Fg68at,

Interesting that you bring up Judge Walker. Oddly enough, I though he was absolutely correct in working to defend the right of the US Olympic Committee to restrict use of its name as it wishes. Even though it was a bigoted decision on their part (everyone except the Gay Olympics was allowed), they should have the right to be biased if they wish.

(Just as the Boy Scouts should have the right to make decisions that lose them public support, preferential city deals, and United Way funds. And just like the Ancient Order of Hibernians are entitled to restrict the St. Patricks Day Parade to anyone on the planet (be they Irish or anything else) just so long as they are heterosexual. You should always have the right to look and act like a raging hateful loon, so long as you don’t do it with my money or special considerations from my government.)

And you are right. If Judge Walker sides with Olson/Boies (who clearly made a better case than the rather poor effort by anti-marriage advocates), those opposed to marriage equality will say, “it’s because he’s gay and biased towards their militant homosexual agenda”.

But absolutely no one made that connection with lesbian Justice Carol Corrigan who did not find for marriage in the CA Supreme Court ruling ruling. Clearly she “wasn’t biased” because she ruled the way they wished.

Sadly, too often we measure the decisions of others through prisms of our own biases.

It is good? It is a little problem. When he say yes, the conservative would come out and say: “Clearly. It’s because he is gay. He is in the gay agenda.”

When it is a yes, then it would be nicer when it is a (liberal?) heterosexual judge. Then this is not an argument after.

Oh, i have his name: Vaughn R. Walker Walker is one of only two known gay federal judges.

Morality is a very broad issue and its impact on public policy is important to assess: e.g. freedom in business vs. greed and exploitation.

“Keeping your morals out of my life” is a popular phrase in these discussions, but with public education, increasing taxation, unfunded federal mandates and so on; a federal set of “morals” are being imposed on all of us. They are less specific that the Christian Right set of morals, but the are morals nonetheless.

If Kagan’s sexuality (actually she is straight, but for the sake of argument, if she is a lesbian) is an expression of her moral corruption and makes her unqualified…then the morals issue should be invoked on all judges: “have they been unfaithful, did they have sex before marriage, have they been divorced, and so on?” Clarence Thomas might be excluded due to his divorce…but not due to his interracial marriage.

To resurrect a painful argument: If Henry Hay were being appointed a Supreme Court Justice, we might be concerned with some of his attitudes about intergenerational sex. Intergenerational sex is a moral issue.

“I certainly am not suggesting that one’s private behaviors NEVER have any impact on anyone else”

Pardon me, but you are seeing this way too melodramatically

Perhaps.

I certainly am not suggesting that one’s private behaviors ever have any impact on anyone else.

But in the context in which you used the phase, it begins to sounds a lot like Peter LaBarbera:

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America.