Monday, March 12, 2012

So Much For Privacy Rights

Remember when some people insisted that there was a right to privacy?  That what you did in the bedroom wasn't the government's business?  There are people who now insist on knowing what you do in the bedroom...and they aren't social conservatives.  First, Small Dead Animals points to this disturbing piece of data gathering from the February 24, 2012 Weekly Standard:
In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
“[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation,” reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A copy of Price’s memo was obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. 
“Providing complete and accurate aggregate demographic data is crucial to garnering continuing legislative support for securing critically needed judgeships,” Price writes.
And the University of California is going to start asking students what turns them on.  From the March 9, 2012 CBS Los Angeles:
The next influx of UC students may be asked to state their sexual orientation.
In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.
The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools had mixed reactions but agreed that the question would allow them to collect important statistical information. They recommended putting the question on the SIR forms instead of college applications to protect students’ privacy.
We of course know that this information will never be used against anyone.  As one of the commenters at Small Dead Animals observed:
My only thought here is that this will make it very easy for any government that doesn't like gays to know who to pick up. Lists never die.
So all our good Lefty troll friends, do you think the sun is -never- going to set on Liberalism? Do you think the government of the day is -never- going to put The Church Lady in charge of the Who's Gay list? 
Read Prayers for the Assassin--what used to be a completely impossible future now doesn't seem so impossible to me.


  1. The fact that Liberals are completely short-sided on this issue can be seen in how they are handling the forcing of contraceptive coverage on insurance companies. Don't they understand that if Government can force such an issue on insurance companies, then Government will have the power to ban insurance companies from covering contraceptives? Yet they fear Santorum, precisely because they are afraid he's going to ban contraceptives!

    Well, Santorum isn't claiming the power to ban contraceptives, at least on the Federal level...yet they are willing to give him the power, if he gets into office, to ban contraceptives!

  2. I would also add that such a list can potentially be meaningless. How to you prove that you're heterosexual, or homosexual? Do you have to provide a video where you're committing the act, or can you claim "I've never had sex, but I'm sure if I did, I'd have it with someone of my same sex (or not)."?

    Certainly, if you're going to provide scholarships to homosexuals, wouldn't that provide a certain incentive to lie about your status?

    And while I completely distrust Kinsey's "statistics" and "research", he's almost certainly correct when he claims that almost everyone is actually a mix of heterosexual and homosexual.

    And finally, questions like this--and those on "ethnicity" and "race"--really bother me. It ignores the fact that each individual is a unique combination of genes, and a unique combination of heritages (including personal ones), and assumes that if you're "Hispanic" or "gay" or "African-American" that you're going to believe a certain way--when in reality, the only "diversity" that matters is diversity of thought!

    Yet, if Liberals had their way, we would only be allowed to be Liberal in thought, and every deviant thought from theirs needs to be squashed immediately.

  3. This seems to be the only thing I ever quote President Lyndon Johnson for; "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

    There was some Irish movie producer about 6 years ago who pointed out that the left might be out of your bedroom but it was in every other room of your house, examining every other aspect of your life, and now the left finds that in its zeal for control it can't stay out of the bedroom where it famously said it wanted to stay out of. Why isn't this a "Read my lips, no new Taxes" moment?

  4. Oh, and what Episilon Given says about proof is what I am concerned about with regard to same sex marriage. If you think ICE is intrusive in questions and investigations when it comes to marriages that result in new Green Cards, wait until someone notices that same sex marriages result in similar bequeathal of benefits. So much for staying out of the bedroom, the marriage police are under your bedroom window!