Virginia Takes a Small Bit of High Ground

Tracy Thorne-Begland will become a judge after all! Or will he... Remember him? He's the guy whose previous nomination was blocked by Delegate Robert Marshall, who bestowed upon the Virginia Assembly the following cogent arguments against Thorne-Begland: Concern about his sexual orientation affecting his ability to be impartial, Marshall said that if Thorne-Begland were confirmed, he might one day preside over a case involving "a bar room fight between a homosexual and heterosexual," and that Marshall would be "concerned about possible bias." This is a powerful argument. I can't think of a single time a heterosexual judge has ever been biased. Only gay judges are biased. How about this winner from Marshall - I quote here from Politico's article of last month:

In his interview with CNN Thursday, Marshall doubled down on his previous remarks, as he accused Thorne-Begland of having displayed a “pattern of behavior” that disqualified him to be a judge. “I’ve been there 21 years. We’ve never appointed an activist of any kind along these lines, much less somebody who has a long history of this,” the legislator said. Pressed by CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on how he couldn’t give a gay man a chance to be a judge in an age when black people are not forced to sit in the back of the bus and women can vote, Marshall shot back, “Sodomy is not a civil right.” “Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks never took an oath of office they broke,” he said. “Sodomy is not a civil right, and there’s an effort by homosexual lobbyists to equate the two. That’s wrong. It is a pattern of behavior.” He added, “When I was in public school … we all said, ‘Keep us from temptation.’ This was because we said the Lord’s Prayer. Nobody, nobody — should go where they’ll be tempted. That includes me, that includes you, that includes you, that includes a prospective judge.” Asked whether there will ever be a gay judge in Virginia, Marshall responded, “We probably have appointed homosexuals in the past,” but clarified that he hasn’t had to “face” a openly gay judge in his state in 21 years.

Isn't that nice. Since Thorne-Begland is gay, and since gay men engage in sodomy, and since sodomy isn't a right, and since past and present sodomy indicates a troubling pattern of behavior, and since troubling patterns of behavior might express themselves in some unspecified way or other - oh wait! The "homosexual activism" - and since being on the bench would obviously provide numerous opportunities for Thorne-Begland to further his nefarious agenda, and since NONE of this applies to ANY other subgroup that engages in sodomy (experimental/adventurous heterosexual couples, for example), Thorne-Begland's nomination had to be blocked. Well, I'm convinced.