• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

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?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

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.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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?

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

I am not sure if you are aware of the difference between knowing something, and assuming something.

the Supreme Court had to step in to rein in this guys' shennanigans.

Opinion pieces in National Review are so convincing...

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.

Funny how you make claims based on slanted editorials, but don't comment on his actual ruling.

a straight judge that acted in a similar manner probably should have.

So your issue is that he ruled the way you did not want to, without ever actually referring to the ruling he made.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

1) appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.
2) He did not decide this
3) not quite what the decision actually says. He is the actual line from the actual decision: "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians". Are you trying to say this is not true?

Have you read the decision? Can you actually argue against his findings?
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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:
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:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I am not sure if you are aware of the difference between knowing something, and assuming something.

no, i am not. for example, i am assuming that you read english, and will understand wht I am typing. it seems a pretty safe assumption, but an assumption it remains. but perhaps you could enlighten me and the rest of modern philosophy on the matter.

Opinion pieces in National Review are so convincing...

is this your way of tacitly admitting that, yes, the famously left-wing 9th circuit and the Supreme Court both had to step in to tell this guy to behave?

Funny how you make claims based on slanted editorials, but don't comment on his actual ruling.

funny how you don't adress the points brought up about the 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.

no, my issue is that he behaved like a bigot and an activist rather than an impartial judge. my problem isn't with the ruling itself, it's with the lack of legal reasoning in the decision, the heavy dependence upon highly questionable "facts" within the decision, and (most critically) how obvious this judge made it that his decision was already made before the case even started.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

it's with the lack of legal reasoning in the decision

Since I don't think you actually know what the legal reasoning was in the decision, could you please state it?

Also, exactly which facts were highly questionable and why?

It's easy to argue that a ruling was bad and biased when you haven't even read it and refuse to actually supplement any of your complaints with actual quotes or segments from the ruling itself. Of course, that isn't debating, that is just being intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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:

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;

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.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

The people backing Prop 8 in the court case did such a poor job that it is almost as if they where trying to undermine their own case. Almost no witnesses, almost no presentation and what they did present was incredibly stupid.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

But if children recognize that same sex couples exist they will get all confused and it would be really bad!
 
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?

This is equivalent to calling the heterosexual judges traitors for not striking down same sex marriage.

When are Americans going to stop marginalizing PROFESSIONALS based on details like race, gender, and sexual orientation? Judge Walker is a seasoned veteran in the judicial system with all the knowledge, precedent and powers necessary to make informed decisions. His sexual orientation is completely irrelevant.

As long as there are gay members of the GOP who vote in favour of conservative social policy, I don't want to hear any whining about decisions like this one.

Gays are members of this society at all levels and people should just deal with it. :shrug:
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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.

Congratulations, you've just torpedo'd the fundies arguments for them.

A straight judge, according to you, must clearly not have something to gain OR lose. Meaning that same-sex marriage does not affect him at all.

That puts a giant hole in the idea that this is an attack on straight marriage.

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.

I'm straight and it would bestow upon me a right I didn't previously have as well. (marrying a dude) Just because I don't choose to exercise that right doesn't mean it doesn't affect me.

I'm straight, therefore I must recuse myself from a gay case, right?
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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:
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

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:
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I am an honorary member of the gay mafia as well, so you better not cross me.

:2razz:

Sounds like a deal I can't refuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom