Sexual perversity, executive/judicial edition

Anyone curious what Eliot Spitzer threw away a political career for, could do worse than view the Playboy pix of Ashley Dupré at WWTDD. As the word "Playboy" indicates, these are NSFW, unless you work in the sex industry.

Of course, it's a good thing Spitzer wasn't gay, or else he might have let his sexual preferences get him into trouble. I mean, just imagine if he'd been gay, and a judge!

With an active homosexual on the bench, Lady Justice will no longer even pretend to be blind. She will be peeking out from under her blindfold to determine the sexual preference of those standing before her, then will let the fold slip back into place before ruling in every case to legitimize sexual deviancy.

Bottom line: the American ideal of absolute equality before the law will inevitably be shredded by a homosexual judge. Neither the Constitution nor the American people should be subjected to that kind of judicial malpractice. We can and should expect more from those who occupy seats on the highest bench in the land.

Thus says the American Family Association (via Sully). You could probably fill a 50-minutes civics class with everything wrong in that AFA screed, but the immediately striking aspect to me was the evident assumption that heterosexuality is not a "sexual preference." Indeed, the AFA appears to have proved that homosexual judges are *required* for cases involving homosexual litigants. I suppose we will have to have panels, with bisexual jurists rounding out each menage a trois.