Ruth Bader Ginsburg says thing about gay marriage, National Review writer shrieks, clutches pearls
Fun-sized Supreme Court jurist Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently gave an interview to Bloomberg News, saying gay marriage is coming and people need to, as one man once put it: “Admit that the waters around you have grown, and accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone.”
She didn’t use those exact words, which sound kind of dirty, but you get the idea.
What she did say was:
“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” Ginsburg said. “In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”
If you don’t speak Conservative-gay-panic-ese, then you probably missed what she really said between the lines — but is ALWAYS there when people speak of gay equality — which is: “We are going to shove our gayness down your throats, America.”
Because it’s always with the ‘shoving down the throat’ with these people.
Homo-hating Ed Whelan at National Review Online immediately clutched his pearls and headed for the fainting couch, while lamenting legal shenanigans:
How can Ginsburg possibly think that it’s proper judicial conduct for her to speak out on this issue while the marriage case is pending before the Court? If she had any sense of her duty to maintain both the appearance and the reality of impartiality, she would recognize that she is now obligated to herself from the case. But of course she won’t.
Can I get a ‘harumph!‘ and a ‘hear, hear!‘ and snapping of suspenders?
This is not a first for Whelan who has a knack for rooting beneath the judicial robes, sniffing about for the ‘gay agenda.’
In 2010, prior to Federal Judge Vaughn Walker liberally (ha!) using an opinion (Lawrence v. Texas) written by Justice Anthony Kennedy to strike down California’s Prop 8 which banned gay marriage, Whelan complained that Walker was running a “sham trial” because the case wasn’t going Whelan’s way, and besides, [looking both ways before whispering]: Walker is G-A-Y.
In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.
Also, too: Whelan has here in his clammy hand a list of gay homosexuals in the Justice Department who are sapping our nation’s precious bodily fluids from within:
A reader passes along that Schuham’s same-sex partner is (or, at least as of the 2009 White House Easter Egg Roll, was) Chris Anders, federal policy director for the ACLU’s LGBT Rights project.
Another of the attorneys on the DOJ brief is Sharon M. McGowan. As another reader calls to my attention, McGowan was also a staffer on the ACLU’s LGBT Rights project, and the New York Times announced last year her same-sex marriage to the Family Equality Council’s “federal lobbyist on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family issues.”
What doesn’t seem to concern Whelan is the fact that somnolent Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the pending case over whether the gay is here to stay a few days prior to Ginsburg:
Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court’s move to allow gay marriages to go ahead “may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution” as it considers cases from four other states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S. Constitution. Although only two justices publicly dissented, the court order did not reveal whether any other justices voted to grant the stay.
Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign’s legal director, said the justices’ action on Alabama “has telegraphed there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer.”
To his credit Whelan did mention Thomas’ dissent, writing, “Justice Thomas’s dissent, joined by Justice Scalia, cogently explains why the Court’s denial of the stay is grossly irresponsible,” so it is probably safe to say that, while Whelan may be a bigot when it comes to homosexuals, at least he’s not a racist.
At NRO, that counts for something.