Openly gay judicial nominee Tracy Thorne-Begland who currently serves as a well-respected deputy prosecutor, has been targeted by legislators and conservative groups simply because he is gay. Tracy Thorne-Begland is currently a deputy prosecutor in Richmond.
From the Washington Post:
Thorne-Begland, the deputy commonwealth attorney for Richmond, has been nominated to serve as a judge for the city’s 13th General District Court.
On Friday, the Family Foundation of Virginia issued a statement opposing his appointment, arguing that his public work on behalf of gay rights makes him unsuitable for the impartial role of judge.
“The question is, will his personal political agenda take precedent over Virginia law and the Constitution?” the Family Foundation statement reads. “Is he going to uphold laws he clearly and very publicly disagrees with? What does he believe is the role of the courts in moving in a more ‘progressive’ direction?”
Thorne-Begland declined comment Saturday, saying via e-mail that it would be improper for him to do so as a judicial nominee. He referred questions to his sponsor in the House of Delegates, Del. G. Manoli Loupassi (R-Richmond).
Loupassi described Thorne-Begland, a prosecutor for 12 years, as someone who is highly regarded by judges and defense attorneys alike.
“He is absolutely well qualified,”Loupassi said, contending that Thorne-Begland’s public statements about gay rights do nothing to diminish his fitness for the bench.
To declare someone ineligible for a judgeship purely on the basis their sexual orientation seems to be discriminatory to me. Are we going to have to change our logo from Virginia is for Lovers to Virginia is for Bigots?
Apparently Delegate Bob Marshall has also gotten in the act. He has described Thorne-Begland as “One District Court applicant, Tracy Thorne-Begland, has been an aggressive activist for the pro-homosexual agenda, lives with his “partner” and two adopted children.” Marshall plans on proposing an amendment if his fellow Republicans don’t block this man’s name from the list of appointees. Marshall also spoke to President Bill Clinton’s pro homosexual policy.
I am embarrassed to live in the 13th District. No, Bob Marshall, open discrimination is not ok with most Virginians. Homophobia is a personal thing and should not be part of Virginia policy. Appoint Tracy Thorne-Begland and let’s move on. Being openly gay and an activist for civil rights should not disqualify anyone for a judgeship.
The right wing believes that homosexuality is a political choice and not a sexual orientation that is genetically pre-determined. I believe that right-wingynality is also a genetically pre-determined orientation. They can’t help themselves.
No it is not “simply because he is gay”. The issue is, because he is homosexual, how can he uphold Virginia’s anti-homosexual laws? Isn’t that kinda like asking an African American to vote for slavery? Or to ask a Jew to vote for a neo-Nazi? I wonder what his record has been in prosecuting cases violating Virginia’s anti-homosexual laws? Now that would be interesting.
I think the article was a pretty good read.
Pretty fair and balanced for WaPo.
what “anti homosexual laws” are you referring to?
This is an embarrassment, who cares WHAT two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? Move into the 21st century Virginia!
from the article:
General District Court judges decide guilt and innocence in misdemeanor cases and probable cause in felony cases, which then get referred to a grand jury, Loupassi said. Constitutional questions about gay rights are unlikely to come up in that setting, and Thorne-Begland would recuse himself from a case if they did, Loupassi said.
“It’s like our ‘Night Court,’” he said, referring to the 1980s courtroom sitcom. “Did Johnny punch Mary? Did this person steal a bottle of beer from the store? … It typically deals with these types of cases. … He’s not going to be making decisions relative to some of the hot-button social issues.”
I think really the issue here is…should a judge be trying any case where s/he lobbied on behalf of something?
I don’t have an issue with this nominee. If he says he would recuse himself if a case were (on the off chance) presented to him on the topic then I take him for his word.
@George S. Harris
I am unaware of homosexual laws that would prevent him from doing his job.
Lawrence vs Texas was handed down in 2003. It seems longer ago than that. It should have been.
@marin, how about judges being Democrats or Republicans? Isn’t that lobbying on behalf of something?
If a judge were a fisherman, could he prosecute an over-catch case? Because the man lobbies for equal rights, I don’t see where this fits in a a general district judge.
I don’t see where it would be any different than if a straight judge lobbied for equal rights for gays, just to be perfectly honest.
I should have read what elena said.
@Moon-howler
Sure. Just because your a male judge doesn’t mean you can’t try a case on a female issue such as reproduction or sexual assault.
Support is different than lobbying. I may support something – women being topless in public. I may share that in public. I may even try to go down to Richmond and fight for it. But, if I’m a judge now trying a case re being topless in public — well that does bring up a question of ethics. If a Judge is wise enough and ethical they would see this as a clear conflict and recuse themself.
This may has said he would do so. With that in mind I would have zero issue with him being a judge.
To your point re a straight judge. I’d use the same logic. If the laws of our country/state were such that homosexual marriage was the only type of marriage allowed than a person that lobbied for straight relationships would need to recuse him/herself from any case re that issue.
What matters is the law. The Judges robes are black for a reason. 😉
Good for Delegate Loupassi for standing up for his nominee. Would that other elected officials showed the same courage. Bob Marshall is afraid of the so-called Christian conservatives.
Delegate Loupassi is also a Republican. That must be making things a little dicey for some. I wonder if the Marshall crowd has called him a RINO yet?
If homosexuals have to recuse themselves on civil rights cases involving sexual orientation, I suppose heterosexuals must also. What’s left?
@Scout. That was my question also but I wasn’t quite sure how to form the question.
It doesn’t sound to me like the problem is that he is gay, but that there is doubt he’ll be able to remain impartial.
Why would he NOT be impartial? Do you mean if a gay person was drunk driving, he would side with him? If a lesbian robbed the 7-11, he would let her off?
I don’t see why gays would be any less judicial than a straight person. Are all straight people impartial?
“Why would he be impartial?”
Uhmm…. Cause isn’t that what we pay Judges for? Sorta the job description………….
Sorry, left out the word not. So try that one again. Why would he not be impartial?
I guess all heterosexuals should also not be allowed to be judges too by that reasoning. For example, a hetero judge might side with an ax murderer who is also hetero.
I’ve had a bit of experience with judges. Every last one of them has a sexual orientation or a gender or a national origin or owns a dog or is married or you-name-it. By and large, these folks do a pretty good job of either putting their life experiences in a place where they don’t affect the dispensation of justice, or in frankly stating that they can’t be impartial in a certain case and recusing themselves.