- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I remember reading snippets of it. From what I gleaned he essentially said that there is no good argument against gay marriage and that it should be legal.
Um, not exactly here. This is a poor analogy.
A Homosexual Judge has something to gain from this, as it essentially bestows the right of marriage upon him (even if he chooses to not have it)
As the proponents of Same Sex Marriage have said for some time, allowing Gay Marriage doesn't do anything to straight people.
EVERY gay person gains something from this ruling, even if they don't engage in the act of Marriage becuase they have the ABILITY to. Every straight person doesn't necessarily have a vested stake in this or even the average straight person doesn't have a vested stake that actually legally would affect them. Its far more reasonable to suggest that there would be bias on the part of a Homosexual towards this than there would be suggesting a bias of a striaght person against this.
The far better analogy would be a Christian Fundamentalist judge, as then it is something going against his religious beliefs and it would be just as reasonable to suggest a bias on the part of him as it would be on the homosexual.
Now that said, I don't think he should've recused himself, in part for the scenario I said above wouldn't make me think the fundamentalist judge should recuse himself. But the homosexual/straight analogy is a failed one for what you're arguing.
He found 80 findings of fact based upon expert witness testimony, made a Constitutional argument as to how Prop 8 was gender discrimination that violated equal protection on the grounds of sex, and went through every argument put forth by the proponents and logically debunked each one.
I provided the link for it on the original post. Why not read through it and actually provide examples of where you think he interjected his personal opinion?
um. it was pretty much commonly understood the entire time. sort of like how everyone knew that Obama wouldn't fight for traditional marriage though he pretty promised that he supported it to get elected. I've been aware of it certainly since it got assigned to him.
the Supreme Court had to step in to rein in this guys' shennanigans.
to cap; he did everything legal (and some things illegal) in his courtroom to tilt the room against Prop 8, made quite clear his conclusion was foregone, and then produced a ruling built around a series of "just-so" "findings of fact" that interposed his opinions in place of a legal argument.
a straight judge that acted in a similar manner probably should have.
Judge Walkers False Facts:
1. a constitutional amendment that carries with it the weight of the tradition of millenia as nothing more than a "private moral view" that can be discounted as meaningless
2. that he has the right to decide that A) california voters are just a bunch of bigots and B) that therefore their votes don't count.
3. that Prop 8 used the law to attack homosexuals.
UPDATE 1-U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case | Reuters
Do you think that the proponents of Prop 8 will bring up Retired Judge Walker's sexual orientation in appeal? Should Walker have recused himself and why?
In case anyone is interested, here is Walker's full ruling...
California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)
If you feel that Walker's sexual orientation somehow marred his judgment, then could you please point it out?
Since the law would affect him directly, then there is a conflict of interest. He should have recused himself, and by not doing so, he allowed that question to be inserted into the case by showing an appearance of impropriety. Whether or not he was biased is not the question, but the appearance of impropriety is, whether he intended it or not. That is why, by not recusing himself, he muddled the playing field on this issue. A good judge would not have allowed this to happen, but would have recused himself in order to prevent this from becoming an issue in the first place.
The Constitution doesn't protect against gender discrimination.
Essentially his ruling was expanding the 14th Amendment to protect sexual orientation.
Since the law would affect him directly, then there is a conflict of interest. He should have recused himself, and by not doing so, he allowed that question to be inserted into the case by showing an appearance of impropriety. Whether or not he was biased is not the question, but the appearance of impropriety is, whether he intended it or not. That is why, by not recusing himself, he muddled the playing field on this issue. A good judge would not have allowed this to happen, but would have recused himself in order to prevent this from becoming an issue in the first place.
The Constitution doesn't protect against gender discrimination. Essentially his ruling was expanding the 14th Amendment to protect sexual orientation. He cites things based on his opinion that the morality of others shouldn't prevent gay marriage. The judge would have a logical case if the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified into the Constitution. This Amendment would have made it completely illegal to have any discrimination based on gender. However, this was not ratified. Opponents pointed out that ratifying this would make it unconstitutional to have male and female bathrooms and that it would force women into the draft and to register with the selective service. It would force gender equality and ban any form of gender inequality, which in certain circumstances is a bad thing (as with some examples that opponents of the Amendment cited in their arguments). This did not pass, and one cannot say that the Constitution dictates that you can't discriminate on marriage by having the wife role being exclusive to women and the husband role exclusive to men with a marriage being composed of one man and one woman. This judged offered his personal opinion, wrongfully stretched the 14th Amendment, and essentially said it's illegal to define marriage if it doesn't include homosexual unions because that is gender discrimination which under the Constitution is not necessarily unconstitutional. The Amendment failed for a reason, it's not in our Constitution. If it had passed then he would have a case when it came to banning men from legally being wives and from wives from legally being husbands.
