-
sponsorship
Richard Just has a
knockout post over at the New Republic
adding another wrinkle to the discussions that have surrounded the
naming of a Supreme Court justice to replace the retiring David Souter. If the
president nominated an openly gay jurist, it’s easy to assume a confirmation
firestorm of Roe v. Wade proportions,
led by Bible-clutching protesters and the intolerant Senator Jeff Sessions on the Senate judiciary committee.
But Just wonders whether it’s not only not damaging, but in fact beneficial to have an openly gay court nominee. It would, he reasons, naturally
separate the wheat from the, um, haters:
[N]ominating
a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward
position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the
specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they
are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are
attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up
looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court
nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this
distinction was a lie. …
Given that
most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while
conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy
majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace
discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their
cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage
sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation
during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could
become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a
glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and
turns decisively in the other direction.
Ooh, snap. It’s
not too often that bigots get a real, live hoisting on their own petard—but
this court opening could be just such an opportunity. I really believe
that a public political fight around whether conservatives are anti-gay or anti-gay
marriage is one that the religious right would lose, definitively—and might do
more to advance the cause of gay rights than the rolling boil of states that are
legalizing such marriages. Maybe I've been watching too much of the NBA finals, but I would call this the political equivalent of a flying dunk in Tony Perkins' face. Who doesn't want to see that?
Of course, this all depends on Barack Obama, who has been
fairly cowardly about gay rights, both on the trail and in office. (And, judging
from those “leaders” like DC Councilman Marion Barry, who now claims spokesmanship
for blacks on gay issues, the leadership vacuum is hurting the cause of justice.) Sure, there is a risk of flameout with any nomination, but if Obama really wanted to leapfrog past the current unsatisfying, incremental approach to gay rights, this is a great idea.