Homocon

Of course, our boy W. had to go nominate a Supreme Court Justice while I was on vacation (the nerve!), so the 24/7 cable-chatter shows paused briefly from Natalee Holloway and focused, instead, on Judge Roberts and the form letters of far-left dissent which were shunted out immediately to every media outlet this side of Baghdad.

Because this is Homocon.com, I thought it might prove enlightening to sort through the paranoid ravings of the gay left for reactions, and here is what I found: The Advocate (the leading gay news magazine, for those unfamiliar with GBLTXPORVT politics) declares breathlessly (in their SUMMER SEX ISSUE, to boot) that "the glee of antigay activists over this pick (of Judge Roberts) is reason enough to worry", unsurprisingly neglecting to cite one single example of the so-called gleeful, antigay activists, then adding, "While Judge Roberts may not have an antigay paper trail, we need to be engaged and vocal about his nomination."

I see.

In essence, The Advocate admits that there's nothing antigay to be vocal about, but go ahead and create a lot of outraged bellowing anyway, you know, because Republicans are eeeeeee-villllllll and they're going to try to slide one right past everyone, just like they tried to do with Robert Bork, the sleazy bastards. Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Campaign (the Gay and Lesbian Animal Rights Campaign can't be far behind), dressed herself up in her best hyperbole and called the prospect of a Bush Supreme Court appointment (any Bush Supreme Court appointment, mind you, not just the one currently on offer), “chilling", the National Organization for Women declared a state of emergency (snort!) and Lambda Legal, the self-appointed guardian for the rights of gays throughout the universe (I guess), stated: "The Bush Administration has, from its inception, worked diligently to appoint to the federal bench right-wing ideologues who are well outside the judicial mainstream."

I suppose the definition of right wing ideologue depends upon whose ideologies you're using as a yardstick.

But when critics of judicial appointees by the Bush administration buttress their arguments by calling the Libertarian CATO Institute "ultra-right", then there's obviously no intention or willingness on their part to engage in a rational debate regarding substantive merits (or lack thereof) of any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court.

"President Bush has been anything but a friend to fair-minded Americans," whines Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, engaging in a cheap knockoff of analytical thought. "We must know if (Judge Roberts) support(s) Congress’s power to enact legislation that protects gay and transgender Americans from discrimination and violence."

Must we? Well, then, Joe -- I'll let you in on a little not-so-secret: gay Americans are protected from violence by already existing laws that cover everyone, laws which Judge Roberts currently upholds in his seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals. And regarding alleged discriminations of homosexuals, it's actually a matter of ongoing debate as to what constitutes real discrimination ("Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit") against gay men and women, since gays can vote, hold public office, attend most any university they can get into, apply for and receive federal loans, grants and endowments, open their own businesses, travel around the world, purchase property in any neighborhood, hold press conferences, hire the best plastic surgeons, write for newspapers, news shows, Broadway plays, television and movies (while also appearing on and in many of the same), take advantage of the justice system to right criminal wrongs, ride right on top of the bus (not to mention at the front of it) and start their own blowhard blogs (Hi, Bruce!).

I'm sure I've left something out.

Personally, I've lived all around the country -- Michigan, Arkansas, North Carolina, Colorado, Georgia, New York and Washington -- and I've never been denied or lost employment, housing, educational opportunities or invitations for social/career advancement because I'm gay, and I've been openly gay for twenty years, so it's not like I was or am hiding it from anyone. If there were a national scourge of gay discrimination running rampant throughout America (as the professional gay organizations who depend upon donations from fearful gay men and women would like everyone to believe), I would have most certainly run smack into it by now, yet somehow I've only felt safer and more secure in the United States as time has progressed and homosexuality has become just the latest cover story to boost sales for national magazines.

Does that mean that no gay person ever falls victim to discrimination of some sort? Of course not -- discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes and is leveled at pretty much any moving target (race or color; religion; national origin; sex; marital status; income; handicap; age and family status) , not just against homosexuals. But is antigay discrimination against gay men and women unusual, or is it the norm? Because if it's unusual, as I believe it is, then there's little reason for advocates of homosexuality to even enter their two bits into the SCOTUS evaluation process. A seat on the Supreme Court is about the law, the interpretation of the law and the enforcement of the rights of states to dig their own legal foundations -- it should never be about prevailing, and inevitably temporary, social deconstructions.

Pro-Choice groups, Gay groups and other single-issue voters want to know every detail of Roberts' personal opinions regarding the issues they hold dear, but Justice Roberts, as a nominee for the Supreme Court and not an applicant for a weekend baby-sitting job, should be evaluated based upon his knowledge of the Constitution, the framework of law, the legal processes that led him to the decisions he has previously reached as a judge, how he commended himself as an attorney, and his respect or disrespect for his clients, for legal precedence and for legal jurisprudence in general.

Otherwise, we're just gonna get some crazy s**t like this again, and I am not - in - the - mood (maybe Roberts should just Ginsberg everybody in the Senate and get the darn thing over with).