This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Because he applied the law to the evidence presented in the case and made a ruling in accordance with his findings?Or you assumiing one of them gays is incapable of this?Why? Im not mad at the guy. Its pretty clear why he ruled that way. I totally understand it.
That's just your paranoid homophobia talking. See, homosexuals are just as capable of reasonable, detached application of the law as any other person who rules on something that may potentially impact themselves or their friends or social circle in some way, as in all of the examples I listed. The fact that you seem to think gays are different/inferior in this respect based on nothing but your own biases about homosexuals means that you are, by definition, a bigot. So, umm, congratulations on that.
All judges are human. Which means that all judges live in the world. The same world that generates legal controversies. The profession has rules for when judges should try to refrain from taking a case (generally when they would have some financial interest in the outcome). But it is unrealistic, and indeed impossible, to expect cases to go to judges who have no policy preferences. Judges aren't computers. As many people have shown, if we applied your standard, we couldn't have Christians decide religous clause cases, or women decide gender discrimination cases. Unlike with politicians, when a judge makes a decision, he has to provide a written rationale in an opinion that is subject (in this case) to two and perhaps three (if we had an en banc decision) levels of review. This case will be heard and decided by many more heterosexuals than homosexuals (even assuming Walker is actually gay).
Good grief man. I didnt say the judge was incapable of ruling against gay marriage because he is gay or his brain is too small. I just pointed out that people are influenced by emotions. People in every profession are crooked. He may or may not be one of these, I really dont know.And no, Im not afraid of homosexuals. Well, unless he has a gun pointed at me....
Well, thank GOD for that.
Tobias Funke: I'm gonna take a stab at something, and say you hate ...MongoL3MongoL3: I hate you!Aww, why'd ya have to go and spell it out for him? That's no fun.
I put that in quotes because it's far from an "anti-gay" record. He was a lawyer who represented his clients. It's easy to see why the USOC might not want to be associated with a "gay Olympics." I'm currently involved in a case against a pretty prominent food company. Believe me, I'm not "anti baked goods."
I thought you were a constitutionalist?
See, that's funny, because you were pretty conclusive that you DID know in several of your posts. So you're taking those back and acknowledging that, absent evidence to the contrary, there's absolutely no reason to think that this is anything other than a reasoned judicial decision based on the facts and the law presented?
I'm pretty sure the constitution says very little about the FBG language filter.
Yeah, anti-gay isn't the right wording.Proven impartiality is much better, which I think was already linked by you or by someone in this thread.
Well, he came through in the clutch when he was needed the most
I'm holding out for when only atheist males can rule on abortion cases. Then I think that Peens won't look like a complete ignoramus here.
Wait, is Mongol Peens/Brutis?
We do?How?Why do you think that?
I would accept it if he delivered all court opinions in single sentences followed by an appropriate smiley."No marriage for you GAARYS!"
that was a jab at your ridiculous assertionwoosh
Witnesses generally arent recused for these grounds, but they're routinely impeached on these grounds. Judges are for some reason deemed above typical prejudices, but in my experience they're not, just generally more subtle.
Obviously it went over my head because I don't consider my assertion to be ridiculous. So let's start there. If two gay men are in love and wish to get married, and the law says they can't, I would define that as "an injury for which relief can be granted", using DParker's definition. Why is this ridiculous to you?
Clearly he believes straight people should be deciding what is right for homosexuals; and that the majorities should decide what is right for minorities. (But only if he's in the majority, I am sure.)The article I posted doesn't mention it. Why does this matter to you? Do you believe a gay judge is unable to arrive at a reasoned decision on this issue?So the judge is gay? Nice.
lol oofI would accept it if he delivered all court opinions in single sentences followed by an appropriate smiley."No marriage for you GAARYS!"
Yep, the trend continues....
