So, while Mr. Marshall might be a lawmaker, he apparently doesn’t know a lot about the law; otherwise, he wouldn’t have made such an asinine comment. Or… maybe he would have because this is his personal point of view? He made the comment and then did a bit of damage control by saying that the judge wannabe wouldn’t be impartial where cases involving homosexuality were concerned… like he somehow knows that for a fact? Until proven otherwise, to me, this is an assumption, like the person in question doesn’t know that judges can’t be partial to anything other than the law itself; otherwise, what good are they?
Oh, but don’t we know that judges are known to let their personal views and opinions get in the way of their supposedly impartial job? And how many judges are judges solely for the purpose of their own political gains… or even financial ones? It just always amazes me how we want to hold certain people to high moral standards if they hold public office; yet, they are allowed to interject their own personal prejudices into matters and then presenting them as if they’re speaking “for the people” in whatever they’re prejudiced about… and the folks in Virginia are worried that a gay judge wouldn’t and couldn’t be impartial?
Hypocrisy? Or is it a form of bigotry, as someone in the article was quoted as saying? And, if so, what are they saying, that it’s wrong to have a homosexual judge… but it’s okay having a bigot or two (or more) making important decisions about how life goes on in their respective state?