Gay Patriot Header Image

Beholden to the Left, Gay Groups Opppose Alito

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 11:50 am - December 12, 2005.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Supreme Court

In a release filled with clichés about how horrible, no good and very bad Judge Samuel Alito is, Eleanor (Eldie) D. Acheson, Director, Public Policy and Government Affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) announced her organization’s opposition to the nomination of this good man to the Supreme Court of the United States. Other national gay organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) have joined NGLTF in opposition.

In a joint statement (which I received via e-mail,but have not yet been able to find on the web), these groups said, “A nominee to the Court bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she is committed to rigorously enforcing the principles of equal protection and due process.” It he bears such a burden, shouldn’t they give him a chance to demonstrate that commitment in public hearings?

Perhaps because of criticism these groups received for similarly coming out against then-Judge, now Chief Justice, John Roberts before his confirmation hearings, they anticipate the charge that they’re rushing to judgment, “Mere assurances before or during a hearing are not enough.” Given that some of the statements Acheson uses against him are over twenty years old, it would seem fair to ask Judge Alito if his views have changed at all. But, these groups aren’t concerned with fairness when it comes to evaluating the record of a Republican judicial nominee.

What is striking about both releases (the NGLTF statement and the joint release which NGLTF e-mailed to its list) is their similarity to these groups’ statement opposing the confirmation of John Roberts. They dwell less on his views on gay issues than on issues of concern to liberal organizations. And are more filled with angry left-wing rhetoric than a sober evaluation of the good judge’s record.

Showing allegiance to his previous employer, HRC President Joe Solmonese shares his “allies’ concerns about his [Alito’s] record on reproductive choice.” NCLR’s Kate Kendell and NGLTF’s Matt Foreman also bring up abortion as one of their reasons to oppose Alito. As with their opposition to John Roberts, these groups have shown that they are really just the gay and lesbian adjuncts of a much broader left-wing movement. I hope this helps Log Cabin see why so many Republicans are troubled that this supposedly Republican group considers it a firing offense for its staffers to “speak ill” of such groups.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

31 Comments

  1. Pardon my naivette, but I had forgotten for a while that the NGLTF still existed.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — December 12, 2005 @ 1:09 pm - December 12, 2005

  2. Oh well, the usual suspects.

    All we need now is the entrance of Mr. Kubiyashi.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 12, 2005 @ 1:12 pm - December 12, 2005

  3. We all continue to fight these skirmishes, never realizing the greater war is that our society is corroding. Our values have deteriorated miserably.

    There are few communities trained to fight this corrosion, and the legal community is one. However, we must stop beating ourselves into bloody pulps first:

    http://accuracyblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/law-school-story.html

    Comment by Chris Laurel — December 12, 2005 @ 1:45 pm - December 12, 2005

  4. When are the Left gay groups going to realize that one day, in the not-so-distant future, all those “reproductive rights” – i.e., abortion – will be used to exterminate future gays? (The real death camps that are coming. Nothing like their present feverish fantasies.)

    Comment by Calarato — December 12, 2005 @ 2:53 pm - December 12, 2005

  5. …” There are few communities trained to fight this corrosion, and the legal community is one.”….

    Odd, from surface-appearances the legal profession seems to be one of “corrosion’s” source-fonts. More elected officials are lawyers than any other profession that I’m aware-of. And so to are the Lobbyists. And the cosy, incestuous and financial relationships between top law-firms and the Governors’ offices, the State Houses and the Court Houses are legendary.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 12, 2005 @ 3:01 pm - December 12, 2005

  6. #4

    You’re absolutely correct. When the “gay gene” is isolated and identified, there will be a heck of a lot more gays turning pro-life than there will be pro-lifers turning “pro-choice.”

    You heard it here first.

    Julie the Jarhead

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — December 12, 2005 @ 3:32 pm - December 12, 2005

  7. I was immensely amused by this example given in HRC’s anti-Alito screed:

    In one case, he (Alito) denied asylum for the fiance of a woman whom the Chinese government forced to undergo an abortion because he agreed that the government could reasonably conclude that a fiance would endure less emotional pain than a spouse when his partner underwent forced sterilization or abortion.

