Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

  1. #31
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

    If there is a legal fault in his decision, then you might have grounds for it, I have not seen this. While I DISAGREE with his logic and thinking, I am not going to say he reached said conclusion because he happens to be gay.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #32
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    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.
    Last edited by danarhea; 04-07-11 at 12:53 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #33
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.
    And a Straight Judge that has ever attended Church wouldn't have the same issue?
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #34
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The Constitution doesn't protect against gender discrimination.
    Actually it does. There is a high scrutiny that has to be passed in order to meet due processs of law because sex is a protected federal class, whereas sexual orientation is not. By making it an issue of gender discrimination instead of an issue about sexual orientation discrimination, Walker was able to make a strong Constitution argument on grounds of due process and equal protection that he would not otherwise been able to make.

    Essentially his ruling was expanding the 14th Amendment to protect sexual orientation.
    No. Read the ruling and stop pretending like you know anything. When you make statements like the one above you are simply embarrassing yourself. It's painful to watch.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 04-07-11 at 02:35 PM.

  5. #35
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.
    I'm sorry, was Walker married in California to a man? If not, then it does not affect him.

    What you seem to forget is that allowing same sex marriage affects everyone the same way. Anyone can marry someone of the same sex if they so wish. The only way it could have affected Walker in a way that it would not have affected any other judge is if he had already been married.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 04-07-11 at 02:32 PM.

  6. #36
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    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.
    First of all, you are wrong about the 14th Amendment. It does protect against sex discrimination.

    Women's Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment
    Reed v. Reed
    Reed v. Reed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The application of the 14th Amendment to sex discrimination is different than how it is applied to issues such as race or religion, with a lower level of scrutiny, but the Equal Protection still does apply. Of course it is also at a higher level of scrutiny than sexual orientation, which is still protected by the 14th Amendment as well.

    Second, because of the level of scrutiny that has to apply when dealing with sex discrimination, the law is unconstitutional if it does not further an important government interest that is substantially related to that interest.

    Intermediate scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The anti-SSM has not been able to provide a case yet that shows an important government interest is being furthered by restricting marriage to a man and a woman only. This judge pointed that out with this case.

    Just because a particular side has won many cases does not mean that the particular side is right or actually constitutional. It just means that the other side was not able to argue their case well enough or perhaps even that the judge was biased against their side.

    As far as the judge not declining this case, I don't think it was necessary. If you can show actual legal fault in his ruling that could reasonably show that he was bias, then go for it. So far, no one has been able to show what exactly the legitimate state interest that is being furthered is by not allowing same sex marriage. And that is especially true for the anti-SSM legal team of this case.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #37
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I'm sorry, was Walker married in California to a man? If not, then it does not affect him.
    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.

  8. #38
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.


    Why would a gay judge have to recuse himself and a straight judge would not. Why would a straight judge not be just as biased against gay marriage (Appearance of impropreity speaking) than a gay judge would be in favor of it?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #39
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Well...by that logic, only people who don't own guns should be able to rule on 2nd amendment issues, because people who own guns have a propriety interest in the outcome of the case. Silly logic in either case.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #40
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    How? It would bestow the exact same right on everyone. Every person would be bestowed with a right that they did not previously have. As such, any judge could marry someone of the same sex. So why would it be any different with any other judge?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 04-07-11 at 04:41 PM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •