Remember how I said that the problem with Sally Kern was that she wanted to enact her anti-gay agenda while pretending it was really everyone else who was trying to enact an agenda, but not sweet little Sally? (Well, that and enacting laws to enforce her religious beliefs upon all Oklahomans, while pretending that failure to do so was discriminating against her?)

Here we go again. Former nutcase state representative Bill Graves, who, thanks to a complete lack of critical thinking by someone somewhere is now a district judge in Oklahoma, is "upset over proposed changes in Oklahoma's Code of Judicial Conduct:"

The changes are modeled on wording in the American Bar Association code.

Graves says they are not based on state or federal law "but on proposals of the liberal, pro-homosexual American Bar Association."

He specifically objects to a proposed rule prohibiting judges from being members of groups that discriminate on the basis of race, age, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

First, the AP headline goes way too far in Graves's favor. Something like "lunatic judge demands right to discriminate from the bench" would be just as accurate without the false implication of reasonableness that AP's headline provides.

Second, if you're a civil libertarian like me, your first thought might be, "Well, what business is it of the court's what a judge does in his spare time? He's got the right to free speech and free association just like everyone else."

This is true, of course, which is why Graves didn't link to the actual proposed changes to the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct [PDF], where the changes are extensively explained and annotated.

Search for "orientation" (as in "sexual orientation") and you'll discover that the existing Code of Judicial Conduct says:

A judge should perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge should not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex. religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and should not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

But Graves isn't objecting to that, because it's hard to prove that a judge was biased in the exercise of his official duties. The current code also tells judges not to let attorneys in his court advocate discrimination on any of those grounds unless they are a legitimate part of the case at bar.

This is one of the new sections that Graves objects to:

Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge’s official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge’s integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. See Rule 3.6.

Graves's entire legislative history is "remarks that demean individuals," especially based upon their religion (if it's not his), national origin (damn immigrants), or sexual orientation. This would require him to, you know, stop being his bigoted self to stay on the bench.

But again, it would require proof that Graves has recently said these things to get him removed from a case or from the bench, and in the good ol' boy network, that can be hard to produce. That's why Graves specifically objects to this proposed new rule:

A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

That would be easy to prove and use against him, potentially costing him his cushy taxpayer-funded perch that he uses to discriminate against gay people since term limits (a Republican idea, I remind you) forced him to stop doing it in the legislature. Why add this restriction on a judge's outside conduct? A comment in the proposed code clarifies:

A judge’s public manifestation of approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives rise to the appearance of impropriety and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. A judge’s membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination creates the perception that the judge’s impartiality is impaired.

In case you're wondering if this is all about hating the gays, Graves clarified that too in his letter, as reported by the AP:

[Graves] also says the new proposal could forbid judges from refusing to award children in custody and adoption cases because a person is homosexual.

He says studies have shown that is detrimental to children.

Well, no, they haven't. In fact, studies show exactly the opposite. You can download the book for free and read it yourself, something Graves will never do because it interferes with his hate, but here are the bullet points from the appropriate chapter:

• The sexual orientation of parents does not affect the psychological well-being of children.

• The sexual orientation of parents does not affect children's social development.

• The sexual orientation of parents does not affect children's cognitive development.

• The parenting skills of lesbian and gay parents are at least as good as those of heterosexual parents.

• The sexual orientation of parents does not affect the quality of their relationships with their children.

• Parents' mental health does not differ based on their sexual orientation.

• The quality of the couple relationship between the parents does not differ based on sexual orientation.

• Parents' sexual orientation has no impact on children's gender identity.

• Children raised by lesbian parents may fel less constrained by sex stereotypes than children raised by heterosexual parents. [Graves would likely think this is a bad thing.]

• Parents' sexual orientation does not determine the sexual orientation of their children.

And since Graves is probably referring to Paul Cameron's "studies," there's an entire sidebar pointing out his scientific dishonesty and biased research, just for extra fun.

Even with support for Sally Kern, hating on the homos isn't as socially acceptable as it used to be, so Graves is forced to go back to the old lie that if he's required to treat all people equally no matter who they sleep with, it will be "detrimental to children." The only real detriment to children of gay parents is from discrimination against their parents, which Graves has advocated all his career, currently enforces from the courthouse, and wants to make sure he can continue to do no matter how many children (or adults) it harms.

I hope he's up for re-election this year, and that his district gets as much of an earful of this as Sally Kern's district did about her view that the law must prohibit people acting against her religious beliefs or she's being "discriminated against."