thats what appeals are for. It just so happens this openly gay judge is correct in this decision...uhhh per our constitutionCanin wrote:
no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?
Poll
Do you agree with the ruling?
| Yes | 70% | 70% - 42 | ||||
| No | 20% | 20% - 12 | ||||
| No opinion | 10% | 10% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 60 | ||||||
Regardless if he is right or wrong, he shouldn't have been hearing the case. And it will most likely be overturned just on that fact alone.lowing wrote:
thats what appeals are for. It just so happens this openly gay judge is correct in this decision...uhhh per our constitutionCanin wrote:
no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?
lol if not that fact, then any other fact will do. Both sides have said even before the ruling that if they didn't get their way they were going to appeal.Canin wrote:
Regardless if he is right or wrong, he shouldn't have been hearing the case. And it will most likely be overturned just on that fact alone.lowing wrote:
thats what appeals are for. It just so happens this openly gay judge is correct in this decision...uhhh per our constitutionCanin wrote:
no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?
What does it say about this state full of rejects and illegal aliens gets told how to vote by a cult?eleven bravo wrote:
mormonsghettoperson wrote:
Good. I never really understood how Prop 8 even got passed in the People's Gay Republic of Mexifornia anyway.
lol
And here we have again a judge, a single person, who negates in a swoops the will and legal votes of the people that participated in the election.
" attention people of mexicfornia. your votes only matter when you vote as per instructions. "
what a bunch of shit. elections are a waste of time
Only openly straight judges understand the law? You assume that sexual preferenceorientation is a bias, you are mistaken.Canin wrote:
no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?
Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-08-04 19:18:01)
In my opinion, in this case, yes, it is a bias, and he should have recused himself. Imagine the uproar if an openly Catholic judge founded in favor of the Church and against an amendment to block the church from doing something. The openly Catholic judge would be ridiculed and made to step down long before making a final verdict, yet the same does not follow when an openly gay judge rules on a case for gay marriage?Reciprocity wrote:
Only openly straight judges understand the law? You assume that sexual preference is a bias, you are mistaken.Canin wrote:
no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?
Arguing that a Judge's sexual orientation is a bias is like arguing that race or gender is a bias. Good luck with that in an appeals court. If the judge had a reason to recuse himself, he would have.
I can agree with that, actually.Canin wrote:
In my opinion, in this case, yes, it is a bias, and he should have recused himself. Imagine the uproar if an openly Catholic judge founded in favor of the Church and against an amendment to block the church from doing something. The openly Catholic judge would be ridiculed and made to step down long before making a final verdict, yet the same does not follow when an openly gay judge rules on a case for gay marriage?Reciprocity wrote:
Only openly straight judges understand the law? You assume that sexual preference is a bias, you are mistaken.Canin wrote:
no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?
I don't think it will ultimately win the case for them, but I think it may end up setting a precedent for future cases of this nature that require certain limitations on who can rule on certain cases.
Right, so a female judge should recuse herself from any case involving the 19th amendment? Don't wan't any of that estral bias getting in the way.Turquoise wrote:
I can agree with that, actually.
I don't think it will ultimately win the case for them, but I think it may end up setting a precedent for future cases of this nature that require certain limitations on who can rule on certain cases.
Well, I'll put it this way.... If this ruling had upheld the gay marriage ban, and the judge was Catholic or very religious, then I would feel that he should've recused himself. To be consistent, it's only logical to assume that sexuality would also incur a bias.Reciprocity wrote:
Right, so a female judge should recuse herself from any case involving the 19th amendment? Don't wan't any of that estral bias getting in the way.Turquoise wrote:
I can agree with that, actually.
I don't think it will ultimately win the case for them, but I think it may end up setting a precedent for future cases of this nature that require certain limitations on who can rule on certain cases.
I believe gender and race work a bit differently from sexuality and religion.
I don't. If he hadn't shown the ability to separate his personal from his professional life he wouldn't be a judge. Certainly not a high ranking one.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way.... If this ruling had upheld the gay marriage ban, and the judge was Catholic or very religious, then I would feel that he should've recused himself. To be consistent, it's only logical to assume that sexuality would also incur a bias.Reciprocity wrote:
Right, so a female judge should recuse herself from any case involving the 19th amendment? Don't wan't any of that estral bias getting in the way.Turquoise wrote:
I can agree with that, actually.
I don't think it will ultimately win the case for them, but I think it may end up setting a precedent for future cases of this nature that require certain limitations on who can rule on certain cases.
I believe gender and race work a bit differently from sexuality and religion.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
stupid white people and their gay shit
just kidding, i really don't care
just kidding, i really don't care
I can understand your position- if you think sexual orientation is a choice. otherwise, to be consistent, it's only logical to assume that sexuality, gender, race and any number of other inherent human traits would also incur a bias.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way.... If this ruling had upheld the gay marriage ban, and the judge was Catholic or very religious, then I would feel that he should've recused himself. To be consistent, it's only logical to assume that sexuality would also incur a bias.
I believe gender and race work a bit differently from sexuality and religion.
Religion, on the other hand, is a social and cultural construct, not an innate trait of humanity.
So I guess I should probably give my opinion on Prop 8, seeing as I actually voted for it and live in the state.
For the record I voted Yes for the ban to disallow gay marriages, but honestly I don't really care.
There are so many other more important things that this is like 20th on a list of 20 for me. Personally we should just create Civil Unions for EVERYONE (two people can join and be recogizned by the state as a union of two people).
