Judge Blasts Proposed Code Change as Promoting ‘Homosexual Agenda’

Judiciary

Judge Blasts Proposed Code Change as Promoting ‘Homosexual Agenda’

Posted Jun 4, 2008, 09:51 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

An Oklahoma judge has taken aim at what he calls the “liberal, pro-homosexual American Bar Association” in a letter opposing a change in the state’s judicial conduct code.

Judge Bill Graves of Oklahoma County used that phrase to describe the ABA in a letter opposing a proposed anti-bias amendment to the state’s judicial conduct code based on an ABA model act, the Oklahoman reports.

The letter (PDF posted by the Oklahoman) contends the provision would provide even more protection to sexual orientation by barring judges from holding membership in groups that discriminate based on sexual orientation and other grounds.

Graves said the Oklahoma judicial code already bars judges from showing bias on the basis of sexual orientation and that such a provision “is promoting the homosexual agenda, which is to have homosexuality treated as normal and natural as heterosexuality. These are cultural, moral and political issues that should be reserved to the legislative branch.”

Graves, a former state lawmaker, wrote that “sexual orientation” could include pedophiles and polygamists. “Homosexuals practice anal sodomy, … which no doubt has contributed greatly to the AIDS plague,” he wrote. Using sexual orientation as a protected category bars judges from refusing to award custody of children to gays and lesbians, he said. He maintained that such issues should be decided by the legislature.

Mark Harrison, chair of the ABA Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, told the newspaper the ABA is not trying to promote an agenda. He said the anti-discrimination provision won unanimous support from a diverse group of judges, lawyers and academics. The ABA House of Delegates approved the revised model code last year.

The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (PDF) says judges may not discriminate on the bench on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status or political affiliation. However the code says judges are not barred from making reference to such factors when they are relevant to the proceedings.

The former version of the model code had barred judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin. The categories of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation were added to that list when the revisions were adopted in 2007. A comment makes clear the ban does not apply to membership in religious organizations.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by associate - 3 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 46 minutes ago

What about the Boy Scouts of America? Based on their Christian founding, they don’t allow gay leaders. So are they religious and allowed, or discriminatory and not allowed?

Judges can no longer lead the Boy Scouts? We need gay role models instead? I think this “diversity” and “tolerance” thing is getting a little twisted.
Posted by msg - 3 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 44 minutes ago

I agree. This is the liberal agenda forced upon everyone else who disagrees with them. They are supposed to be “tolerant” and the party of “diversity.” Give me a break. They are the party of destruction to those who do not agree with their liberal agenda.
Posted by sdlaw - 3 months, 2 days, 3 hours, 46 minutes ago

Oh please. Quit your whining and get back to chasing ambulances. The world is changing - and yes, to answer your question, gay role models are a GOOD thing. Check your history, numbskull. Liberal agenda? Gee, I bet your granpap was really upset when he could no longer own PEOPLE. Dolts.
Posted by Caroline - 3 months, 2 days, 8 minutes ago

sdlaw - well said. The legal profession, including the judicial system, should be at the forefront of bringing positive change in this country. This includes tolerance of people who are different. All these “Christian” people aren’t exactly following the Christian ideals of love, tolerance and acceptance. Better check the Bible again before complaining about the ABA trying to encourage “tolerance,” “diversity” and a “liberal agenda.”
Posted by associate - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 23 minutes ago

"positive” “tolerance” “acceptance”

Caroline, you might have a better point if you weren’t advocating restrictions on an individual’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. I’m still trying to figure out how your “positive” change is “tolerant” and “accepting” of Christians’ religious convictions. It sounds more like you agree with freedom only as long as people are doing and thinking what you allow them to.
Posted by a fellow - 3 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 36 minutes ago

If there’s one thing I’d agree it’s acceptable to ‘force upon’ people, it would be the inability to selectively institute harm upon those engaging in consensual activities that cause no material harm to others when these activities are reflective of an immutable and deeply important aspect of those individuals’ lives.
I agree with ‘msg’ that the contemporary left’s motto seems to be ‘we’re all in this together--whether you like it or not!’ I’m even uncomfortable with barring public servants from membership in hateful organizations, but the institutions in which these public figures act requre certain broader and more neutral principles of equality to be applied more fully than they have been in the past.
Posted by JS - 3 months, 6 hours, 59 minutes ago

Given that the change allows judge to make reference to factors such as sexual orientation when it is RELEVANT to the case, what is the big complaint? That a judge should be allowed to rule against a gay person when his/her sexual orientation is IRRELEVANT? Is that really what we want?

