HRC Blog

In this blog series, HRC attorneys discuss news and break down legal theories relevant to a U.S. Supreme Court nomination and the recent retirement of Justice David Souter. Beginning today, at the conclusion of questions directed at Judge Sotomayor, the Committee will hear from three witness panels:  (1) two American Bar Association witnesses, (2) fifteen witnesses testifying in favor of the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, and (3) fourteen witnesses testifying in opposition to her confirmation.  The Human Rights Campaign has done research into the opposition witnesses and has determined that several of them have spoken out on the wrong side of issues important to the LGBT community.  For example, Peter Kirsanow, a Commissioner for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, recently signed a letter to Congress opposing the passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  Moreover, in 2002 Mr. Kirsanow stated in a speech that, “virtually all of the civil rights legislation that can be passed has been passed.”  Another witness, David Koepel, is an attorney with the Independence Institute.  Koepel has written several editorials for Denver’s Rocky Mountain News that have criticized the media (both generally and specifically) for being too quick to come to the defense of the LGBT community.  In his commentary, Mr. Koepel has used such phrases as “the gays-as-victims script” to describe how the media treats news stories involving LGBT individuals.  Another opposition witness, attorney David Rivkin, once wrote in a New York Times article that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was wrong in the Goodridge marriage case when it “misconstru[ed]” the Equal Protection Clause to guarantee the right to marriage to same-sex couples.  Yet another witness, Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life has spoken out against extending the right to marry to same-sex couples, asserting that same-sex marriage would “[h]arm [m]arriage.” However, the opposition witness who has most consistently displayed anti-LGBT sentiment is Linda Chavez, the Chair of the Center for Equal Opportunity.  Ms. Chavez has written articles and editorials with such titles as “Civil-rights shouldn’t cover sexual orientation,” “Our Turn: Should lesbian couples be granted parental rights? No,” “Gays must be tolerant of conservatives' views,” and “New hate-crimes laws unnecessary.”  In these writings and others, she has expressed a number of intolerant and ignorant views, including but not limited to:  suggesting that the LGBT community was taking advantage of the AIDS crisis to advance their political goals; comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest; describing sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws as “special protections” rather than equal treatment; and stating that lesbians and gay men do not deserve parental rights. These witnesses will purport to testify regarding Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  However, it is clear that several of these witnesses have exhibited bigotry that severely undermines the credibility of any testimony that they may give regarding Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications. HRC will continue to monitor Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.  Check back with us on our Equality in the Courts website for up-to-date information and commentary. Contributed by Phil Medley, Summer 2009 McCleary Law Fellow