Contact
Subscribe
Degrading gay people isn’t acceptable, Judge Murphy
Heath Haussamen
District Judge Mike Murphy degraded gay people in conversations with a court employee and another judge who are both gay. He also created a hostile work environment. Treating people that way isn’t acceptable. Murphy needs to apologize.
Warning: This article contains language that is explicit and that many will find offensive.
I’d like to think our society wouldn’t tolerate a male district court judge telling a joke that degrades women to a female employee of the court.
I’d also like to think our society wouldn’t tolerate such a judge describing numerous sexual situations to a female judge, including talking in graphic detail about his female cousin’s sexual preferences and making a derogatory comment about her.
But District Judge Mike Murphy said comparable things about gay people to a male court employee and a female judge who are both gay. With the exception of the media shining light on Murphy’s comments, the criticism of his conduct has been left primarily to gay-rights groups.
What does it say about our society that we’re largely leaving it to gay people to stand up for gay people?
Murphy’s statements
In case you haven’t been paying attention, District Judge Lisa Schultz secretly recorded a conversation she had with Murphy at the courthouse in December 2010. That recording is the basis for one bribery charge against Murphy.
Murphy’s comments about gay people have nothing to do with the bribery case, but the recording provides a candid look at a judge who has admitted to having a big mouth. You can listen to the entire, 38-minute recording here. Some highlights:
- During the meeting with Schultz, Murphy shared details of a conversation he said he had with a male employee of the court. Murphy told Schultz, “He, you know, I told him a big old nasty faggot joke, and he says, you do know I’m gay? And I said of course. I said, if you weren’t I wouldn’t have told you that joke.”
- Murphy also talked with Schultz, who is a lesbian, about a female cousin he described as being gay. Murphy said when men “hit on her,” she would tell them they had a lot in common: “We both like to eat pussy.” He then described his cousin as “a diesel dyke from day one.”
- In telling Schultz that God made him heterosexual, Murphy said he wouldn’t “be honking some guy’s johnson” even if there were no more women on Earth.
- Murphy spoke during the conversation with Schultz about an apparent investigation into his conduct, referencing “my confidential deal about being, you know, uh, anti-gay, anti-semitic.” He said such allegations are “a crock of shit. You know, I may be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, but I’m none of those other things.”
The power of the words we use
As Murphy’s attorney has pointed out, Murphy was “talking privately in a friendly manner to an openly gay person, in part discussing gay politics and how to make improvement on gay issues… he praised the ending of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ in the military and the advances on gay marriage; he bemoaned the unfairness of bullying of gays in schools, the firing of a gay court employee and the stereotyping of gays by society.”
Yes, it appears that Murphy supports gay rights. But that doesn’t change the fact that, according to Murphy’s own statement, he told a joke to a gay employee that may have made the employee uncomfortable. (That’s my assumption, since the employee asked, “You do know I’m gay?”) It doesn’t change the fact that Murphy made numerous comments to Schultz about gay people that could be taken as derogatory, including labeling a woman a “diesel dyke,” and put Schultz in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with him or confronting him.
Talking in a “friendly manner?” What if Schultz was too intimidated to stand up to Murphy as he said degrading things about gay people? What if the court employee felt harassed but didn’t stand up for himself because he’s an employee and Murphy is a judge?
Murphy bemoaned bullying in schools, but isn’t his “rude” and “crude” talk a form of bullying? I think it’s fair to say that his comments created a hostile work environment.
NMPolitics.net columnist Nick Voges authored a column earlier this year in which he recalled his best childhood friend sharing that he was gay when they were juniors in high school. From Voges’ column:
“‘How long have you known?’ I asked.
“‘Forever,’ he replied.
“‘Why didn’t you tell me sooner?’ I asked.
“But even as I asked the question, I could easily recall the many times I’d said, with easy and careless cruelty, that something or someone was gay (or some more offensive version of the word). Of course, he had used that same language as well. We all did – our friends, our fathers, our coaches.
“At that moment I was as deeply aware as I’ve ever been about the power of the words we use. I was heartbroken – and remain so in some ways – that I’d been a stumbling block to my best friend during a key leg in his journey toward being the man he wanted to be. What kind of person – much less friend – does that? Not the kind that I wanted to be. I wanted to have been better than that.”
Our words have immense power. The fact that Murphy is supportive of gay rights indicates that he understands on some level the difficulty gay people face in our society. It also makes his conduct even more egregious.
Murphy needs to apologize
As NMPolitics.net has detailed previously, members of the commission that interviewed Murphy for the judgeship in 2006 asked about his big mouth, which Murphy himself called his tendency to make “locker-room jokes.”