    Unfortunately, under US law, the “emotional pain” caused by a partner having an abortion is not recognized. HRC, NGLTF, and all the other abortionist organizations have again and again stated that a person has no legal, moral, or emotional right to interfere with their partner having an abortion. It is the height of hilarity for them to argue that abortion causes “emotional pain” or that it should grant a partner some legal right when they have strenuously denied that all along and stated that the “emotional pain” of a partner is NOT grounds to stop or legally oppose an abortion.

    Oh, and the joint statement of the anti-Alito abortion-pushers is up — enjoy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - December 12, 2005

  8. #4 and #6 — More intriguingly, what if a means is found through gene-therapy to change a gay-oriented foetus into a hetero-oriented foetus? Surely, if a woman can choose life or death for the unborn child inside, she also ought to have the right to choose that child’s sexual orientation.

    Comment by V the K — December 12, 2005 @ 4:10 pm - December 12, 2005

  9. Free Tookie!!! Speak Truth to Power!!! What about the children???

    Comment by Bobo — December 13, 2005 @ 11:41 pm - December 13, 2005

  10. These people are so predictable.
    I agree whole heartedly with the comment above: “When the “gay gene” is isolated and identified, there will be a heck of a lot more gays turning pro-life than there will be pro-lifers turning “pro-choice.”

    Comment by JonInAtlanta — December 14, 2005 @ 9:43 am - December 14, 2005

  11. I’d have to disagree with Julie and Jon….prominent gay liberals like Joe Solmonese and Elizabeth Birch/Hilary Rosen crony Ellen Malcom have proven that abortion comes before gay rights.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2005 @ 11:05 am - December 14, 2005

  12. shouldn’t they give him a chance to demonstrate that commitment in public hearings? No, he’s had 15 years on the bench to demonstrate that commitment. Based on his own admissions about the 1985 application to work in the Reagan White House, he’ll say whatever he thinks will make him look good for the job. If anything, I’d say his Senate testimony will be less valuable in terms of evaluating him than his judicial record. You accuse the gay left of being a front for the pro-abortion movement, but you misunderstand the legal implications. Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, it is about a fundamental right to privacy, which provides the foundation for later crucial rulings like Lawrence v. Texas. It’s fine for you to be pro-war and socially and fiscally conservative — even opposed to abortion! — but if you support a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, the consequences will likely extend far beyond legalized abortion. The reasonable conclusion is that Alito opposes Roe not just from the moral conviction that abortion is wrong, but that there is no right to privacy and that the government has the right to regulate sexual and reproductive behaviors. That has ominous implications for the gay community.

    Comment by Andy — December 14, 2005 @ 2:14 pm - December 14, 2005

  13. Um, no.

    Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird are generally considered the cases that establish the “right to privacy” in the context needed. Both cases have to do with state laws regulating the use of contraceptives (Connecticut’s ban on them and Massachusetts’s law blocking their distribution to anyone other than married couples); they in essence say that the government cannot mandate unprotected sex between individuals, regardless of their marital status. In this context, Justice Brennan’s quote from Eisenstadt, “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child”, makes far much more sense, and makes it quite clear that the government should not be in the business of regulating private sex between consenting adult individuals.

    What Roe does, however, is idiotically extend the existing prohibition on the government blocking contraception — methods which prevent a child from being conceived in the first place — to birth control, which allows an already-conceived, defenseless child to be murdered, even if the child would be capable of surviving outside the womb. The fact that they support and promote killing viable children should show you how completely irrational and hate-filled NARAL and Planned Parenthood are and how devoted they are to the ideal of murder above all else.

    If Roe were overturned, the “right to privacy” that precludes government intervention in contraception and sex between two consenting adults would still exist because of Griswold and Eisenstadt. However, what would cease to exist is the block on states from banning or regulating abortion and other methods of post-contraception “birth control” as they see fit.