I think there is a connection between the first two, certainly. In the case of immigration and gay marriage, laws were passed, either by the public or the legislature, that interfered with constitutional rights. Therefore the judicial branch served their proper role and stopped these laws from going forward. That is what they're supposed to do in such cases.In the other issues you mention, we have a legislative branch of government which is elected and then supposed to make decisions on these issues. The reason that they are elected every 2 years or 6 years is so they do not succumb to the public whims at whatever moment- that is as the Founding Fathers intended.
A lot of times i dont feel like arguing right from wrong. Im lazy
the law says they can, in California. Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization. Furthermore one must consider whether marriage is a trait peculiar to the union of a man and a woman exclusively, such as the act of reproduction might be considered so, or as hair color or height might be of an individual. So not only is your assertion ridiculous in the context of current California laws and priveledges accorded to gay couples, it eliminates any consideration of the nature of marriage.
What is interesting is that Liberals have been saying that gay rights should be made by the states when DOMA was being debated. The judge make appeals that gay marriage is a federal issue.So which is it: a state issue or a federal issue?A lot of times i dont feel like arguing right from wrong. Im lazy
IT DEPENDS ON WHO GIVES THEM THEIR WAY. I would think that is clear by now.What is interesting is that Liberals have been saying that gay rights should be made by the states when DOMA was being debated. The judge make appeals that gay marriage is a federal issue.So which is it: a state issue or a federal issue?A lot of times i dont feel like arguing right from wrong. Im lazy
I don't recall them making that argument, but if they did they were wrong. It has always been a federal issue, IMO. I have always believed that not allowing gays to marry each other is a violation of the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal treatment under the law. Now a judge appears to have come to the same conclusion.What is interesting is that Liberals have been saying that gay rights should be made by the states when DOMA was being debated. The judge make appeals that gay marriage is a federal issue.So which is it: a state issue or a federal issue?A lot of times i dont feel like arguing right from wrong. Im lazy
Cap and trade wasn't passed. KSM hasn't been tried in NY. Taxes have been reduced.
That trend dates back at least to Marbury v. Madison, fellas. You have a problem with the Judiciary protecting certain rights from the tyranny of the majority, take it up with the founding fathers.
You keep bringing up the history of civilization, as if this has some sort of bearing. We have the 14th Amendment in our constitution, which guarantees equal treatment under the law. I assure you that in the history of civilization this sort of amendment is nearly unique, as is our entire bill of rights. As for your argument about reproduction, should we make it illegal for infertile heterosexuals to marry? Should it be illegal for heterosexuals who have no intent to have children to marry?
I vote Otis
It guarentees no such thing. It only protects certain discreet groups.I don't recall them making that argument, but if they did they were wrong. It has always been a federal issue, IMO. I have always believed that not allowing gays to marry each other is a violation of the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal treatment under the law. Now a judge appears to have come to the same conclusion.What is interesting is that Liberals have been saying that gay rights should be made by the states when DOMA was being debated. The judge make appeals that gay marriage is a federal issue.So which is it: a state issue or a federal issue?A lot of times i dont feel like arguing right from wrong. Im lazy
I'm afraid I knew someone would post this.
Im not arguing
True. Not really sure what you were doing.Im not arguing
I know rightTrue. Not really sure what you were doing.Im not arguing
There is no conflict here. The 14th Amendment sets a floor. State laws dealing exclusively with intrastate commerce (and thus outside of the commerce power of Congress) must nevertheless satisfy the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Marriage is like that. Whether or not Congress has the power to regulate marriage or not, state laws regulating marriage must conform to the 14th Amendment.What is interesting is that Liberals have been saying that gay rights should be made by the states when DOMA was being debated. The judge make appeals that gay marriage is a federal issue.So which is it: a state issue or a federal issue?A lot of times i dont feel like arguing right from wrong. Im lazy
You'd probably just rule in your own self-interest, merits of the case be damned.But why project that inclination onto an actual professional judge?I think its convenient that you left that part outThe article I posted doesn't mention it. Why does this matter to you? Do you believe a gay judge is unable to arrive at a reasoned decision on this issue?So the judge is gay? Nice.