The word 'marriage' should be stricken from all government documents.
To me, marriage, is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman, period.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"
-- Matthew 22:21 (KJV)
For the record I voted Yes for the ban to disallow gay marriages, but honestly I don't really care.
There are so many other more important things that this is like 20th on a list of 20 for me. Personally we should just create Civil Unions for EVERYONE (two people can join and be recogizned by the state as a union of two people).
The word 'marriage' should be stricken from all government documents.
To me, marriage, is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman, period.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"
-- Matthew 22:21 (KJV)
Good point.... hmmm.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't. If he hadn't shown the ability to separate his personal from his professional life he wouldn't be a judge. Certainly not a high ranking one.
Another good point... Well, I view sexuality as being both a choice and a biological trait.Reciprocity wrote:
I can understand your position- if you think sexual orientation is a choice. otherwise, to be consistent, it's only logical to assume that sexuality, gender, race and any number of other inherent human traits would also incur a bias.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way.... If this ruling had upheld the gay marriage ban, and the judge was Catholic or very religious, then I would feel that he should've recused himself. To be consistent, it's only logical to assume that sexuality would also incur a bias.
I believe gender and race work a bit differently from sexuality and religion.
Religion, on the other hand, is a social and cultural construct, not an innate trait of humanity.
Most psychologists seem to believe that sexuality is a spectrum, not an on/off switch between orientations. Because of this variability, I believe people decide for themselves how they choose to act upon their preferences. Some people naturally lean heavily towards being straight (probably most people in general), while others lean heavily toward being gay. The people who are most flexible in their sexuality and employ the most "choice" (so to speak) are bisexuals.
So, on the one hand, I would agree that sexuality is heavily tied to genetics and hormones, but on the other hand, choice can be somewhat of a factor for bisexuals.
It's a very gray area when comparing it to gender and race. Granted, there are varying levels of gender as well (like hermaphrodites) and varying levels of race (through the mixing of cultures).
I guess maybe John hit on the most pertinent point -- that a judge of this rank should be someone that distances himself from his personal connections to the case. Presumably, his rank implies that he has already demonstrated this several times, so I guess neither religion nor sexuality should preclude him from making a ruling.
Granted, I have seen high ranking judges neglect this principle... (like the Supreme Court's handling of the Microsoft case back in the 90s).
Not gay, not Californian. Voted on poll option three.
You have to be pretty insecure about your own sexuality to be against equal rights for all ... why this need to regulate peoples sexuality and yet be so totally against regulating a trade filled with economic criminals ... maybe a shift in focus for your politicians would bring back a healthy balance in your budget?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I might agree, except, when I do not want to walk past a gay couple making out in the mall, just like I don't want to walk past a straight couple making out in the mall, I should not be subjected to being accused of bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, etc......Varegg wrote:
You have to be pretty insecure about your own sexuality to be against equal rights for all ... why this need to regulate peoples sexuality and yet be so totally against regulating a trade filled with economic criminals ... maybe a shift in focus for your politicians would bring back a healthy balance in your budget?
My only problem with "gay rights" is, there should be no such things as "gay" rights. They are not deserving of any more rights than anyone else.
Precisely ... nothing more, nothing less ...lowing wrote:
I might agree, except, when I do not want to walk past a gay couple making out in the mall, just like I don't want to walk past a straight couple making out in the mall, I should not be subjected to being accused of bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, etc......Varegg wrote:
You have to be pretty insecure about your own sexuality to be against equal rights for all ... why this need to regulate peoples sexuality and yet be so totally against regulating a trade filled with economic criminals ... maybe a shift in focus for your politicians would bring back a healthy balance in your budget?
My only problem with "gay rights" is, there should be no such things as "gay" rights. They are not deserving of any more rights than anyone else.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Probably been posted before.
I came to say just that, now I don't have to... bye \o_Varegg wrote:
Precisely ... nothing more, nothing less ...lowing wrote:
I might agree, except, when I do not want to walk past a gay couple making out in the mall, just like I don't want to walk past a straight couple making out in the mall, I should not be subjected to being accused of bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, etc......Varegg wrote:
You have to be pretty insecure about your own sexuality to be against equal rights for all ... why this need to regulate peoples sexuality and yet be so totally against regulating a trade filled with economic criminals ... maybe a shift in focus for your politicians would bring back a healthy balance in your budget?
My only problem with "gay rights" is, there should be no such things as "gay" rights. They are not deserving of any more rights than anyone else.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
haha
No one said that you were gay.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not gay, not Californian. Voted on poll option three.
I find it suspicious that you would be so quick to deny those accusations, so quick that the accusations have not even been made.
Yet.
Except gay couples in the US don't have equal rights. Try marriage/civil union/whateveryouwanttocallit, getting insurance, adoption, tax benefits, etc...Varegg wrote:
Precisely ... nothing more, nothing less ...lowing wrote:
I might agree, except, when I do not want to walk past a gay couple making out in the mall, just like I don't want to walk past a straight couple making out in the mall, I should not be subjected to being accused of bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, etc......Varegg wrote:
You have to be pretty insecure about your own sexuality to be against equal rights for all ... why this need to regulate peoples sexuality and yet be so totally against regulating a trade filled with economic criminals ... maybe a shift in focus for your politicians would bring back a healthy balance in your budget?
My only problem with "gay rights" is, there should be no such things as "gay" rights. They are not deserving of any more rights than anyone else.
That could go for both, Pro and Anti Prop-8. lol