Murphy told that commission he recognized the difference between what is appropriate “in the private setting” and what is appropriate in court. He promised that his mouth wouldn’t be an issue.
I’m giving Murphy the benefit of the doubt by assuming he was simply wrong when he said he understood the difference.
What Murphy says in his own home is his business. But what he said at the courthouse to a colleague and to an employee of the court – someone over whom he has some level of power – is the public’s business. He’s an elected judge. He asked to be placed in a position that requires that he be held to a high standard.
That standard includes treating court employees and colleagues with dignity and respect.
Instead, Murphy said things that were degrading and offensive. He created a hostile work environment. And perhaps worst of all, his attorney is now using the fact that Murphy supports gay rights to suggest his comments aren’t important.
Words matter, Judge Murphy. A public apology from you would be a good start toward healing the wounds you created.
I’m frankly shocked that, with the exception of gay-rights groups, our society has expressed little outrage over Murphy’s comments. It’s absurd that more people aren’t standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the gay community in response to this situation.
Count me among those denouncing Murphy’s conduct in the courthouse. He owes Schultz an apology. He owes the court employee an apology. He owes the entire gay community an apology.
Someday, Murphy is going to have to learn that treating people this way isn’t acceptable. I hope this is that day.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
20 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is not about being gay it is about being respectful . . .
I agree with JusticeP.
wedum59 – good recovery! You are welcome.
On the scale of evil, the malicious trumps the boor. The malicious would occupy a several lower levels of hell in Dante’s cosmology. It is much easier to tell a boor to shut-up than to counter the stress and pain caused by the far more wicked malicious intent.
Schultz is not fit to be holding other human-beings in judgement. What a menace.
QT: It is a fact that Schultz recorded the conversation secretly. Her actions were deliberate. IMHO, the recording should not have been presented to the court except as a rebuttal against Murphy, if he, on the witness stand, made false statements about the content of the conversation. Instead it was used to attack Murphy. I find that malicious.
“Judge Schultz secretly and with malice aforethought recorded a private conversation” -wedum59
You might want to rethink this comment and request it’s deletion as it is appears to be a statement of fact.
Agreed wedum59, District Judge Lisa Schultz’ petty actions are what is unacceptable.
Below is a sample of language that I find offensive:
“I believe and my constituents believe that we must protect the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Historically the definition of marriage has rested on the bedrock of tradition, legal precedence, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. If this bill passes courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. The monetary impact on the state will be great. There will be new dependents who will be entitled to survivor benefits. It will also burden the state. I implore you to vote against this bill. Mr. Chair, I must say this, in this state –and committee members- already- this is not against any one. Marriage is a foundation that has been established. We are not pushing this agenda on any one. All we are asking, Mr. Chair, is that the sanctity of marriage be protected….”
This is Nora Espinoza’s public testimony in the NM Senate against HB9 during the 2008 legislative session. NOTE the implication that homosexual dependents are not worthy of benefits. These words constituted a deliberate attack on the welfare and happiness of homosexual partners. They caused real damage to the lives of the members of the LGBT community. Nora Espinoza was, and is, in a position of power, where she can, and does, use her power to attack them. This is something real to get angry about.
Judge Schultz secretly and with malice aforethought recorded a private conversation. As far as I know, Judge Murphy had and has no power over her. Her actions have been more damaging to Murphy than his words were to her. And why wasn’t she as frank with him as he was with her? Why didn’t she just say something to him, such as, “I don’t like that kind of talk?” No, she let him ramble on for, was it 38 minutes? I find Schultz’s actions more offensive than Murphy’s words.
JusticeP said it best Murphy owes apologies for his conduct. In good conscience he should resign from his position of his own volition for his statements. He should be tried for the crimes he may have committed while in office and before.
We have suddenly become a nation of people who are so thin skinned we take offense at the least thing. Just 75 years ago it was considered a norm to say, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, etc. It is hurtful in many ways, but we cannot hide our bushel under a barrel.
We make jokes about country, God, ethnic groups and animals, but we take offense at creating jokes about other groups. The jokes were intended to make people laugh, though they sometimes hit on a subject that is a politically incorrect word or statement. I have always believed that if you make a joke about any group or personage, then you should be able to suffer the same about yourself, or your beliefs.
We have become a nation that walks on eggshells and take offense at the lest slight. Look into your own life and realize that we as parents say things to our children that are hurtful and they to their parents. Yet we do not take offense, even though those words are hurtful at the moment. I can remember when the “N” word was used in everyday language and sure it was hurtful, but that hurt is only for a short span of time.
