Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry, I disagree. I don't know if his actions have anything to do with his sexual orientation, but in a case like this, just to be certain there is no conflict of interest, he should have been removed. He should have removed himself to be honest about it.
Nita
And a heterosexual would be less biased? Why?
In the end, you are judgemental because you believe a gay jugde would be biased and cannot do his job as a judge but you don't believe a heterosexual judge would be biased.
A heterosexual judge could be homophobic and thus biased.
Also, according to your logic, anytime a white person sues a black person, let the judge NOT be black because we should assume he'd be biased.
Do you speak up and demand a less biased judge in such scenario?
Newsflash- not all gays support same sex marriage, believe it or not. especially older ones. I recently visited an 77 year old gay man who was against it. There is no guarantee that gay men would be in favor of same sex marriage. Walker is a professional judge who ruled the right way. By saying the judge displays animus in his decision is just sour grapes.
I don't know how you voted on the law involved here but since when does the majority vote mean nothing? Actually this is just another nail in the coffin of me ever considering living in California. The people vote for a thing with a good majority and one single judge overturns that vote with nothing more than a grouping of words and his signature? I just can't handle that kind of thing because I see judicial activism involved. I don't care about the sexual lean of the judge who does a thing like this on his own authority.
If this guy can do that when will some judge proclaim the need to sterilize certain individuals?
I voted against Prop 8 Roy.... and there have been numerous posts on how a majority can not deny rights to a minority group. You've read them so I won't go into that again. Otherwise, especially here in Ca with our Proposition paradigm, the majority truly does rule.... and unfortunately not always wisely. I guess whether or not a Prop is wise would be personal opinion though.
And as for sterilizing individuals??? How in the world do you relate that to a judge ruling that a proposition denies a group of people their rights? I imagine you can somehow but guess I don't understand how. But, I don't see how this can be discussed in any event as there is nothing behind the 'it could happen' statement.
And you were considering moving to Ca? Really? I wouldn't have guessed. But now that you have ruled that out, does that mean I won't get the chance to buy you lunch?
If not this, then under what circumstances should a federal judge recuse his or her self?
Oh, things like owning stock in a corporation that's being sued, having a personal relationship with one of the parties, you know, actual conflicts of interest.
Sexual orientation, like gender and race, do not inherently disqualify a judge from objectively ruling on cases that involve parties of their same orientation, gender or race. To believe so is utterly absurd. And to apply that kind of "logic" across the board would see our legal system grind to a halt.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker's bias will be overruled
"Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority.
Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads.
Judge Walker's view is truly a radical rejection of Americans' rights, our history and our institutions that will only fuel a popular rebellion now taking place against elites who are more interested in remaking American institutions than respecting them."
Exactly. Gay people have a tendency to believe that they were "born that way." There is not evidence to back this up, however there is evidence to back up that there is innate sexuality that is predisposed toward heterosexuality. Judge Walker is trying to make up rights. There is no right to marriage in the Federal Constitution. States have been given the discretion to make up marriage law. Homosexuality is not a protected class, whereas race is, and they are trying to use the equal protections clause to justify the ruling, but the EPC was designed to prevent "black codes" and other discrimination against former slaves and African-Americans. It is a shame that the left-wing is trying to use our courts to advance their agenda.
Can you provide this evidence? And it not be an article from FOX News?
Just because it's the majority of how people live, doesn't make it the "right" way. There is no "right" way. What feels right to you may not necessarily feel right to someone else. Who gave anyone the right to judge? Are you God?
I wonder if a liberal can even admit that a gay couple cannot procreate. That two people of the same sex cannot produce a child,an dif they use some kind of scientific intervention, the child will still only biologically be related to one of the couple, not both.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker's bias will be overruled
"Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority.
Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads.
Judge Walker's view is truly a radical rejection of Americans' rights, our history and our institutions that will only fuel a popular rebellion now taking place against elites who are more interested in remaking American institutions than respecting them."
Take your argument, and apply it to when interracial marriage was legalized in a very similar manner.
You'll see how much tyranny of the majority actually works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but guess I don't understand how. But, I don't see how this can be discussed in any event as there is nothing behind the 'it could happen' statement.
