Roberts did pro bon work in support of "gay" rights

[quattrocchi]

Talk radio reported this yesterday. Any details?

[Mac6yver]

Here ya go:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Maybe Roberts won't be so bad after all... Of course I am a liberal Democrat, so most of you probably won't agree.

[Sgt Sweaters]

This from the Family Research Council:

Today the Los Angeles Times reported that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts did pro bono work on the 1996 Supreme Court case that resulted in the striking down of a Colorado state constitutional amendment that prevented local government from offering protected minority status or preferences based on homosexual or bisexual orientation or conduct. Judge Roberts did the uncompensated legal work on the case, Romer v. Evans, while he was an attorney for the DC law firm Hogan and Hartson. After further investigation we were told that Roberts' role was apparently limited to providing a few hours of participation in a moot court procedure, as he routinely did for all the firm's pro bono clients. More on this as we learn more about this report.

[Brain]

From my understanding of the romer case, it would not have been moally offensive for roberts to help. the law struck down was allowing housing discrimination against those afficted with same sex attraction. It is morally wrong to discriminate just because someone has a disorder, even if the person chooses not to treat their disorder.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by Brain

From my understanding of the romer case, it would not have been moally offensive for roberts to help. the law struck down was allowing housing discrimination against those afficted with same sex attraction. It is morally wrong to discriminate just because someone has a disorder, even if the person chooses not to treat their disorder.

Actually it was not to "discriminate" against those afflicted with SSA, it was to not have to rent to active homosexuals.

Choice is not a protected class.

[Brain]

I classify SSA as a pshycological (possily in some cases physical/chemical) condition/disability and so to refuse housing based on a medical consition would indeed be wrong. That said, much like any other disability, one must change their lifestyle to deal with it. There are limitations disabilities put on your life. A cripple does not typically join the track team, if you take my meaning. It would be wrong to discriminate based on SSA alone unless there was a mitgating circmstance (eg an alcoholic or sex offender might be refused a rental based on a concern for people around him). Active homosexuals might fall into this category if their disorder became a public specatcle that was harmful to say the children in the building.

Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we have to make life unduly hard for them. On the other hand they must accept their limitations, and realize that society cannot be expected to change just because they want their disorder considered healthy. I hope i am clear on this, i dont wnat anyone to think i belive "gay rights" exist nor do i want anyone to think we should punish them for having a disease/disorder/condition.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Actually it was not to "discriminate" against those afflicted with SSA, it was to not have to rent to active homosexuals.

Choice is not a protected class.

You state it too narrowly. Amendment 2 specifically referred to

homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships

.

[mlchance]

Judge Roberts worked in support of gay rights? Another example of the fake-but-accurate motif favored when reporting on seemingly anything related to President Bush?

Could be. From Tony Perkins:

A brief follow up to the story from yesterday on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' involvement with pro bono work on Romer v. Evans. As a former policy maker and now full- time advocate for family values, my first thought in response to the LA Times story was "aiding and abetting," which I would venture to say is how many of our supporters would see this news. However, I urge caution in jumping to that conclusion. Judge Roberts was an attorney with a large firm where helping colleagues when called upon was expected. Attorneys are not necessarily advocates or activists. In fact, activists are exactly what we don't want on the court.

I spent the good part of yesterday on the phone and in meetings to get the facts. I have verified that his involvement was limited to about 5 hours of participation in a moot court as he played the role of one of the High Court's conservative members asking tough hypothetical questions of the attorneys who actually prepared and argued the case. Stories are already beginning to circulate about the motives behind one of the main sources of the LA Times story who is no longer with the law firm and is now with a left-leaning advocacy organization in Washington.

I remain confident that President Bush understands that his legacy in large part will be determined by whom he places on the Supreme Court. I have also gained confidence in reviewing Judge Roberts' judicial opinions, which helps me trust his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his judicial philosophy: "(Judges) do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law." Yet as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." We plan to do just that as we will be heavily involved in the confirmation hearings.

