[Vapepreab]

America is slowly moving to the left of Ben. Maybe he'll give up his dreams of coming here.

[dubballey]

Democracy is dead

[GECEDEANY]

The 9th circuit is idiotic, iirc, so I don't put much stock behind them.

By the way, virginia has a gay marriage ban in its constitution as well. And like all constitutional amendments, it had to pass by referendum with I believe 60% of the vote.

[DailyRingtone]

While I think that gay marriage should be legalized, I am suspicious that this is a bad ruling.

JM

[AliceFromHouston]

Agreed with the distinguished pinko posting above me.

However, you know exactly how the Right is going to use this as a blunt instrument with the midterms approaching. (Not to mention the Cordoba House "controversy".)

[bitymnmictada]

Hard to know how long it will take to work its way to the Supremes, but given how extensively the judge quoted Kennedy's previous opinions, you'd have to lay odds on the Court upholding this decision. If that does happen just prior to the 2012 election... jesus ****, I can't imagine how ****ed up things will get.

[Reocourgigiot]

Wait.

We allow gays to be judges? What is this, France?!

[Vjwkvkoy]

Well, he does look fabulous in his robe. He's no Rehnquist-at-Clinton's-impeachment (aka the gayest moment in the history of American jurisprudence), but still.

[foodselfdourileka]

Oh, and the first person to whine about the court overthrowing/disregarding/whatever the will/voice/whatever of the people gets nine bullets to the ****ing head. Why?

And, though the gay thread starter cannot be expected to know anything not contained in the yellow pages, this decision is meaningless not just because it comes from the California judiciary but also because it comes from a district court. The crap I just took has more wait than this ruling.

[mirzaterak]

Why?

And, though the gay thread starter cannot be expected to know anything not contained in the yellow pages, this decision is meaningless not just because it comes from the California judiciary but also because it comes from a district court. The crap I just took has more wait than this ruling.

For being too stupid to continue ****ing living. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit what the "will of the people" can do.

[CGECngjA]

Take that out of state Mormon church. Everyone knew it would be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just like segregation did) which might explain why Republicans are now campaigning to get rid of the 14th.

[jamisi]

Take that non-SAN DIEGO Mormon church. Everyone knew it would be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just like segregation did) which might explain why SAN DIEGO Republicans are now campaigning to get rid of the 14th.

[Woziwfaq]

For being too stupid to continue ****ing living. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit what the "will of the people" can do.

You are an idiot and should be shot in the penis.

[Kuncher]

I'm curious as to why a gay judge wasn't forced to recuse himself from this case on grounds of vested interest. There are also signs that the judge had made up his mind before the trial even started - granted the defense presented a weak case.

[CxofxJFm]

Or a straight judge, for that matter, since a core part of the defendant's arguments was that gay marriage presented a threat to heterosexual marriage.

Do black judges have to recuse themselves from cases where one of the parties is black? Or do we usually give the benefit of the doubt to judges that they will exercise their duties without prejudice?

There are also signs that the judge had made up his mind before the trial even started Such as?

[Ygd2qr8k]

Quote:
There are also signs that the judge had made up his mind before the trial even started

Such as? Well I saw on AC 360 that was said - something about a massive court battle about allowing cameras in the court for the case - that the case was something significant - you have to admit the case is mostly significant if the plaintiffs won - not so much if they lost - and that battle happened before the case started and the judge was one pushing for cameras reportedly?

As for a gay judge ruling, it would look less problematic or more favorable if a non-gay judge had made this ruling wouldn't it? Or if the case had been decided in some place other than San Francisco?

[GreefeWrereon]

What's the difference between a gay judge ruling on something so fundamental for the gay community re gay marriage and a judge who owns a significant number of shares of say Google, ruling on a case fundamental to Google?

By the way I'm not saying anything for or against the case in particular, I'm just curious as to why there wasn't a conflict of interest or vested interest.

[risyGreeple]

What's the difference between a gay judge ruling on something so fundamental for the gay community re gay marriage and a judge who owns a significant number of shares of say Google, ruling on a case fundamental to Google?

I'm pretty sure ethics guidelines make a distinction between specific financial/personal gain and a nebulous one such as this. There's no reason to believe he'd necessarily personally benefit from this ruling one way or the other.

And again, wouldn't the same logic apply in reverse to a Christian judge? Or a judge of any religious belief that traditionally considers homosexuality immoral?

How do you impose a test to find an agnostic, heterosexual judge?

I suppose all 9 Supreme Court Justices in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka should have recused themselves since they were all white and we should have appointed a temporary panel of Indians, East Asians, Latinos and Eskimos.

[citalopram]

The people who are doubting the decision would be reacting the exact same way if the judge were heterosexual and the court was in, I don't know, Boise. Claiming bias on the part of Walker is just a convenient excuse. How about people actually read the ruling and judge it on its merits? Isn't that actually the unbiased thing to do?

We could also go the other way and point out Walker was nominated by Reagan and Bush Sr., and his reputation is as being a somewhat conservative judge.

If the ruling was based on sound law, he wouldn't have much choice not to wouldn't he? And the same would hold true for a gay judge, now wouldn't it?

[BqTyG9eS]

Well, this is the kind of case where the judge has pretty much made his mind before the trial. Still, there's no reason we should treat "gay" bias differently than, say, Catholic or straight bias.