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.
Clearly this judge likes to legislate from the bench. Proponents should get this ruling thrown out because it violated their constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. This judge is openly GAY for GOD sake! How convenient if you ask me. He should have done the right thing and removed himself from such a high profile case especially since he has a vested interest in the outcome . The "trial" ended before it even started since his mind was already made up. Will pray the U.S. Supreme Court makes the right decision and reverses this joke of a ruling.
This ruling along with the earlier Arizona Immigration law ruling shows how jacked up and out of touch these federal "bench legislators" in the 9th circuit are with the American Voting citizenry in those states. These judges have slapped the voting people of the states of California in the face.
If you think that Walker should have been recused himself for being gay, then you must certainly agree that scalia would have to recuse himself for being a homophobe of the first degree. He hates gays as much as hitler hated jews.
Clearly this judge likes to legislate from the bench. Proponents should get this ruling thrown out because it violated their constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. This judge is openly GAY for GOD sake! How convenient if you ask me. He should have done the right thing and removed himself from such a high profile case especially since he has a vested interest in the outcome . The "trial" ended before it even started since his mind was already made up. Will pray the U.S. Supreme Court makes the right decision and reverses this joke of a ruling.
This ruling along with the earlier Arizona Immigration law ruling shows how jacked up and out of touch these federal "bench legislators" in the 9th circuit are with the American Voting citizenry in those states. These judges have slapped the voting people of the states of California in the face.
So...you haven't read the court transcripts.... or the Judge's 138 page extremely detailed ruling ....or the history of Judge Walkers previous rulings...
But just because he is gay (which everyone who followed the trial knew from the beginning) you've made up your mind he must be biased.
Biased much?
Kate, do you understand how the legislative and judicial process in this nation functions?
No law, NO LAW may be passed, regardless of how many people want it, if it violates the US Constitution. It is utterly irrelevant what a state and its people may want for their own state constitution if it violates the federal.
This was a federal judge (appointed by republicans, incidentally) ruling on a state constitutional amendment which violated the federal constitution.
The fact that the judge is gay was known right from the start. If the attorneys defending Prop8 were concerned that he would be biased, they could have asked for him to recuse himself. They did not. They did not feel there would be a bias.
Or are you trying to say that every time a white judge rules in favor of a white plaintiff/defendant, female in favor of female, black in favor of black, purple and green striped in favor of purple and green striped... that there is a bias?
Have you bothered to investigate this judge's history in terms of his rulings? You might be surprised at what you find. Have you read the transcripts of the trial? Yes? Then I'm sure you will be immediately able to point to specifics from within the trial where the judge showed bias... please demonstrate.
The people of the 9th district, or any other, do not get to pass laws or amend their constitutions in a manner which violates the US Constitution - and it is up to these judges to ensure that when the "will of the majority negates the rights of the minority" (you know, like over issues such as segregation, interracial marriage, etc.) that unconstitutional laws may not stand.
Welcome to America... it's how we've been doing things here for 200+ years.
Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 on Wednesday, August 4. On the same day, Judge Walker also temporarily “stayed” his decision, which means that the ruling isn’t effective right away. The Judge will decide whether to “stay” the decision for longer after all the parties respond to the Yes on 8 request for a longer stay. All responses have to be filed today, Friday, August 6.
Both California Attorney General Brown and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger filed responses opposing a stay and urging the court to let its decision take effect immediately so that same-sex couples in California can begin to marry. The plaintiff couples also are strongly opposing a stay.
Judge Walker can decide whether to stay the decision for longer at any time. If he grants the motion to stay, same-sex couples will not be able to marry in California until after the appeal is finished. The Judge can also delay the decision for a short time until the Ninth Circuit appeals court decides whether they will order a stay.
If Judge Walker denies the stay and permits his decision to take immediate effect, the Yes on 8 proponents can ask the Ninth Circuit appeals court to order an emergency stay.
Several counties have announced that, if Judge Walker lifts the stay, they are ready to begin issuing licenses and performing civil ceremonies for same-sex couples.
I go back and forth on the issue of the stay in terms of how I feel about it.
