LaBarbera Commends Focus for Clarifying Its Principled Opposition to Homosexual Judges

NOTE: below I write that “Homosexuality is not special and it should be treated like any other sexual sin.” I should add that most sexual sinners — indeed, most sinners in general — do not define themselves by their besetting sin nor seek special legal protections based on their embrace of it. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

See related AFTAH article: “Focus on the Family Clarifies Position, Opposes Homosexual Judicial Nominees”

___________________________________

News Release – Americans For Truth

April 15, 2010; Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; AmericansForTruth@comcast.net

LaBarbera Commends Focus for Clarifying Its Principled Opposition to Homosexual Judges

Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement in response to Focus on the Family’s clarification that it would not support a homosexual nominee to the Supreme Court:

Focus on the Family has wisely corrected statements by two of its staffers who stated last year that the “sexual orientation” of judicial nominees – i.e., their homosexuality – would not disqualify them to sit on the nation’s highest court. Focus had been privately correcting those comments after Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan criticized Focus’ “moral retreat” on homosexuality. Focus’ new position – first reported by AFTAH – is biblically sound because it focuses on behavior as helping to define a judge’s character. Said Focus’ Tom Minnery:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ‘sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

Americans For Truth, like other pro-family groups that honor the authority of Scripture, believes that homosexuality is best understood not as an “identity” but as a behavior – one that is wrong, destructive, and unnatural. Thankfully, homosexual conduct also is changeable (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), as evinced by the countless former homosexual men and ex-lesbians living happy lives.

Supposed “gay” identity is a modern construct that undermines moral truth and people’s responsibility for their own conduct. Men and women (proudly) practicing homosexuality often are driven to justify their errant lifestyle. Even those practicing homosexuality in secret often work to promote its acceptance.

This is why people practicing homosexuality often make bad judges: even if they don’t admit it, due to their sexual self-interest, they will have a hard time fairly adjudicating cases involving homosexuality. If a judge personally views opponents of homosexuality as bigots, haters, or “homophobes” – the former terms falsely equate the outworking of faith with prejudice and malice; the latter cynically equates morality with irrational fear – will he or she be able to deal with them justly? Will homosexual judges be diligent in protecting Americans’ constitutional religious liberties – i.e., to disagree with homosexuality? Or will they – like lesbian law professor and newly-appointed EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum – decide that, in most cases, “gay rights” considerations should supersede the freedom of people to act based on their moral opposition to homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not special and it should be treated like any other sexual sin. Homosexuality (like gender confusion) does not deserve “civil rights” status. Judicial nominees who practice it – or worse, practice it proudly – have a mark against their character that absolutely should be considered as a potential source of bias, and even anti-religious animus, in their future rulings.