I look forward to the day when issues like sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, etc., are viewed as largely irrelevant to nearly all legal issues. A person certainly should not win or lose a case just because s/he does or does not belong to the judge’s preferred group. I imagine that the people who oppose this code change would not want a gay judge ruling against them because they’re straight.....
Posted by KP - 3 months, 5 hours, 51 minutes ago

Shouldn’t acceptance be part of the human agenda and not just attributed to liberals? If not, I guess I would have to say I am a proud liberal b/c hatred and bigotry is no way to spread the other ideals of the bar, such as law abidance and justice.
Posted by An Older Grad - 3 months, 5 hours, 38 minutes ago

It is a fundamental tenet of “the social contract” that compromise is sometimes necessary when humans interact. As such, expectations of tolerance will necessarily limit personal freedom with regard to *action*; notwithstanding this, a person is at all times free to *believe* as she or he wishes. Witness that the constitutional protection for freedom of religious *belief* is absolute; not so with religious *practice*. When such sacrifices are necessary, we weigh the costs and benefits, a process that is fluid and dynamic.

Without getting deep into the (lack of) merit of the judge’s rant, I think he effectively eviscerates any argument he may have when he abandons reason to stereotyping and generalization at the outset. To wit:

False: [All] homosexuals practice anal sodomy.

True: SOME homosexuals practice anal sodomy.
Also true: SOME heterosexuals engage in anal sodomy.

[And, for those who may not have personally known anyone who could expose you to the reality, SOME heterosexuals also engage in pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, sadomasochism, masturbation, exhibitionism, and even abstinence. Why, from what I hear, some of them can match colors and decorate tastefully!]

Part of the problem, of course, is a tendency to presume homosexual *behavior* to be aligned with “homophile” *affective* orientation. Though both fall under “sexual orientation,” one is emotional, the other behavioral. There is no shortage of homo-affective persons who have, for the sake of conformity (or other reasons of their personal choosing), invested themselves in heterosexual behaviors and lifestyles, even marrying and parenting children. My father was among them, as were many before him, and many since. Some I know would (but I would not) rush to declare, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much!” and seek to put the judge into that category.

I can only mirror the comments above in asserting that such factors as private, consensual sexual behavior should be barred from consideration when they are irrelevant to the matter at hand, and a subjective moral evaluation and condemnation on the part of the factfinder is NOT (or, at least, is RARELY) sufficient to create of relevancy.
Posted by Bill - 3 months, 5 hours, 22 minutes ago

Caroline - practice what you preach: “This includes tolerance of people who are different.”

Right - so why don’t you tolerate people who don’t want a club or group they belong to to be forced to accept homosexuals? Talk about destruction of constitutional rights. You do not have a constitutional “right” to belong to a private association; but the private association DOES have a constitutional right to association - which includes the right to NOT associate with people they do not wish to associate with.

Don’t like it? Start your own club. You can call it the “keep out the old white men” club. I won’t care; I won’t want to join. And you won’t have to worry about us old white men suing you to force you to let us in.
Posted by NotOK - 3 months, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

I certainly hope that Judge Graves’ opinions show better legal reasoning and are better crafted than this letter. If Judge Graves really thinks that pedophilia and polygamy are “sexual orientations” then he simply does not understand what the term means. It is beyond belief that Judge Graves could actually have read the proposed Code of Conduct and have any knowledge of its legislative history and still maintain his view that it is supposed to apply to these practices. Apparently, however, he is just so incensed that he will not be able to freely exercise his bigotry that such minor details are of no concern to him. Similarly, Judge Graves relies on certain uncited “studies” to support his view of why he should be allowed to apply his homophobia in custody cases. How much credence do you think Judge Graves would give to a brief he received that put forth the argument “courts have decided” but didn’t bother to say which courts or cite a single case? Well, I guess when you have got such an important point to make, you can’t really be expected to follow the same conventions that you would expect of any lawyer appearing before you and trying to persuade you of their position.
Posted by An Older Grad - 3 months, 5 hours, 4 minutes ago

Personally, I think the ban on membership in discriminatory organizations is probably a bit over the line - if only because it’s virtually unenforceable, and thus subjects itself to becoming dilutive surplussage. Perhaps we could make it wholly permissible to enjoy membership in such groups, but require public disclosure?

