Lambda Legal Defense announced its opposition to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, citing the candidate’s refusal to provide clear answers on matters of importance to the GLBT community. In a statement, the advocates singled out his reluctance to state whether a right to privacy extends to gays and lesbians, noting that Roberts declined to distance himself from a dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck sodomy laws for consenting gay adults. Lambda also questioned Judge Roberts’ views on the power of Congress to address discrimination, as well as his zipped lip on the subject of abortion jurisprudence and other matters.

“Roberts repeatedly refused to provide substantive answers to questions designed to bring to light more information about his judicial philosophy and how he would analyze key constitutional issues,” Lambda said in a press release.

Despite pressure from Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee, Judge Roberts steered clear of commenting on any issue that might reach the Court in the future. His stance precluded specific answers to a broad range of questions about Roe v. Wade, the right to die, gay rights, and matters of church and state. At one point in the three days of Senate questioning, New York Democrat Charles Schumer wondered aloud in frustration whether the nominee would hedge his response to “what are your favorite movies?” Judge Roberts promptly deadpanned: “North by Northwest and Dr. Zhivago.”
Nonetheless, Roberts did provide insight into his view of the Constitution and the law, presenting himself as a cautious conservative, but not one in the radical mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Roberts expressed a commitment to the liberty interests arising from the Due Process Clause that form the backbone of Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. He described the framers of the Constitution as men who were “crafting a document that they intended to apply in a meaningful way down the ages,” a view in stark contrast to the so-called originalist notion that the Constitution must be interpreted as written over two centuries ago. He pledged deep respect for precedent, and he embraced the idea that judges should take the real world into account in their deliberations.

In a conference call with GLBT journalists, Lambda’s executive director Kevin Cathcart and legal director Jon Davidson were not able to come up with incontrovertible evidence of anti-gay hostility, nor any other smoking gun to back the decision to oppose. Nonetheless, both men were adamant in their conviction that Roberts would ill-serve the GLBT community as Chief Justice, based in part on Roberts’ Reagan-era staff positions, described by Davidson as “out of the mainstream.” Lambda had harsh criticism as well for the White House refusal to release papers from Roberts’ days in the solicitor general’s office during the first Bush presidency.

Lambda joined several other GLBT groups, and a number of leading left of center organizations in opposing Judge Roberts. Despite the unified front, Roberts is expected to advance out of the judiciary committee as this issue goes to press on Thursday, and go on to win handy confirmation from the full Senate in time to take a seat on the Court when the next term begins October 3. The expectations persist despite the announcement on Tuesday that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada will vote no.

Judicial and political pundits are already looking beyond his confirmation to the tropical storm that surrounds the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Now forming at the edge of the radar screens, it’s anyone’s guess whether the next confirmation battle will fizzle out, or alternatively, whether a monster political confrontation war lies ahead.

Given that Judge Roberts’ approval has long been anticipated, it’s assumed by many that his opponents are positioning themselves for the O’Connor nominee. As Lambda’s Jon Davidson told journalists, a decision to support or stay neutral on Roberts would have sent the signal that another taciturn conservative with no paper trail would satisfy the GLBT watchdogs and their allies. Opposition, by contrast, tells the President to find a moderate if he wants progressive support, Davidson said.

Other analysts speculate that Democrats might be in a stronger position to block a hard right nominee if they show bipartisan grace and vote for Roberts. Regardless of the merits on either side, Roberts appears to have charmed the right, impressed the center, and frustrated the left with his erudition and poise under fire. Senator Schumer himself, who had not decided on his vote at press time, called Roberts’ testimony a “tour de force.”

Four members of the Senate were to meet with President Bush on Wednesday morning to confer on the next nominee. Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter were invited to the breakfast meeting, along with their Democratic counterparts, Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

According to “Republican aides,” speaking to the New York Times, the search has focused on women and minorities, and some new names have been added to the well-publicized short list of candidates that circulated last June and July. Among them, the Times mentioned Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, who like John Roberts has served just two years on the federal appellate bench. Callahan, a former state appellate court judge with a background in criminal prosecution, was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by the Senate in 2003, with the enthusiastic support of California Democrat Dianne Feinstein. Last week, by contrast, Senator Feinstein called Judge Roberts a “legal automaton.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has agreed to stay on the bench until her successor is confirmed. The 75-year-old, who resigned July 1 prior to the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, has hired back her law clerks and will participate at least in the start of the next term. On Monday, Sept. 26, the Associated Press reports, O’Connor and her seven colleagues will review petitions for some two thousand cases that may or may not be accepted for review by the High Court. In this capacity alone, she will have a chance to influence the Court’s decisions far beyond her actual tenure.

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun
I suppose you read about the extensive survey from the National Center for Health Statistics. Apparently more teenagers are having oral sex, and 11 percent of women aged 15 to 44 have had “same-sex contact” at some point during their lifetime, including 4 percent over the last 12 months. I guess the other 7 percent were well down the road in their long term committed relationships.

Only 3 percent of males had sex with other males in the last year, by the way, and only 6 percent had done so in their lifetimes. Guys, is this possible? You’re slacking.

The survey was based on 12,571 in-person interviews conducted in 2002. Anonymous sources tell Bay Times that the female interviewers were “really really cute,” which may have skewed the numbers.