    For Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the other abortion-promoting groups, that is a nightmare scenario. They are fully aware of the fact that the majority of Americans support banning entirely or limiting abortion to cases of rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother — which currently constitutes less than 10% of all abortions performed. This would devastate their main source of revenue and render them politically powerless. In order to prevent this, they’ve basically bribed the Democratic Party and gay left groups like HRC and NGLTF into supporting them, with HRC using the lie that removing Roe would completely abolish the “right to privacy” and somehow affect gays.

    The effect on the political landscape is horrific. As I’ve blogged, this addiction to abortionist money and dogma puts gays in the moronic position of arguing that measures like parental notification, which a vast majority of ALL Americans support, are “antigay” or somehow interfere with “gay rights”. Because whores like Joe Solmonese and Matt Foreman are completely dependent on abortionist cash and support to maintain their lavish headquarters and lifestyles, the gay community ends up coming out in favor of horrific activities like partial-birth abortion.

    In short, Andy, I am sick of the gay community being saddled with the lie that we must support babies’ heads being crushed and their bodies sucked out of women’s wombs because said women couldn’t be bothered to think in advance as some form of “gay rights” — and then supporting Democrats who support the FMA because they’re “pro-choice”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2005 @ 4:34 pm - December 14, 2005

  14. “In short, Andy, I am sick of the gay community being saddled with the lie that we must support babies’ heads being crushed and their bodies sucked out of women’s wombs because said women couldn’t be bothered to think in advance as some form of “gay rights” — and then supporting Democrats who support the FMA because they’re “pro-choice”.

    Amen. And gay groups will have a lot more clout with women’s groups when they find a way to threaten them in some way. Holding a knife to their throats may accomplish more than being thier “boy” has been.

    Comment by Jim — December 14, 2005 @ 5:30 pm - December 14, 2005

  15. I don’t think we need to threaten them, Jim. I think we simply need to make it clear to them that their support is no longer worth the baggage they carry and that gay organizations will now reflect the diversity of the gay community, not the views of an extremist splinter.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2005 @ 7:57 pm - December 14, 2005

  16. I am morally opposed to abortion, but the 1 tiny fragment of me that could be called “libertarian” finds it a gross injustice and a grave threat that the federal government thinks it has the right to regulate what we do with our bodies and our sexual and reproductive choices. And I don’t think Griswold is necessarily safe, either, since Specter found himself forced to recant his statement that Miers agreed with that ruling and later claimed that he had “misunderstood.” Banning abortion will not solve the problem. It doesn’t work with alcoholism, it doesn’t work with gambling, it doesn’t work with prostitution — you can’t ban it and hope it goes away. The answer to the problem of abortion is not to criminalize doctors and desperate women. If you want to reduce abortions, you should support progressive government programs that assist low-income women so that the decision to abort is never one of economic necessity; you should support labor standards like the FMLA so that women on a career track don’t have to throw away everything they’ve worked for in order to start a family; you should support universal health care coverage so that no one faces pregnancy but can’t afford a doctor; and you should support science-based sex ed so that people really understand the options that are available to them to help them make responsible decisions. Choosing to abstain from sex can still be a moral decision, even if you know what a condom is. By and large, this administration doesn’t agree with those ideas, which in fact contributes to the rising abortion rate.

    Comment by Andy — December 14, 2005 @ 9:14 pm - December 14, 2005

  17. 16: Amen!

    Comment by Kevin — December 14, 2005 @ 10:40 pm - December 14, 2005

  18. Banning abortion will not solve the problem. It doesn’t work with alcoholism, it doesn’t work with gambling, it doesn’t work with prostitution — you can’t ban it and hope it goes away.

    Banning murder doesn’t stop murder. Banning rape doesn’t stop rape. Banning theft doesn’t stop theft.

    Comment by John — December 15, 2005 @ 12:16 am - December 15, 2005

  19. I am morally opposed to abortion, but the 1 tiny fragment of me that could be called “libertarian” finds it a gross injustice and a grave threat that the federal government thinks it has the right to regulate what we do with our bodies and our sexual and reproductive choices.