While I say that with tongue in cheek, to consider the proposal does raise this question: If you would NOT want such a membership publicized, is it because there’s something about it that you find shameful, or inconsistent with your role as a purportedly unbiased arbiter of justice?
Posted by Bruce - 3 months, 5 hours, 2 minutes ago

Who comes up with the “Homosexual Agenda?” Is there some sort of secret weekly meeting with Elton John, Boy George, Tom Cruise and Ellen DeGeneres? What does the Homosexual Agenda consist of? 1) Mandatory pilaties classes in schools; 2) Complete elimination of blue jean jackets by 2012; 3) Encourage replacing arbitration with interpretive dance competitions…
Posted by Pro Gay Rights Heterosexual - 3 months, 4 hours, 26 minutes ago

This guy needs to removed from his position as judge. It is clear that he cannot make decisions without inflicting his personal biases against gays. Studies have shown it is detrimental for children to be raised by a gay parent? Really? I suppose that would be worse than an abusive, addicted, neglectful parent?

Also, while I am for gay marriage, just because Oklahoma opposed gay marriage, does not mean that the state’s voters oppose homosexuality. i seriously fear for anyone who has a case in front of this judge, no matter what your race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. It sounds like he has plenty of biases that he includes when making decisions in his courtroom.
Posted by Paul - 3 months, 4 hours, 16 minutes ago

Methinks that “Homosexual Agenda” is a band out of Tulsa, OK, made up of Oral Roberts U grads who have a sense of humor. They have redeeming social values of tolerance and respect for others and minding their own business.

Something the ranting judge should look into after he examines why such an innocuous requirement triggers such a strong and ill-reasoned diatribe.
Posted by Patrick - 3 months, 4 hours, 7 minutes ago

Does that mean Hillary Clinton can’t be a member of a Wellesley Alumni Association because, you know....
Posted by Anti-discrimination - 3 months, 3 hours, 56 minutes ago

These arguments have come up before. Remember segregation? That was bad bad bad. Discriminating against homosexuals based on their orientation is also bad bad bad. Just because homosexuals have an easier time passing doesn’t mean its less wrong to discriminate.
Posted by Stevie B - 3 months, 3 hours, 46 minutes ago

Organizations that Judges would be prohibited from belonging to under this rule:
a. Boy Scouts
b. United States Air Force Reserve
c. Civil Air Patrol
d. U.S. Army Reserve
Likely would be expanded soon to eliminate religious exception.
a. Catholic Church
b. Mormon Church
c. Many other denominations
Posted by Tolerance.... - 3 months, 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

Such a waste of energy. When are people of this country going to get their minds out of their crotch?

How about people leaving sex in their bedrooms and/or closets; where it belongs. How about our society spending its time with important issues; not talking about what people do with their genitalia in their free time?

How about people getting a life and not wasting their time pushing law and rule changes to “accommodate” this or that behavior?

How about everyone not pretending to be so indignant when someone disagrees with their idea of what’s normal?
Posted by Honestly - 3 months, 38 minutes ago

The ban itself sounds unnecessary.

+1 for Bruce. Where does this “homosexual agenda” come together? Some dazzling penthouse in Manhattan that has just the motht thuper interior design, no doubt!
Posted by Daniel Reitman - 2 months, 4 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 22 minutes ago

I find it interesting that Judge Graves’ letter includes a reference to a statute that almost certainly is unconstitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas.
Posted by JOSEPH F. RYAN - 2 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 59 minutes ago

THANK YOU, Judge Graves, for speaking out! We have reached the point where people are being persecuted for holding true to their religious beliefs.

