- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 113,014
- Reaction score
- 60,602
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge
Please look up "strict scrutiny", "intermediate scrutiny", and "rational basis review". In a nutshell, to make a law outlawing SSM, the supporters of the law have to show how it is in the interest of the state to outlaw SSM. The argument used is that it is damaging to all marriages. Hence, any married person has a conflict of interest, based on the arguments used by those against SSM in court.
This is false. The only way he would have a conflict of interest would be if he intended to actually get SSM himself, and we have no evidence of that. Further, it is possible to be gay and actually oppose SSM(Yes, it does happen). You are making the first mistake made by those who see people as what they are, instead of who they are.
Nowhere have I commented in this thread on whether being gay is a choice or not, nor is it a part of my arguments on the topic. So don't go building that straw man. Don't distract from the actual topic.
Friday this week is the start of my work week.
Bull ****! You folks are always saying that gay marriage doesn't affect heterosexuals at all, so which is it, you can't have it both ways?
Please look up "strict scrutiny", "intermediate scrutiny", and "rational basis review". In a nutshell, to make a law outlawing SSM, the supporters of the law have to show how it is in the interest of the state to outlaw SSM. The argument used is that it is damaging to all marriages. Hence, any married person has a conflict of interest, based on the arguments used by those against SSM in court.
Furthermore, a literal reading on the law is inescapable, and Walkers ruling might indeed be thrown out based soley on his sexuality. I wonder if any of you holier than thou gay supporters would feel the same way if a polygamist was the judge ruling in a similar fashion? Oops.. What about a celibate pedophile, a drunk, drug user, anyone that has a lifestyle that they wish to legitimize ruling in favor of their lifetsyle.
This is false. The only way he would have a conflict of interest would be if he intended to actually get SSM himself, and we have no evidence of that. Further, it is possible to be gay and actually oppose SSM(Yes, it does happen). You are making the first mistake made by those who see people as what they are, instead of who they are.
Don't give me the tired old arguments gay is not a choice blah blah.. YOU can't prove it isn't anymore than I can prove it is, so let's do ourselves a favor and argue the merits of my above assertion. Don't distract, and answer the questions..
Nowhere have I commented in this thread on whether being gay is a choice or not, nor is it a part of my arguments on the topic. So don't go building that straw man. Don't distract from the actual topic.
Thank God it's Friday..
/Rant over.. Feeling better already.
Tim-
Friday this week is the start of my work week.