    Why are you “morally opposed” to abortion, Andy? Since you deny a baby legal rights, it isn’t human; there should be no moral qualms on your part to killing it.

    Don’t use libertarianism as an excuse; true libertarians believe that a person is responsible for their choices and the consequences of those choices, and the consequence of choosing unprotected sex is pregnancy. You did something deliberately that you knew would bring another human life into the equation, but since it’s in utero, it’s easy to deny it personhood, because you can’t see it.

    As for the last, this is hilarious.

    If you want to reduce abortions, you should support progressive government programs that assist low-income women so that the decision to abort is never one of economic necessity; you should support labor standards like the FMLA so that women on a career track don’t have to throw away everything they’ve worked for in order to start a family; you should support universal health care coverage so that no one faces pregnancy but can’t afford a doctor; and you should support science-based sex ed so that people really understand the options that are available to them to help them make responsible decisions.

    Oddly enough, though, all of these things already exist. We have welfare to help low-income women, including escalating payments per dependent, we have FMLA to help career women, we have health care coverage for poor people (Medicaid), and, despite the screeches of the left that the sky is falling, the majority of schools in this country still teach more than abstinence -only sex ed.

    But, despite having all of these programs, which he claims would reduce the number of abortions, already in existence, Andy claims the abortion rate is rising, not declining.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 15, 2005 @ 2:00 am - December 15, 2005

  20. Why are you “morally opposed” to abortion, Andy? Since you deny a baby legal rights, it isn’t human; there should be no moral qualms on your part to killing it. I am opposed to abortion because of my religious beliefs, but I also feel strongly that morality is insufficient grounds for legislation, and I don’t feel the government has a compelling interest in controlling a person’s private reproductive choices. If my moral beliefs are enough to justify laws banning abortion, than an Orthodox Jew’s moral convictions ought to be sufficient to codify kosher dietary laws for all Americans.

    We do NOT have universal health care coverage, not sure where you got that. 45 million Americans are uninsured. In 2003, a record year, 50% of personal bankruptcies were declared because of medical debt, and 75% of those people had insurance. The present state of healthcare and access to it in America is a crisis, and many families decide that factors such as healthcare costs mean they can’t afford to have another child. Universal coverage would go a long way toward solving this problem, but the President is more interested in protecting negligent doctors and their insurance companies, rather than patients, by making it harder to sue for malpractice (which contributes to less than one-half of one-percent of the total cost of healthcare in America) and inflating the price of prescription drugs (which accounts for 50% of the cost of healthcare) by making it illegal for the consumers to import the same products from overseas and by banning the government from negotiating better deals for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

    FMLA began under Clinton, but presently only allows for twelve weeks of unpaid leave. It was an important step to allow women to keep their jobs while taking time off to have a baby, but for families living paycheck to paycheck it’s absolutely insufficient. I don’t see President Bush moving to strengthen or improve this act, and Alito has voiced opposition to it. Furthermore, the Bush administration supports abstinence-only sex education, which is also insufficient.

    You are correct in pointing out that banning murder doesn’t eliminate the problem, but there is general agreement that murder should result in punishment, such as incarceration. There is no such consensus on the topic of abortion. Would you fill the prisons with women and doctors?

    Comment by Andy — December 15, 2005 @ 9:19 am - December 15, 2005

  21. I am opposed to abortion because of my religious beliefs, but I also feel strongly that morality is insufficient grounds for legislation, and I don’t feel the government has a compelling interest in controlling a person’s private reproductive choices.

    Unfortunately, abortion is not a “private reproductive choice”; it involves an additional person who is deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Contraception would be a “private reproductive choice”, since it does not involve the third person.

