Conservatives’ Dishonest Use of ‘Religious Bigotry’ To Deflect Attention From Nominee’s Disturbing…
PFAWdotorg
532

In their questions, the senators noted Buescher’s long-time membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization that does much laudable charitable work, but which was also a top funder of anti-marriage-equality efforts and supports restrictions on federal family-planning funds.

This has been mainstream Catholic teaching for over 2,000 years. And it’s called “marriage” (there’s no “equality” because anything that isn’t one man and one woman is not a marriage), and life begins at conception. So what you’re calling “family-planning” is… wait for it…

ABORTION
Before the 2016 election, the group’s influential leader declared that Catholics cannot vote for candidates who support abortion rights.

Oh, they can if they like, but if they support a candidate that supports abortion because of that stance, they commit a mortal sin and put their eternal soul in jeopardy.

In the case of Buescher this is doubtful, given that as an unsuccessful candidate for attorney general of Nebraska, he said he did not believe LGBT Americans should be protected by anti-discrimination laws the way people are protected from racial or ethnic discrimination.

“Anti-discrimination”. Where did he say that? And did he say it exactly like that? Or did he not support the idea that two men or two women (or three women and a man, or a man and his dog) could get “married”?

There has always been limitations on marriage*. You couldn’t marry if you were brother and sister, or if you were underage. So fighting for marriage is a decent and honorable thing to do.

It was also at this time that he declared that he supported the “complete reversal” of Roe v. Wade. Buescher has a long record as a partisan ideological warrior, an additional reason cited by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in opposing his confirmation.

Of course. It is bad law. It deserves to be overturned.

That means judges, regardless of their religious or personal beliefs, must be counted on to uphold Americans’ legal protections.

No, their whole job is to determine whether those “legal protections” are Constitutional. Much like the protection of the property rights of John Sanford. (They miserably failed with that one in my opinion, much like they did with Roe v. Wade.)

__
* I’m sure you’re going to bring up miscegenation laws. Don’t bother. It was always a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman.