America's unique brand of identity politics is simply 21^st century cultural Marxism.  Karl would be elated that race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are leveraged in yet another struggle against the white bourgeoisie's relentless "accumulation of wealth in private hands, [and] the formation and increase of capital."

From the Weekly Standard we read:

In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.

"[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation," reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

"Providing complete and accurate aggregate demographic data is crucial to garnering continuing legislative support for securing critically needed judgeships," Price writes.

Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed the authenticity of Price's email regarding gender identification and sexual orientation to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

"The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett [the Democratic majority leader in the California State Senate] expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation."

Price's email also reveals that the Administration Office of the Courts (AOC) is asking for this personal information because of the new law. "For the past five years, the AOC has been required to collect and release aggregate demographic data relative to the ethnicity, race, and gender of justices and judges, by specific jurisdiction, on or before March 1 of each year. This requirement is associated with efforts to obtain new judgeships."

So now there is a requirement that, to remain a judge in the Golden State, our appointed and elected jurists must declare their sexual orientation. Pretty damn intrusive, don't you think?  What you do in the privacy of your home has become the domain of the State of California.  Where are the progressive civil libertarians on this issue? Their silence speaks volumes about their real agendas, which have little to with civil rights, and everything to do with expanding the government's control over every aspect of our lives.

What if a judge lies about his or her sexual orientation? What happens if a judge is bi-sexual or has changed orientation from the previous request? Will aggressive lawyers demand the release of a judge's sexual orientation to determine prior bias in cases touching upon sexual issues? The probabilities for appellate court mischief are endless.

Whatever ever happened to the right of privacy? What if a straight married judge has an affair with a member of the same sex, how is that reported?  Or conversely, a lesbian judge has a fling with straight man.

Does sexual orientation, gender, race or ethnicity have an effect on a judge's ability to do their jobs?  The answer should be a quick "hell no" from both progressives and conservatives. But that is not the case; just ask the legislators and governor of California.

Justice is supposed to be blind.

Now that the beastly camel has poked its nose into the tent, can we expect a question on sexual orientation as part of the admissions process for colleges and universities?  Just how soon until sexual orientation becomes a factor in receiving preferential treatment in hiring for state jobs, bidding on state contracts, and granting professional licensees from state boards?