Prop 8 backers now free to insert names into pre-written ‘—, —, & — are judicial activists’ press releases

Screen Shot 2010-11-29 At 3.04.38 PmThe Ninth Circuit panel that will hear the Prop 8 appeal (December 6 at 10:00 a.m Pacific time) will consist of Stephen Reinhardt, Michael D. Hawkins, and N. Randy Smith, per an announcement this morning. And not surprisingly, social conservatives are already starting to worry/spin the “judicial activist” meme.

This from Ed Whelan:

Reinhardt (appointed by President Carter in 1980) may well be the most aggressive liberal judicial activist in the nation—and the most reversed judge in history. Hawkins, a 1994 Clinton appointee, is also regularly on the Left on the Ninth Circuit. Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, is much more of a judicial conservative.

With two hard-core liberals, the panel is a fairly typical Ninth Circuit draw—which is to say, a bad one for supporters of Prop 8.

ED WHELAN: Bad Ninth Circuit Panel for Prop 8 Appeal [NRO]

Of course the truly bad draw for supporters of Prop 8: Supporting Prop 8 at all! Every other “win” or “loss” is but a contrivance.

Good As You

—  admin

“The first black president should [insert assumption]”

Newsweek just published a mostly astute piece by Jacob Weisbert about Obama’s failure of moral leadership on civil rights issues like immigration, Islamophobia and LGBT rights. Joe posted it here. But there is one sentence that I have an issue with:

How dismal that America’s first black president will be remembered as shirking the last great civil-rights struggle.

Now, I agree that Obama should show more moral courage in addressing civil rights issues, but the “first black president” reference always grates on me, and I hear it a lot. It’s almost obligatory these days, as in “the first black president” should do this or “the first black president” should stand for that. Using this phrase in this context is evaluating someone on the basis of a physical characteristic. Granted, it’s not as egregious as tea partiers showing pictures of watermelons on the white house lawn, but it’s troubling nonetheless.

The problem I have with this phrase is the assumption that Obama will be more understanding of struggles against prejudice because he has had to struggle with it himself. Well, maybe he will, and maybe he won’t. (Look at Clarence Thomas.) We should expect every president to stand up for equal treatment under the law, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation.

No one wants to perceived as a token, nor should they be. I know I would be uncomfortable if people were constantly telling me “as a lesbian you should understand” or “as a gay person, how can you…”, even if the attribute I am assumed to share is a positive one. Once you start making assumptions and grouping people according to physical characteristics, it’s a small step to assuming negative attributes, like “lesbians just need a good f*!%” or “all gays are child molesters.”

I think Obama deserves criticism. But people should be judged as individuals on the basis of their actions, not whether they conform to a stereotype, even if that stereotype can arguably be construed as positive. Maybe that sentiment sounds trite, but it doesn’t make it less true.


—  John Wright

New CWA church insert: Aims at the heart, since the mind will surely be blown

The following Concerned Women For America church bulletin insert is not only offensive because of its aggressive tale of homosexuality needing to be “sacrificed to God” in the way that a father might theoretically sacrifice his son. But also look at the way they are pushing it on people:

Screen Shot 2010-09-03 At 10.55.14 Am


“Aims at the heart”? “Demands a sincere response from anyone seeking to please God”? Of course they say all this while completely shutting out any scientific evidence or theological interpretation that diverges from their own faith-based biases. Oy!

Have a look at what CWA wants churches to tell congregants:

The Preeminence of God

Good As You

—  John Wright