The Right on Roberts

All the talk of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts doing some pro bono work on the landmark Romer v. Evans case has some on the Religious Right going crazy. The whole case says a lot more about how the far right feels about gays than it does about Roberts. Case in point, this little screed by World Net Daily's Joseph Farrah. Let's do some fisking, shall we?

"...last week, the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Roberts had volunteered his services – pro bono – to help prepare a landmark homosexual activist case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. He did his job well. But he didn't serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.

The 1996 Romer vs. Evans case produced what the homosexual activists considered, at the time, its most significant legal victory, paving the way for an even bigger one – Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively overturned all laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States.

What he didn't say is that Romer allowed people to discriminate against gays and lesbians and not have to worry about the state coming after them. They could deny gays housing and they could fire them from their jobs.

"Keep in mind the intent and result of this case. It overturned a provision of the Colorado Constitution that blocked special rights for people based on their sexual proclivities."

Well, I just told you, this is not about "Special Rights." I mean people have to have a place to live and money to put food on the table. I don't know how that is considered "special."

"This was not just an "intellectual exercise," as some have suggested. Roberts' actions had real impact on the future of our nation.

He ought to be ashamed of himself as a self-proclaimed Catholic. In some dioceses, he would be denied communion for his betrayal of his faith.

He ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.

Sad. Tragic. Pathetic."

No, what's sad, tragic and pathetic is that there are people like Mr. Farah. People who hide their bigotry behind words like morals and values. He doesn't give a damn if people lose their homes or jobs because they are gay. He doesn't care that people even lose their children because they are attracted to the same sex. He thinks it's okay for the police to enter a person's home and arrest them for basically having sex with someone of the same sex. He doesn't care if one partner of the same sex is barred from seeing their loved on in a hospital. This is not conservatism, at least not the conservatism of Edmund Burke. It is nothing more than pure bigotry and thanks for Mr. Farah for showing himself and others like James Dobson to be the hatful thugs that they really are.

Richard Cohen has a great piece on the Roberts issue as well.