We need to grow thicker skins and be able to laugh at ourselves as well as others. I do not suffer slurs from another person, only personal attacks on me or my family. I do not especially approve of a gay life style, but look at it as a matter of choice. I do not have to associate with people whose life style I do not care for, nor do I have to live with them or in their shoes, but I do owe them the courtesy of respect for them as human beings, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Gay, or of a particular sect or political group.
A judge is held to a higher standard though and should be careful of his jokes and words simply because he must present a facade of unbiased treatment of the people who come before him. The real question is did Murphy break the law and that is the only thing he should be judged on by the courts. Trying him in media over and over in absentia isn’t helping the people, or furthering justice. A joke told in bad taste or in the wrong company is not a reason to malign or try the man in court, but accepting a bribe is, malfeasance of office and abuse of power is.
We should all look into our own lives and clean up all the smutty parts that we have lived over the years, before we cast stones of aspersion toward another person. We all have things in our lives we need to be ashamed of. “Let not those who live in glass houses cat stone.” also Let those without sin cast the first stone.”
I believe I have been fairly clear in my support of Judge Murphy. I believe the charges against him are politically based and I believe we will, increasingly, see this type of legal action against sitting jurists. That said, after I read the comments he made to the other judge, I was offended to my core. I am certain, as Wedum59 pointed out (with a movie example), in real life I have made similar jokes and derogatory comments. Even though I was a sailor back then by the time I was 23 or 24 I figured out that that kind of language and those kinds of jokes are not representative of someone who likes a ‘locker room’ joke they are representative of someone who maintains an ongoing prejudice of the group or the person who is the butt of the joke. J. Murphy’s comments remind me of the stereotype of the old southern police chief as Burt Reynolds used to put in his “Bandit” movies. I have met people in real life who fit those stereotypes and now I believe J. Murphy falls in that same group. J. Murphy may not be able to resign because of legal issues surrounding the current political charges against him but as soon as he has been found ‘not guilty’ of the crimes alleged against him – that day – he should resign. J. Schultz should follow his example and resign also. Whatever all of us have heard about J. Murphy we also know that Schultz is equally untrustworthy. We want judges we can trust.
I am with wedum59 and right on Truthcounts. Heath, debate is exactly what we are doing on the blogs. Your mind is made up but, not all of us see things in so black and white a manner.
Truthcounts,
Opposition to gay marriage is hardly limited to the GOP. That said, I’m not prepared to take a position on that policy issue, which is still being debated in Washington, Santa Fe, and elsewhere, and which I’ll have to cover as a journalist in the coming years. This column was about an issue that is settled – harassment, bullying, and creating a hostile work environment are simply not acceptable, period. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no debate about that.
A lot of politicians attack gays and lesbians in cruel and unusual ways. The entire Nation is not accepting of gay unions which is equivalent to discrimination and denies millions the pursuit of happiness. Hatred is still be taught. When a Judge, no less, cannot manup and apologize for such egregious actions and words he becomes a teacher of many subjects. Inequality, poor ethical standards and lack of accountability are among the lessons. The cycle continues.
This situation is not funny or in any way acceptable. Other minorities have succeeded sometimes taking centuries to gain equality. US citizens in 2011, who teach or joke or ignore discrimination and hatred are dangerous. There is power in numbers and if more individuals do not come forth with denunciation of cowardly bigots who hate; the bigots’ teachings will continue and the inequality will survive.
Judge Murphy, after you apologize please do the citizenry a favour and resign. Teach truth and equality, let justice live.
WOW, Wedum59 you just truly showed your true colors with that comment. I will never take anything you say seriously again.
Judge Murphy was wrong in his comments about the gay person, and having did it, it paints him completely as being unable and unwilling to render fair and judicious decisions in court. One can only guess what he thinks about other population groups. Thus, he should fess up to all these allegations and charges and quit the bench.
Heath,
Will you call on the GOP to apologize to gay men and women for promoting a platform that denies them the right to honor their love and commitment to eachother through marraige?
Heath you are right on here. Murphy has shown poor judgement, and may have to recuse himself from certain cases.. He ows us all an apology.
Well, having read Murphy’s comments, I really can’t get too worked up. None of those remarks were directed at the person he was talking to. I recall that the last few minutes of the movie “Platoon” had the newly promoted platoon leader telling his subordinates to get their “swinging dicks” out on the battlefield. So what?
We have far too much puritanical prejudice in this country.
Heath:
Count me among those denouncing Murphy’s conduct in the courthouse. He owes Schultz an apology. He owes the court employee an apology. He owes the entire gay community an apology.
I would like to add that Murphy owes all of the taxpayers an apology and resign. This type of conduct while on taxpayer dollar payroll is totally without regard to his responsibilities and duties. When the courts are overburdened with cases there is no room for this kind of conduct.