It's time for an openly gay or lesbian justice on the Supreme Court — gay rights activists, get on that, please

by CynthiaYockey on April 9, 2010

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced this morning that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term in June or June. Justice Stevens began his service on the Supreme Court on Dec. 17, 1975. He will turn 90 on April 20.

Gay rights activists have been passive about the treacheries to their legislative objectives for equality by Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. They should have been screaming their heads off, pointing out that blacks and women got equality during the Viet Nam war and assorted economic crises so there’s no time like the present for gay equality, and then stopping all work for and donations to any Democrat until they spent the half hour it would take to pass the required legislation and sign it into law.

Well, while I understand Mark Steyn’s objections to the stamp collection paradigm of diversity, IT IS TIME FOR AN OPENLY LESBIAN OR GAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

So, Democratic gay rights activists — get on that, please. Tell Obama and the Democrats it is put up or shut up time.


Here’s the transcript of Mark Steyn on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” on Thursday, April 8, 2010, making the “stamp collection” remark (boldfacing mine):

HH: Now I also have to bring up the delicious irony that came across my desk today. Asian-American Democrats are criticizing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for favoring a white former Congressman from Hawaii over the Asian-American state senate president in a hotly contested special election to represent a majority of a minority Hawaiian district. I had the Republican challenger, Charles Djou on yesterday,, but what do you make of this, Mark Steyn? The Democrats divided, and they’re going with the old, white guy.

MS: Yeah, I know. It’s rather heartening in a way.

HH: Yes, it is.

MS: Frank Rich wrote a ridiculous column, even by his own impressive standards, a couple of weeks ago…

HH: (laughing)

MS: …saying that the only reason guys like me and you oppose Obamacare is because we’re uncomfortable with a black president and a female Speaker, and a wise Latina on the Supreme Court, and gay Barney Frank as a powerful Congressional committee chairman. So it’s good to know that the Democrats are now finding one old, heterosexual, white guy that we can be opposed to as well.

HH: (laughing)

MS: I love it when identity politics starts devouring itself. And I say bring it on.

HH: It is…

MS: I’m tired of identity politics, and I’d rather, you know, I’m interested in individual liberty and rights for individuals. And I can’t stand this kind of stamp collector’s view of diversity, that a modern political movement only counts if it’s got one of everything.

Be sure to read the entire transcript at Radio Blogger.

By the way, I’m not kidding here: IT IS TIME FOR AN OPENLY GAY OR LESBIAN JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. On account of our stamp being the only one in the collection that does NOT have all those rights for individuals and the liberty that straight people have.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Liz April 9, 2010 at 11:08 pm

It’s not like I don’t love the idea of throwing this into the faces of the left – “you want diversity? Why not fight for it for yourselves, you self loather?” Thank you for the idea. There is nothing better than using someone else’s awful “principles” against them.

It’s just that I can’t support those principles myself. The person who is appointed to the SCOTUS needs to be the best person for the job. Sexual orientation, race, gender, whatevs, should be irrelevent. I’m not calling for a Protestant to balance out the 8 Catholics, for instance.

Cynthia Yockey April 10, 2010 at 9:06 am


I’m still serious that a gay or lesbian WOULD be the best choice, but now I want the candidate to be Protestant, too.

Heterosexuality is an all-encompassing world-view and straight people HAVE NO IDEA how much they shove their sexual orientation in our faces every second of the day, so they really have no concept of privacy about one’s sexual life AND THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. One of the most obvious signs of this is saying, “You shouldn’t talk about what you do in the bedroom.” Oh, really, straight person? You just freely talked about your spouse and children and activities you did together — how do you NOT KNOW that you just talked about your sex life? Because you would for darn sure think I was talking about my sex life if I did the same thing talking about a same-sex spouse. And if a gay or lesbian member of the military chats about going to a movie with a same-sex date, then they are thrown out of the military because the choice of the date ALONE says something about what people do in the bedroom.

It matters. There should be an openly gay or lesbian Protestant justice on the Supreme Court. There IS someone at least as qualified as Sonia Sotomayor. (Conservatives: stop laughing!) And the gay and lesbian community ought to be screaming bloody murder RIGHT NOW that IT IS OUR TURN! Because it is. And cases deciding whether or not gays and lesbians will be equal citizens ARE Constitutional and WILL come before the court. The justices should have a colleague whose comprehension of those issues is deep, wide and personal.


Liz April 11, 2010 at 11:14 am

It’s not that I disagree with you on the whole “throwing it in peoples’ faces” thing. Isn’t it amazing how it only ever applies to Teh Straits? When Teh Gheyz say the same thing, suddenly, for many people, it’s shocking and overtly sexual. Because it’s totally our fault that the first thing they hear when someone says “I went to dinner and a movie with X last night” is “imagine us having sex! I’m currupting your children!”

However, what you are saying comes perilously close to the idea that certain groups can only be represented by people of the same group – people who understand them. I’d rather have someone who rules in favor of gay equality because, y’know, it’s part of the law than someone who acts out of “empathy”. I don’t much care what they do in their spare time, or how they feel about LGBTs, so long as they actually apply the law – which I believe favors our side. If the case comes before the SCOTUS, then I believe (hope?) that we can make the case to the 8 straight Justices and whoever is appointed next.