And they say it’s not a choice!

Squeak It’s Not So, Silo
Speaking of choice, I read an article the other day about how serial killers may be born deranged, for whatever reason, which reminded me again why I don’t like the debate over whether being gay is a choice or not. Of course it’s not a choice, but so what? The question is, is it immoral? Is it perverted? Is it valid to single out gay men and lesbians for punitive social approbation?

Note to self: stop the ranting. Here’s some breaking news. Literally. According to Fox News, two gay male penguins in New York’s Central Park zoo have broken up, and one of them has gone over to the other side. Silo and Roy, two of six gay male penguin couples at the zoo, have been together for at least six years. And yes, attentive readers may recall they once tried to hatch a rock together, and their keepers gave them a fertilized egg that they kept in their nest until it was born, and then cared for. They named him Tango.

Now, a single female from Sea World, Scrappy, has stolen Silo’s heart. Silo has abandoned Roy, and taken up with Scrappy in a new nest, where the lovers are trying to produce an egg. Recently, the article said, Roy was observed “all alone, sitting disconsolately at the edge of the penguin area, staring at the wall.”

Well, this heart-breaking story was bad enough without the mean-spirited Christian Right jumping in to gloat about it. “With Silo and Scrappy picking out curtains together,” wrote psychology professor Warren Throckmorton for Focus on the Family, “will gay rights groups now acknowledge that sexual orientation changes?” Actually, Silo has always identified as bisexual, although Roy assumed he was in denial.

Seattle Slew
I just received an interesting e-mail from Equal Rights Washington, who are preparing for the possible legalization of same-sex marriage in the Starbucks State. As we’ve been saying, the state supreme court is expected to rule on marriage equality any day now, most likely on a Thursday. The justices heard arguments in early March, so time’s a wasting.

If the ruling goes our way, state activists say marriage licenses will be available immediately, and marriages can take place three days later. I’m not sure how they know this, since the Massachusetts high court deliberately imposed a six-month delay on their marriage decision, but be that as it may, Equal Rights Washington is asking couples if they are interested in signing up on that Thursday, and getting married on Sunday. If so, they want a bio, and I’m sorry to say I didn’t print out their e-mail address. Oh, look it up. Selected couples will be given media training on Sept. 24, and can expect at least 15 or 16 minutes of fame.

You realize that unlike Massachusetts, where marriages for now are limited to residents, anyone can hop up to Pullyup and tie the knot. I know it’s Puyallup, but I always think of it as Pullyup. Doesn’t everyone?

What Color is Your Civil Union?
Now, on Oct. 1, same-sex couples in Connecticut can enter a real civil union, meaning a legal tie that carries all the rights and responsibilities of marriage available under state law. This is starting to cause some confusion, particularly now that the attorney general has ruled that his state will recognize civil unions from Vermont, as well as domestic partnerships from California, but Connecticut will not recognize marriages from Massachusetts, or presumably Washington should those become available.

This means a married couple from Boston would lose their status if they moved to Hartford, unless they signed up for the Connecticut plan. I’m not even clear on how Connecticut would treat, let’s say, a New Jersey domestic partnership, which carries some, but not all, the rights of marriage. I have an Associated Press story right here as a matter of fact about a couple from Perth Amboy, together for 19 years, who dutifully signed up for the Garden State partner program. One of the women died unexpectedly without a will at the age of 61, and now her widow has no legal claim on the house, the car, or the bank account, all of which were in her partner’s name.

Evan Wolfson, the veteran leader of the fight for marriage, is fond of telling all of us to expect a “patchwork quilt” of different policies around the country as we work towards, um, a smooth 600-count bed sheet of uniform national marriage laws. But this is turning into a raggedy tangled mess that you wouldn’t even be able to dump off at the local Goodwill. The good thing is that we can’t co-exist for long with a zillion conflicting marriage-lite arrangements, so perhaps the chaos will speed our exhilarating communal journey to the marriage finish line.

Schism Shmism
The nasty Nigerian Anglicans have finally split from the Anglican Communion, Gay.com reports, and good riddance to them. Archbishop Peter Akinola has taken his 70 million adherents and he’s off to the races setting up some fundamentalist offshoot that will no doubt be hailed by several of his fellow holier-than- thou sex phobic buddies in the African and Latin American branches. We’ll see. We’re bored by the Anglican story anyway. That was so two years ago.

Likewise, the Catholic priest scandal was yesterday’s news, but it’s still something of a shock to read that the Vatican has sent special investigators to check out all the 229 Catholic seminaries in the United States and rid them of homosexuals, both the chaste and chasing kind. According to an archbishop quoted by the New York Times, the policy even applies to men who have not been sexually active for a decade. Well, it applies to anyone who emits the smallest beep on the investigatory gaydar, so I guess we’re for a thinning of the ranks. The house cleaning will probably be followed by a general ban on gay men in the priesthood, but it’s not at all clear how they will be ferreted out.

Those crazy Catholics! Gotta love ‘em.

Endnotes

I don’t have space for another news item. But I can tell you about the grasshopper that walked into bar.

“Well now,” said the bartender. “You’re something of a celebrity around here. We even have a drink named after you!” “Really?” said the grasshopper in surprise. “You have a drink named Steve?”

I have no idea why I find that so funny.

-TXTNewsmagazine