We Could Support Gay SCOTUS, But Not One With "Pro-Gay Ideology"

The caption of this post describes recent remarks attributed to Focus on the Family and Family Research Council in connection with the opening on the U. S. Supreme Court arising from David Souter's announced retirement. Do I believe it? No - I don't believe anything that either of these organizations say unless it is a statement that they detest gays and will do all in their power to depict us as sub-human. Why then these remarks? Perhaps its merely a smoke screen given the disastrous anti-gay marriage campaign of the National Organization for Marriage which was become a comical farce and hence the efforts of FOTF and FRC to appear less whacked out than they truly are once one looks at their websites and historic agendas. Moreover, I suspect that a "pro-gay ideology" would encompass anything other than one hiding in the closest and/or someone riddled with internalized homophobia. It will be interesting to see how quickly FOTF and FRC show their true colors. Here are highlights:

*

Yesterday I reported that the religious right group Focus on the Family said that they wouldn’t oppose an openly-gay nominee to the Supreme Court on the basis of their sexual orientation. Now a second top religious right organization, Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, is declaring something similar — it’s a shift in emphasis from its harder-line stance against gay judges two years ago, and another sign of the changing times. To be sure, the group is hedging a bit. Its position : Being gay would not in and of itself rule out getting the group’s support, though having a “pro-gay ideology” would.

*

“But if a person does publicly identify as gay or lesbian, or particularly if a person has been involved with homosexual rights activism at any level, then there would have to be serious questions asked about whether he or she would impose a pro-gay ideology on the court.” Sprigg added that homosexuality in and of itself would not be a “determinant” against the acceptability of the nominee.

*
That’s not as hard-line as two years ago, when the Family Research Council argued: “We don’t accept that homosexuality is any kind of cultural identity that should be sought in a judge.” To be sure, it’s unlikely that either of these groups would support any Obama nominee, simply because of philosophical differences. But the unwillingness of these groups to rule out opposition to an openly-gay nominee is a big sign of how much things have shifted towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

*
Goups that see homosexuality as a fundamentally illegitimate and morally questionable lifestyle are no longer willing to say openly that its a disqualifier from serving on the highest court.