“I wouldn’t put anything past a flip-flopper like Romney, but going from nominating pro-gay marriage activist Democrats, who are openly homosexual themselves.”

The suggestion that being “openly homosexual” should automatically disqualify someone from serving as a judge is kind of vile. (Those were the words of JohnnyZ, which Jeff does debunk.) Imagine hearing someone decry the nomination of “too many black judges!” or “openly left-handed judges!” and you get an idea where some of the negative stereotypes of the Republican party come from.

But even the title of this post suggests that Republicans identify classes of people who don’t deserve equal legal protection. If it’s a good thing that Romney is not “pro-gay rights,” then aren’t you saying that Romney is “anti-gay rights?” Why is it a political asset to oppose rights for a segment of the population?