Personally I believe we should allow SSM, I believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into their own marriage contract. However, there is no Constitutional legal basis that forces SSM to become law. The Constitution is basically silent in regards to sexuality and marriage. It's wrong to warp the laws and force SSM to become legal when the Constitution doesn't support that. What it does support is democracy, and democratically (and legally) Prop 8 should have stood. Numerous states have passed similar amendments which have gone to court where the ruling was that the passed amendments were legal and upheld.
I'm sorry, was Walker married in California to a man? If not, then it does not affect him.
Since the law would affect him directly, then there is a conflict of interest. He should have recused himself, and by not doing so, he allowed that question to be inserted into the case by showing an appearance of impropriety. Whether or not he was biased is not the question, but the appearance of impropriety is, whether he intended it or not. That is why, by not recusing himself, he muddled the playing field on this issue. A good judge would not have allowed this to happen, but would have recused himself in order to prevent this from becoming an issue in the first place.
Incorrect.
It bestows upon him a right he previously didn't have. Just because he doesn't choose to exercise that right doesn't mean it doesn't affect him.
Up until recently I didn't own a gun. I didn't have any immediete plan to buy a gun. However, if they repealed the 2nd amendment it would affect me because it would remove my right to buy one if at some point I ever chose to do it.
Incorrect.
It bestows upon him a right he previously didn't have. Just because he doesn't choose to exercise that right doesn't mean it doesn't affect him.
I am not sure if you are aware of the difference between knowing something, and assuming something.
Opinion pieces in National Review are so convincing...
Funny how you make claims based on slanted editorials, but don't comment on his actual ruling.
So your issue is that he ruled the way you did not want to, without ever actually referring to the ruling he made.
it's with the lack of legal reasoning in the decision
2. Denial of marriage to same-sex couple allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to regocnize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples;
So, reading through the case now, and this provision popped out at me.
One of the 6 key premises behind prop 8 was the following:
Seriously? Gays and lesbians must be relegated to second-class citizens so that others can PRETEND THEY DON'T EXIST AT ALL!?!? And these guys put this into their legal argument.
...
I really have no words to express how screwed up that is. I would need a word several levels past "F" to really describe this.
So, reading through the case now, and this provision popped out at me.
One of the 6 key premises behind prop 8 was the following:
Seriously? Gays and lesbians must be relegated to second-class citizens so that others can PRETEND THEY DON'T EXIST AT ALL!?!? And these guys put this into their legal argument.
...
I really have no words to express how screwed up that is. I would need a word several levels past "F" to really describe this.
UPDATE 1-U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case | Reuters
Do you think that the proponents of Prop 8 will bring up Retired Judge Walker's sexual orientation in appeal? Should Walker have recused himself and why?
In case anyone is interested, here is Walker's full ruling...
California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)
If you feel that Walker's sexual orientation somehow marred his judgment, then could you please point it out?
Um, not exactly here. This is a poor analogy.
A Homosexual Judge has something to gain from this, as it essentially bestows the right of marriage upon him (even if he chooses to not have it)
As the proponents of Same Sex Marriage have said for some time, allowing Gay Marriage doesn't do anything to straight people.
EVERY gay person gains something from this ruling, even if they don't engage in the act of Marriage becuase they have the ABILITY to. Every straight person doesn't necessarily have a vested stake in this or even the average straight person doesn't have a vested stake that actually legally would affect them. Its far more reasonable to suggest that there would be bias on the part of a Homosexual towards this than there would be suggesting a bias of a striaght person against this.
The far better analogy would be a Christian Fundamentalist judge, as then it is something going against his religious beliefs and it would be just as reasonable to suggest a bias on the part of him as it would be on the homosexual.
Now that said, I don't think he should've recused himself, in part for the scenario I said above wouldn't make me think the fundamentalist judge should recuse himself. But the homosexual/straight analogy is a failed one for what you're arguing.
Incorrect.
It bestows upon him a right he previously didn't have. Just because he doesn't choose to exercise that right doesn't mean it doesn't affect him.
Up until recently I didn't own a gun. I didn't have any immediete plan to buy a gun. However, if they repealed the 2nd amendment it would affect me because it would remove my right to buy one if at some point I ever chose to do it.
Actually that does not work since the argument against SSM, and it was used in the case, is that SSM would hurt strait marriage. Because of that, a strait judge would have to recuse himself because he is ruling on something that, by their argument, would hurt his marriage or potential marriage.
Well you're a homoapologist, so you have to recuse yourself, just cause. :mrgreen:
I am an honorary member of the gay mafia as well, so you better not cross me.
:2razz:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?