The ABA CLEARLY has been promoting the homosexual agenda for years. Mark Harrison’s statement to the contrary simply is not true.
Posted by XYZ - 2 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 47 minutes ago

The ABA is well known for its liberal lobbying. The ABA would be better off tending to the business of helping lawyers make a living. I’d like to see the Oklahoma state legislature weigh in on this and tell the ABA to take its various (not just homosexual) liberal agendas and put them where the “sun don’t shine.”
Posted by Adrian - 2 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 55 minutes ago

It will never stop astounding me just how indifferent some people can be to basic issues of EQUALITY. Such lives are often charmed by being born into circumstances where they are treated with respect, and proper regard.

Try growing-up gay; going to grade, then high school; enduring undergrad; law school; family resentments; and then discrimination in professional life.

Terms such as “sodomy” and “liberal lobbying” show a clear one-sided blindness to the basic equality issues of others who are unlike them. Try growing-up ... beyond your own selfish experience!
Posted by XYZ - 2 months, 4 weeks, 21 hours, 26 minutes ago

Hummmmm, let talk about equality. Does anyone doubt that the same arguments being successfully used today to persuade some judges to legalize homosexual marriage will be used shortly to justify polygamous marriage?
Posted by Carolyn - 2 months, 4 weeks, 17 hours, 42 minutes ago

I read with interest the comments from many of the pro-homosexual writers. As the comments devolved into personal attacks on the judge. As the old saying goes, if the can’t argue the facts, argue the law. If you can’t aregue the law argue with the judge! The facts that our Constitution is based on Natural Law. Whether you look to Christianity, Judahism, Confucianism, Islam, or just about any other philosophy that gives us gives us the Natural Law which is the basis for our country’s law, homosexuality is not a right it is a violation of that law. Regardless of what our rather loud legal associates and others have preached in the last few years, the judge is right.. The ABA’s model rules should follow not undermine or change the Natural Law which is the basis for our constitution.
Posted by Matt - 2 months, 4 weeks, 13 hours, 59 minutes ago

The argument that justifying homosexuality will lead to justifying polygamy will likely be made, but it’s very easy to draw a distinction basedon likelihood for coercion. The likelihood for one gay person to coerce another gay person into marriage is no higher than the likelihood that one straight person will like coerce another straight person into marriage. On the other hand, we have seen in the news these past two years examples of the power of coercion in plural marriages. Maybe what we really need to do is enforce laws against child abuse and child marriages, and maybe ploygamy isn’t really the problem. But it does seem that polygamy is far more correlated with coercion - with a disregard for consent, that is - than marriage between two people. Why is it too much to say gays can marry because in a unit of two the chance for coercion is far lower than ANYONE marrying more than one partner, situations which have been correlated to disregard of consent?
Posted by massachusetts lawyer - 2 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes ago

Homophobes everywhere are so right. Ever since this state made gay marriage legal, my own heterosexual marriage has suffered. All those gay marriages have destroyed the whole institution!

Seriously, Americans need to stop worrying about what happens behind the closed doors of two consenting adults. The fact is that homosexuality exists, and nothing you can do will change that. It exists in the animal world, human AND non-human alike, so it’s not “unnatural.”

I don’t understand why it’s a problem to require judges to treat people with respect and not discriminate against them on any basis. They hold life and liberty in their hands, and that should not be taken lightly. If a judge (like this one) can’t handle it, then there are many other professions out there that don’t involve such important decisions.
Posted by Older and Wiser Guy - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes ago

What is it with Oklahoma rightwingnuts and gays? First came the state representative who said that gays were more dangerous to the US than terrorrists, and now this “distinguished jurist.” Is it something in the water out there?
Posted by associate - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 38 minutes ago

I see that this post has now made its way to the gay rights websites and lost all sense of proportion and reason.

If you read the article, it’s about restricting a judge’s consitutional right to free association based on the tenants of that organization, even if they’re religious. That’s wrong. This is not about segregation or any other discrimination BS. It’s about the judge’s right to associate with religious or simply morally upstanding organizations in his free time. Discriminating based on any basis is already (correctly and properly) prohibited in decision making. Choosing organizations having religious or moral underpinnings should not be prohibited, even if you do feel strongly about pushing the gay agenda.
Posted by JM - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 13 minutes ago

#30 - If you read the article, including the final sentence, you will see that your comment is in error. If you click the link in that sentence and read that article, you will see the exemption is even broader.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Judiciary