Cynthia Yockey April 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm


I’m really not asking for a judge’s empathy. I’m insisting on a judge who has the ability to see us as equals, as truly human and therefore endowed with inalienable rights. So far we have not had a lot of luck with that. When various religions demonize lesbians and gays under the guise of morality — to hide their real objective of controlling their members’ reproductive lives to the advantage of the religion — then it’s practically impossible for someone with this world view to see us as equals and deserving of legal equality. In addition, I am wary of judges who belong to religions that will excommunicate them, or publicly denounce them or punish them, for decisions that are not in accord with the teachings of that religion.

This is a vital concern because lesbians and gays are not likely to obtain equality through the legislatures. And a good many of the people who insist that that is the right way for us to obtain equality know that, which is why they extol that route. They are deliberately promoting an exercise in futility. We are only likely to attain and maintain our equality through the courts simply because we are a minority subject to the most vicious discrimination because same-sex spouses do not directly produce children. This is not a valid argument for denying us equality. The religious special interests can dominate the legislative and executive branches. But they have a tougher time dominating the courts. And we will obtain our equality through the courts because one of their jobs is to protect minorities.


Peter April 10, 2010 at 9:55 am

What is this thing you call a “sex life?”
.-= Peter´s last blog ..Bugz And Gas! =-.

Jake April 12, 2010 at 8:17 am

I’m sorry, but if you’re going to insist on this postion, than you cannot continue to call yourself a conservative.

The idea that a Supreme Court justice’s sexual preference (or race, or gender) should be a criteria is one of the most unconservative I have ever seen. As you know, a Supreme Court justice is one of the most powerful people in the world, and serves for life. To use anything as criteria for selection but their ability to decide cases based on the Constitution and the law makes a mockery of the position.

You cannot revert to uber-liberal positions when it suits you and continue to call yourself a conservative.

Cynthia Yockey April 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm


You have violated the liberty and individualism clauses of the Conservative Charter and may no longer call yourself a conservative. Please leave.



People just do not grasp how all-encompassing their world view can be unless they’ve changed it at least once. So having a representative of a different world-view IS important.

Timing is critical, as well. When a minority’s equality represents a complete paradigm shift, then it is almost exclusively the people IN the minority who are going to be able to create the conditions that allow the paradigm shift to take place. Lesbians and gays are still in the precursor stage of the paradigm shift. That is why there really needs to be a gay or Lesbian justice on the Supreme Court. People at that exalted level of achievement do NOT generally pay much attention to the people of lesser status. But there’s a chance they will listen to someone with a comparable legal background and at their social level.

However, blacks are very much post-paradigm-shift, so I do believe any candidate will uphold the Constitution for them. I do not think there needed to be a Latin justice, although I did think there needed to be a woman. I also do not think the Supreme Court should be comprised entirely of people of the same religion.

Lanny Short April 12, 2010 at 9:54 am

How about a gay conservative judge? Are there any out there? Cynthia, have you got any candidates in mind?

Cynthia Yockey April 12, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Lanny Short,

I wish I knew of any gay or lesbian conservative judges — I don’t, so no, I don’t have any candidates in mind.


Lipton T. Bagg April 13, 2010 at 9:50 pm


I would like to agree – and at the same time disagree – with you.

For the Supreme Court of this land – no one but the most supremely qualified of candidates should be considered – ever! To attempt to place any candidate based on a particular belief – except support for the Constitution of this land – is malfeasance.

And I’m afraid that being GLBT applies to the above. I would never support the appointment of anyone to the high court because they were (insert race) (insert religion) (insert liberal or conservative) or (insert sexual orientation). Respectfully, I reject the SOTUS as a place to fight that fight.

What I would prefer to see is someone who has a strict Constitutional love – AND has the desirable added extra of being friendly to any number of groups – GLBT included. Should that qualified candidate be GLBT, so be it, but appointment BECAUSE of that is, IMHO, shortsighted.

Just one man’s opinion. As always, YMMV.


Cynthia Yockey April 13, 2010 at 11:09 pm

Lipton T. Bagg,

You seem like a gentleman, so just a point of order — it’s LGBT — lesbians first. We worked that out in the 1970’s when we found out that gay men expected us to get the coffee instead of take leadership roles.

I think some people are honest about wanting “the most supremely qualified of candidates” — I feel certain that you are — but my perception is that most people either are not honest about it and are using that narrative to push the candidate they think will support their agenda, or they unconsciously define someone like themselves as being the most supremely qualified.

Here’s the thing. Lesbians and gays are uniquely demonized. We are second-class citizens. We have fewer rights than illegal aliens because they are welcomed to serve in the U.S. military but we are not. The motivation for demonizing us — controlling people’s reproductive lives to serve the greed and lust for power of their leaders — will not go away. We truly need the protection of the Supreme Court. I believe the Constitution does support our equality. For one thing, our equality is an issue of the separation of church and state. That’s because the rationale invariably presented against us is religious. Religions have no business resorting to the power of the state to impose their beliefs on everyone. Why hasn’t anyone besides me noticed this? That alone suggests why the world view of people whose outlook has been created by a lifetime of being told that gays are intrinsically less-than and evil has not worked out for us very well, Constitution-wise.


Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: