Anti-LGBTQ Religious Right activist Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel appeared on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” radio program yesterday, where he asserted that gay people should not be allowed to serve as judges because they are incapable of being objective and fair in cases involving religious liberty for Christians.
Asked about Andrew McDonald, who was recently nominated to serve as chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court and, if confirmed, will be the first openly gay chief justice on any state court in the country, Staver was not shy about voicing his opposition.
“Here’s the problem with it beyond the issue of the morality of this,” Staver said. “Beyond the issue of other consequences is the fact that what we typically see is someone’s identity, their being, completely wrapped up in their sexual practices, meaning that—do you think that if you had an Aaron and Melissa Klein or a Jack Phillips bakery or anything else like that where you have the LGBT clash with religious freedom or freedom of expression come before this judge, do you think this judge is going to be open and fair irrespective of what he does to rule based on the Constitution and the rule of law? I don’t think so.”
“This is a real problem because what we are doing is we’re putting somebody on a bench who is siding with their personal identity,” Staver added, likening the situation to the recent resignation of Judge Alex Kozinski from his position on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amid multiple allegations of sexual misconduct.
Insisting that Kozinski would have been unable to rule fairly in cases involving pornography or sexual assault, Staver asserted that McDonald, or any other gay judge for that matter, is likewise incapable of delivering objective rulings in cases involving LGBTQ rights or religious freedom.
“The question is: are you going to get a fair shake out of this individual who identifies as someone based upon his sexual practices, who is identified and identifies himself based upon certain behavior?” Staver said. “Are you gonna get a fair shake? I don’t think so. So that is a real problem in this nomination of this appointment of this individual.”