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.