Cleary, I misunderstood the concept of church/state separation, but I didn't say he doesn't have a right to his opinion, religious or not. My concern is that he calls her biased due to having merely attended a same sex union ceremony. As was stated earlier, doesn't that make him biased if he ever attended a traditional marriage ceremony? In that light, I still ask what right he has to call her partiality into question.
Because it doesnt work that way. Attending a heterosexual wedding does not make a statement about homosexual weddings and visa versa. Only statements on homosexual marriages, for or against, are pertainant. Its a good emotional blurb to say that it does but in the end that is all it is. An emotional reaction that has no corelation to the actual issue.
As for his right, reviewing appointments is part of his job as Senator. (So he has the right to overreact. )
Attending a heterosexual wedding does not make a statement about homosexual weddings and visa versa. Only statements on homosexual marriages, for or against, are pertainant.
Exactly my point. Her attendance at the homosexual ceremony doesn't mean that she is for or against gay marriage. She even states that the union "had no legal effect"; in essence it wasn't a marriage but a sort of commitment ceremony, so Brownbeck's logic that she may be partial to gay marriage is a bit flawed. He may be doing his job, but Neff was already approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It seems to me that Brownbeck is more interested in building a judicial system that follows his beliefs than the partiality of one judge.