Conservative Group Drops Endorsement Of 'Pro Gay' Judge Roberts

Baltimore Sun (BS) Boards ^ | August 9, 2005 | Doreen Brandt

[TBP]

A conservative lobby group announced Tuesday that it is withdrawing its support from Judge John G. Roberts Jr.- President Bush's nominee to the US Supreme Court.

Public Advocate, a Virginia-based "national pro-family group", said in a statement that the more comes "as a result of Roberts' support for the radical homosexual lobby in the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans."

Last week it was reported that Roberts had worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights groups, helping them prepare their arguments to present to the court. (story)

The groups were attempting to have the court strike down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

The coalition won the case in a 6-3 decision.

At the time gay rights leaders activists described it as the movement's most important legal victory.

Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio will hold a news conference Wednesday on the steps of the Supreme Court to call for careful scrutiny of Roberts.

In the hours before President Bush publicly announced Roberts' nomination the President called leading fundamentalist Christians assuring them of Roberts conservative background. Indeed he was once a member of a right wing legal group in Washington - an organization that Roberts says he does not remember ever belonging to.

Roberts involvement in Romer v. Evans came while he was working at the prestigious Hogan & Hartson law firm and was part of its pro bono caseload.

Roberts was not paid for his work and he did not argue the case.

Following reports outlining the work he had done on the case several of the conservative groups that had been supportive of Roberts nomination expressed reservations, but Public Advocate is the first of the groups to officially pull its support.

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group fighting LGBT rights in several states, said Roberts' involvement in the gay case is "something to certainly be concerned about." Focus on the Family also is "raising alarm bells."

In 2003 Public Advocate was instrumental in getting the Attorney General John Ashcroft to bar gay employees from holding their annual Pride event at DOJ headquarters.

The group a year later, after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, in a letter to Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Mark W. Everson asked the IRS to investigate same-sex couples who submit any tax form filed as "married - filing jointly". The IRS later issued a statement that submitting joint returns was illegal under the Federal Marriage Act.

Delgaudio attacked Vice President Dick Cheney last year after the vice president, when asked about gay marriage, said, "Freedom means freedom for everyone."

[Clock King]

Public Advocate, ..


Sounds suspicious. Like an offshoot of The Advocate. Are they for real?

[Mulch]

Please explain what you mean by "codifying discrimination into law".

[Shalom Israel]

the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have a constitutional right to discriminate

And? They also said that Americans don't own their property.

[Sandy]

Look at the Boy Scouts. The only reason they got out of letting gays be Scoutmasters is that they sold the Court on the notion that they were a religious organization. A commercial enterprise, though, is not a religious organization, even if the boss is religious.

You're confused. The Boy Scouts didn't convince the Court that they're some sort of religious organization. Religion had nothing to do with that case at all. They won because they're a private organization with a 1st Amendment right of expressive association. Meaning, they can exclude a person from their group if that person doesn't share their views or advance their message and goals. Pretty much the way Jim Robinson gets to pick and choose who he wants participating on this forum. He can't Constitutionally be forced to let the moonbats post here against his wishes. Free association--it's not about religion; it's about about freedom to choose the people you want to be around.

[trubluolyguy]

Oh for cryin' out loud! God knows I love my felow conservatives but some of those on our side are just WAY to knee-jerk.

[Sandy]

It was a law that AUTHORIZED discrimination. It said that you CAN discriminate against gays.

That's not exactly correct either. The people of Colorado were "authorized" to discriminate both before and after that amendment was passed. They didn't need an amendment to grant them some sort of permission to discriminate. Freedom to discriminate is a natural right. It pre-exists any laws. Laws can only take that right away, not give it to you. The amendment did nothing except forbid such laws.

[Kevin OMalley]

read later bump

[Brilliant]

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court, for example, does not agree. You may have as much contempt for the Supreme Court as I do, but the fact remains that they decide these cases. And so long as they do, we are bound by their decisions.

I am reminded of a guy I know who took the position that the Tax Code is unconstitutional, so he did not pay his taxes. If you'd asked him how he could justify not paying his taxes, he'd have told you that the Tax Code is unconstitutional. He's in jail now.

[jec1ny]

Re: 42
"Please explain what you mean by "codifying discrimination into law".

Judge Roberts provided legal advice to a group that opposed a law in Colorado which would have expressly made it legal to discriminate against people in employment and housing on the basis of their sexual orientation. While I am DEEPLY opposed to homosexuality as a Christian, I am also opposed to attempts to legislate what is essentially a matter of private morals. The government has no business encouraging employers or landlords to try and dictate the private moral behavior of consenting adults.

[KevinDavis]

Never heard of them....

[KevinDavis]

That is my belief too. I don't think government should be dictating behaviors of two consenting adults.. Rape and incest in one thing...

[jec1ny]

Re: 46
Your point is technically correct but it does not alter the basic facts. The amendment clearly was intended to protect, and I think one could reasonably argue, encourage discrimination. You are of course correct in noting that there is a legal right to discriminate in some cases. But you err in asserting that it is a natural right. It is not. Discrimination can be perfectly justifiable in some circumstances. But if you are imposing a negative burden upon another human being, especially when that discrimination negatively impacts someones livelihood and their ability to put a roof over their head, then a heavy burden must rest on those defending that discrimination to justify their actions. There is a vast body of legal precedent including the 1964 civil rights act and the fair housing acts which have made it clear that the right to discriminate in those two matters is extremely tenuous.

[Mulch]

"...the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have constitutional right to discriminate against blacks or Jews.

You forgot to include: woman, asians, hispanics, indians, midgets, fat people, old people, bald people, people with dandruff, people without dandruff, etc. etc. etc.

[Torie]

The "group" apparently has one member.

[Mulch]

"...especially when that discrimination negatively impacts someones livelihood and their ability to put a roof over their head."

There are 10's of 1000's of businesses in this country. How many examples of discrimination have you personally witnessed?

[jec1ny]

"...especially when that discrimination negatively impacts someones livelihood and their ability to put a roof over their head."

"There are 10's of 1000's of businesses in this country. How many examples of discrimination have you personally witnessed?"

Several. But that is not the point. The point is that any law which promotes, protects, or directly or indirectly encourages discrimination on the basis of someones private life is wrong. That is NOT the function of the government.

[Sandy]

The Supreme Court, for example, does not agree.

Does not agree with what? My explanation states the facts of the situation, the situation which the Court (obviously) ruled unconstitutional. My point was, the amendment didn't "authorize" discrimination, which is what you had claimed. The amendment only forbid sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. *That's* what the Court didn't approve of--the forbidding (via amendment) of laws which nobody was even required to pass in the first place.

My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Am I therefore "authorized" to do something that is normally forbidden?

[Mulch]

By several do you mean 1 or 2? You've personally witnessed only 1 or 2 cases of discrimination by a business?

[Sandy]

But you err in asserting that it is a natural right.

By natural right I meant a right that exists until forbidden by law. Imposing a negative burden upon another human being is already illegal, so that's not the sort of thing I'm talking about.

There is a vast body of legal precedent including the 1964 civil rights act and the fair housing acts which have made it clear that the right to discriminate in those two matters is extremely tenuous.

Well yeah, that's true, but the Constitution doesn't require those laws, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional to remove those laws from the books. We have those laws because people like them, not because the Constitution mandates them. Remove the laws, and the default situation returns, i.e., the right to discriminate. It's a right that existed until laws prohibiting it were passed. That was really my point. I hope that's more clear than my other reply.