but I think from the way they are making it out, its less about his lifestyle and more about his activism and willingness to break codes and past statements that made people vote against him.
He wanted to serve his country, and at the time the only way to do so was if one was straight. So a lie to be able to serve the greater good. Well The state of Virginia hasn't sounded to complacent so making a stand sometimes requires doing things such as speaking out for what is right and ... wait for it, Just!
I think its funny that the same people who are throwing a fit over the Virginia legislature not accepting this quite obviously vocal, activist judge are the exact same people who threw a fit when the Republicans nominated a different vocal activist, Rush Limbaugh, for the hall of fame. I think they're both hypocrites.
I think that common saying about revolutionaries never really playing by the rules would apply here, with that argument.
They do have a point that judges need to uphold the law, rather than make decisions based solely on their personal moral code. But honestly, everyone is an activist in one way or another, and many of judges, including the two that they did agree on, have been vocal about other causes. I'm not at all going to cry "HOMOPHOBIA", but it does seem a bit hypocritical. I've read the interviews where some legislators have said "Hey, this guy was way more over-the-top vocal about his activism than we're comfortable with", and that may actually be the case, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that.
Obviously, the people who are vehemently against gay people having any sort of rights are going to go with the former, not necessarily because they agree with that concept over the other, but because it's in their own specific interests to do so. It still boils down to whether or not gay people should be subjected to the same kinds of limitations as straight people -- and if so, why?