-- Mark L. Chance.

[quattrocchi]

I very much appreciate your post.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

You state it too narrowly. Amendment 2 specifically referred to .

Amendment 2? Which says exactly what I said.

Please tell me how we can tell someone's orientation without them acting them out.

[Jennifer123]

Originally Posted by Brain

Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we have to make life unduly hard for them. On the other hand they must accept their limitations, and realize that society cannot be expected to change just because they want their disorder considered healthy. I hope i am clear on this, i dont wnat anyone to think i belive "gay rights" exist nor do i want anyone to think we should punish them for having a disease/disorder/condition.

I think this is the impetus behind all of these types of lawsuits, they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle upon us, and they know the only way it will be achieved is through the legal system. I wouldn't necessarily discriminate against gays nor do I want others to without a good reason, but I don't want to be told I have to participate in legitimizing the behavior.

What is troubling to me is that Roberts did this work willingly. He wasn't coerced by the law firm, he volunteered his services. If he is indeed a devout Catholic then at the very least he could have just not participated in the suit at all due to his religious conviction. Doesn't seem like much of a risk to me, he wouldn't have even had to make the hard decision of turning it down on moral reasons and risked his career or anything.

I'm just kind of in a daze about this whole thing and pray there is a reasonable explanation.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Amendment 2? Which says exactly what I said.

No, you implied by your wording that it did not apply to those with SSA, but only to active homosexuals. Which is exactly not what Amendment 2 says.

Please tell me how we can tell someone's orientation without them acting them out.

Even then you can't be sure - maybe they're just experimenting, or going through a phase. One way seems to be testing which I read about in the news recently. They found that men were 4 times more aroused (can't remember if this was a physical measure, or some brain activity scan) by pictures of women than men, or they were 4 times more aroused by men than women. So those claiming to be bisexual were lying, as far as their body was concerned. A small portion of men were not really aroused either way.

Anyway, on a more practical matter, you could presumably identify someone as gay by their dress , their mannerisms, home decor, choice of profession, friends, attendance at Courage meetings, their rainbow bumper sticker, or the doctored pinup of a bare-chested Judge Roberts on their wall. None of these are foolproof, but as I understand Amendment 2, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. Just as you're not required to prove beyord a reasonable doubt that your tenants are too loud when you choose not to renew their lease.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by Jennifer123

What is troubling to me is that Roberts did this work willingly. He wasn't coerced by the law firm, he volunteered his services. If he is indeed a devout Catholic then at the very least he could have just not participated in the suit at all due to his religious conviction...

I'm just kind of in a daze about this whole thing and pray there is a reasonable explanation.

My understanding is that his job was mostly to ask the tough questions from the perspective of Rehnquist and other conservatives on the court.

Doesn't sound that much different from people on this board reporting that they were on non-Catholic boards asking tough questions and poking holes in the arguments of the other side.

[gilliam]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

Which is exactly not what Amendment 2 says.Even then you can't be sure - maybe they're just experimenting, or going through a phase. .

Here is where I get a bit confused. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered behavior (like stealing). We wouldn't be talking about someone's right to steal or to do any other indrinsically disordered behavior in our society would we? Why are we talking about some kind of right here? What difference does it make if someone is experimenting or not?

[Jennifer123]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

My understanding is that his job was mostly to ask the tough questions from the perspective of Rehnquist and other conservatives on the court.

Doesn't sound that much different from people on this board reporting that they were on non-Catholic boards asking tough questions and poking holes in the arguments of the other side.

Yes, but they aren't acting in deference to their religious convictions. I still don't understand the reasoning behind a supposed devout, orthodox Catholic volunteering for this pro-bono work. It's not like he was coerced or his professional reputation was at stake (and is that even ultimately a good justification?).
Maybe I'm thick-headed or simple-minded??
Willing to admit it!!