Skip to content

Is this their best example of a left-wing liberal judge?

As soon as a judge threw out California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay people from marrying, as unconstitutional, then conservatives (you know, the same people who claim to love the constitution) started calling the judge names. They used words like “extreme judicial activism”, “judicial tyranny”, and “left-wing liberal judge”.

What’s really funny about this is that the judge in question was nominated first by Reagan, but not confirmed, then by Bush Sr. and again not confirmed, and finally he was nominated a third time (again by Bush Sr.) and this time he was finally confirmed by the Senate.

What was the hold-up? Liberal groups, including the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, were against him.

Yes, that’s right. A judge originally nominated by conservative god Reagan and opposed by liberal groups (including a gay group) has now suddenly become an uber-liberal gay activist in the eyes of conservatives.

Of course, these conservatives don’t care a bit about the constitution, unless it is convenient for them. They would probably be happy to just replace the constitution with the bible.

The hypocrites were joined by Newt Gingrich, who posted a statement on his own site calling the ruling “an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution” and blathering on about marriage. But what is really hilarious is that his readers immediately pointed out the hypocrisy of Gingrich defending traditional marriage. Here are some of the comments:

Newt you cheated on your first wife then dumped her when she was in the hospital with cancer. Later you cheated on your second wife with a 27 year old congressional aide. Maybe you should pipe down about defending marriage.

No, I want to hear more from the twice-divorced man about how marriage has to be reserved for one man and one woman. I wonder if the two former Mrs. Gingriches would testify as to Newt’s reverence for marriage.

Or, does Newt simply mean one man and one woman at a time? I wonder how secure the third Mrs. Gingrich feels about her hubby’s dedication to her and to his vows.

Mr. Gingrich will become immune to allegations of hypocrisy on the issue of marriage when he stops passing judgment on the right of others to marry.

No one with Mr. Gingrich’s sorry record of serial adultery and failed marriages has any business dictating who may marry and under what conditions they may do so. Now on his third wife, he has no more authority on subject of marriage than does Rush Limbaugh, who is currently on his fourth.

Due to his personal history, silence is the only honorable option left to Mr Gingrich.


One Comment

  1. pdquick wrote:

    One of the ironies here is that one of the witnesses for Prop. 8’s proponents argued that Prop. 8 didn’t even limit marriage to one man and one woman “at a time.” He testified that a man with five wives would have five separate one-man one-woman marriages, and that each marriage would be allowed under Prop 8. The Mormons didn’t tell you they left that loophole open, did they?

    Monday, September 6, 2010 at 8:33 pm | Permalink