On the one hand, much as I'd like to see these couples be able to marry immediately, we're in a massively grey area right now in terms of legality. One that I think could create some nasty legal quagmires for couples down the road depending on how each appeal proceeds and what the ultimate ruling of SCOTUS is. I do believe that in the end, disallowing gay marriage "period" will be deemed unconstitutional - but there's a whole lot of stuff that could happen between now and then.
On the other hand, I think there are a lot of people who are still undecided on the issue of gay marriage... a lot of fear surrounding the issue. There are people out there who are not mean, or heartless, or bigoted, or even closed-minded who really do NOT know in their hearts that allowing gay marriage isn't actually going to affect them, their lives, their marriages. Many of them have been told for years, by people that they respect, that gay marriage = "the sky is falling." Not just in a religious sense, but that it will impact the cost of benefits at their jobs, decrease (or disappear entirely) their SSI benefits, decrease (or disappear entirely) their Medicare benefits. All sorts of things. And they're just not in a position to be exposed to other opinions on the matter.
While gay marriage is legal in 5 states in the US, other than when the laws first passed - for a couple of days surrounding those events - it's been one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things. The Prop8 situation isn't like that... this is going to be watched by the media like a hawk. Try and imagine what Roe vs Wade would have been like had we had the internet, 24-hour news, etc. back then. This is an enormously divisive issue... it touches so deeply on people's passions, on their world view, their relationships, their future, their children's future. It challenges our spiritual beliefs. It rocks our sense of personal morality.
As such, I think it is important for people to actually get to see, for themselves, that no... the sky really won't fall just because two men or two women who love each other are permitted to be legally bound to one another.
It's surprising how many Americans are actually unaware that gay marriage is already legal in 5 states, or who cannot identify which states have made it legal (not to mention DC). Or how many do not realize it has been legal in Canada for over 5 years. Spend any time reading the comments sections on news stories about Prop8 and you'll see what I mean. "Gay marriage will never be legal anywhere in America... no state would allow it... we're a Christian nation..." is usually the gist.
So yeah, I am torn on the issue of the stay. I think there are disadvantages and advantages to both courses that need to be considered carefully. Were I in a position to make the call, just based on my gut, I'd say lift the stay. Why? Because I truly believe that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional... and I do not believe that unconstitutional acts should be given any time to fester once they are identified. But that's my gut... my emotions... not necessarily the best choice for all involved/affected.
really, where do you suppose the line be drawn... if this is your argument then should we stop human from marrying animals if that would deprive them from life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How about polygamist? Pedophiles?
Secondly, this ruling doesn't address DOMA in any way. Doesn't this ruling conflict with this LAW?
Once again, this is a matter of the desires of two (or more) adults past the age of consent who wish to make a formal committment that is recognized legally. It is no different than the desires of any heterosexual couple who wish to marry.
Children and animals cannot give their consent, therefore would not fall into the same classification as gays.
The checks and balances of the Constitution are there to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the rights of minorities. This is why we have federally protected classes of people who might be targets of discrimination such as race, gender, or religious persuasion (or none).
Hopefully when this case is investigated and vetted thoroughly by SCOTUS, "sexual orientation" will be added to the list.
It's way past due, and I have a few weddings I would like to attend.
Clearly this judge likes to legislate from the bench. Proponents should get this ruling thrown out because it violated their constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. This judge is openly GAY for GOD sake! How convenient if you ask me. He should have done the right thing and removed himself from such a high profile case especially since he has a vested interest in the outcome . The "trial" ended before it even started since his mind was already made up. Will pray the U.S. Supreme Court makes the right decision and reverses this joke of a ruling.
This ruling along with the earlier Arizona Immigration law ruling shows how jacked up and out of touch these federal "bench legislators" in the 9th circuit are with the American Voting citizenry in those states. These judges have slapped the voting people of the states of California in the face.
All of these lawsuits that predicate their justification on our Constitution should wave a great big red flag as to WHY the election of a President is extremely important since it is the President that nominates individuals to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, to where most of these cases will rise. IMHO, this alone is the most important consideration when voting for anyone for President since this is a "LIFETIME" appointment and we have to live with the decisions made by these people until they either retire or pass on.
According to a Gallop poll in May this year, it looks like public opinion has been changing towards approval of gay marriage. If the trend continues it won't be too much longer before more than 50% of Americans are in favor of legalising gay marriage.
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.