    Universal coverage would go a long way toward solving this problem, but the President is more interested in protecting negligent doctors and their insurance companies, rather than patients, by making it harder to sue for malpractice (which contributes to less than one-half of one-percent of the total cost of healthcare in America)

    Please post from where you are getting these statistics. These are common ones quoted by the trial lawyer industry that ignore a fundamental fact…. much of the medical care provided in the United States today is not necessary for health, but to avoid being sued. Doctors do not run multiple blood tests because they fail a lot; they run them because trial lawyers attempt to prove that one use of a test that is 99% accurate is “negligent” when the result is not what the patient wants.

    and inflating the price of prescription drugs (which accounts for 50% of the cost of healthcare)

    Again, unnecessary. Trial lawyers have created a situation in which doctors are fearful to do anything other than prescribe the maximum for everything. Their demands, for example, force doctors to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics for viral diseases, which leads to increased microbial resistance, but protects against the threat of malpractice for NOT prescribing antibiotics.

    FMLA began under Clinton, but presently only allows for twelve weeks of unpaid leave. It was an important step to allow women to keep their jobs while taking time off to have a baby, but for families living paycheck to paycheck it’s absolutely insufficient.

    Then maybe you ought to consider that prior to having sex, eh? Waiting until you can afford them to have children — what a novel concept.

    Furthermore, the Bush administration supports abstinence-only sex education, which is also insufficient.

    Why — because human beings can’t control their sex drives?

    Would you fill the prisons with women and doctors?

    My preferred punishment for abortions is sterilization.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 15, 2005 @ 12:55 pm - December 15, 2005

  22. “…malpractice (which contributes to less than one-half of one-percent of the total cost of healthcare in America).”

    That is indeed a ridiculous statistic.

    Malpractice insurance is the single highest cost that doctors face. It has shot up and up and up, in no small part because of a ongoing culture of FRIVOLOUS lawsuits/payouts, building over the last 3 decades.

    When trends of the last 3 decades finally destroy American medicine, malpractice lawsuits/insurance will be no small part of the cause. (Government regulation of doctors/medicine will be the other part of the cause.)

    Comment by Calarato — December 15, 2005 @ 1:44 pm - December 15, 2005

  23. Excuse me, I should have said 4 decades. American medicine’s trend of skyrocketing costs (and other destructive trends) began with the creation of Medicare in 1965.

    Comment by Calarato — December 15, 2005 @ 1:46 pm - December 15, 2005

  24. “Exterminate future gays”
    sigh and walk away

    Comment by hank — December 15, 2005 @ 1:53 pm - December 15, 2005

  25. Good for you, Hank.

    Keep that denial going. Keep from thinking about what “designer baby” approaches to pre-natal care and abortion will entail in time.

    Comment by Calarato — December 15, 2005 @ 2:59 pm - December 15, 2005

  26. Oh, I mean, unless…….homosexuality is a choice? 😉

    Comment by Calarato — December 15, 2005 @ 3:03 pm - December 15, 2005

  27. Who said that I’m in denial? You love to put words in other peoples mouths.
    It’s the hyperbole.

    Comment by hank — December 15, 2005 @ 4:55 pm - December 15, 2005

  28. What words have I put in your mouth? Please explain.

    And note your own hyperbole. (mirror!)

    Comment by Calarato — December 15, 2005 @ 5:02 pm - December 15, 2005

  29. look up the word

    Comment by hank — December 15, 2005 @ 6:01 pm - December 15, 2005

  30. LOL

    Hank, why don’t you look up the words “Walk away”? 🙂

    Consult comment #24. Note carefully that you used them; I am in on way putting them in your mouth.

    Bottom line: You wanted to make a snarky, indirect remark, rather than address a point of discussion directly. But you can’t pull off the terms of your remark. 🙂

    I shall demonstrate actual walking away for you, so you can see what it looks like.

    Comment by Calarato — December 16, 2005 @ 9:01 am - December 16, 2005

  31. And yet again, you miss the point.
    I was quoting YOU.
    ‘Exterminate future gays”. YOUR words. Which ARE hyperbole.
    Is English your second language?

    Comment by hank — December 16, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - December 16, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.