The Religious Right seems to be on steroids ever since President Trump was inaugurated in January. Many had hoped the extremism and tribalism would subside as time progressed. However, here we are one year into Trump’s presidency and it the rhetoric just seems to be getting more divisive and extreme.
Anti-LGBTQ activists have been doing everything in their power to try to influence Trump to ignore the Founding Fathers’ advice to keep the church and state separate. In fact, evangelicals have been holding prayer groups to help protect Trump from anyone who seeks to cause him harm. But what happens when their faith turns to bigotry?
Many Anti-LGBTQ Religious Right activists are not happy that Andrew McDonald is on his way to becoming chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. If confirmed, McDonald will be the first openly gay chief justice on any state court in the U.S. But the far-right doesn’t like progression, so they question it with fear.
In fact, Religious Right activist Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel recently argued that homosexual judges are incapable of granting fair trials to Christians; therefore, should not be allowed to serve as judges.
While discussing McDonald’s nomination, Staver claimed that it’s not a good idea because a gay judge cannot remain objective when presiding over a case that involves religious liberties for Christians. Staver explained, “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.”
Staver went on argue that the McDonald would not be able to transcend his sexuality and to be fair and objective. “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 asked. “I don’t think so,” Staver asserted. Can you believe he thinks a judge’s homosexuality would prevent him from being fair?