Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:30 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 147):

By ruling in favor he grants himself the right to marry. That is the conflict of interest. What would you say if he was ruling on a company he owned stock in?

A company he owned stock in would be an objective conflict of interest. You are aware there are gay people opposed to legal efforts to secure same sex marriage, are you not? Without public statements proving his positions or a history of biased jurisprudence, there isn't any evidence that he is biased. You either don't buy the concept of subjectivity or don't get it. Innocence before guilt, no?

You also inadequately addressed the point that a heterosexual judge would be just as *potentially* biased if they had personal opinions or religious beliefs that reflected those of the Prop 8 proponents - which would mean nobody would be suitable to handle this case unless they were openly asexual. That's OK, law school isn't for everyone.

Quoting dxing (Reply 147):
I can't speak for others but this is the first I heard he was gay. Evidently the fact was kept pretty quiet and with good reason since it prresents a huge conflict of interest.

Nonsense, he was outed in the media in both blogs and the San Francisco Chronicle when the trial began in February.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/the-p...8-judge-may-be-gay-does-it-matter/

The legal counsel for supporters of Prop 8 insisted they would not make an issue of it.

[Edited 2010-08-05 13:32:05]

[Edited 2010-08-05 13:33:18]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:46 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 111):
Many laws and restrictions have dual purposes. The reason we don't allow strip clubs next to schools also has to do with not exposing children to the business of sex.
Quoting dxing (Reply 111):
Californians voted for prop 8 because they somehow believe that gay marriage will affect the moral fabric of society, not in the exact same way as my examples but in its own unique way. It is apples to apples. Just red to yellow to green.

You are equating zoning ordinances with marriage. How is that "apples to apples"?

Quoting dxing (Reply 147):

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 129):
It's heresay, plain and simple.

To take your word for it he is gay. If he is gay, then he should have recused himself.

To follow your line of reasoning, if Justice Marshall or Justice Thomas were on the Supreme Court when 'Brown v. Bd. of Educ.' was argued, should they have recused themselves because they are African-American?
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
Adam T.
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 7:01 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:54 pm

Quoting travelin man (Reply 142):
By the way, being gay is not a choice. As a gay man, I should know. I would like for any other gay members here to say if being gay was a choice for them. I have never met one (and I've been around a lot of gay people).

I also don't believe that being gay is a choice - i've known that i've been attracted to men since I was a little kid but never thought of myself as gay until I was in my early 20s. I think many people confuse having homosexual attraction different than coming out of the closet and living as a gay man, woman, bisexual, or trans gender individual.

At any rate, if someone looks at me and says "being gay is not a choice" I turn around and say "well when did you wake up and decide that you choose to be straight?"
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:04 pm

If you want to see the entire ruling and what the judge had to say about it:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ion-8-gay-marriage-judge-walker-/1

Scroll down and click on "full screen." I suggest we read that before discussing further.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:16 am

Quoting Adam T. (Reply 152):
I also don't believe that being gay is a choice - i've known that i've been attracted to men since I was a little kid but never thought of myself as gay until I was in my early 20s.

It was not my "choice" to be attracted to men.

Nor do I consider myself "gay" except as a shorthand. I am homosexual, queer if you will. I've done it with women but that doesn't make me straight.

Except in the performance of the sexual act, I don't know where choice comes into it, but the sexual act does not define who I am.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:51 am

I just finished reading the entire court ruling:

It boils down to this:

1. Every expert witness for proponents of Prop 8 were lacking in credibility for the testimony they were giving. Therefore, their testimony was ordered to have little or no weight.

2. The legalities of marriage have changed over time to include bi-racial marriage, and gender-equal unions.

3. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex marriage will somehow devalue opposite marriage. Arguments made that it would, included procreation, but were shot down because if marriage was about procreation, not everyone gets married to procreate.

4. The term Marriage holds a status that, under prop 8, is denied to citizens. While domestic partnerships offer parallel benefits, it does not offer the status of a marriage.

5. The supporters of Prop 8 knowingly used blatant stereotypes to stir up fear about homosexuals, using children in commercials to incite fear in parents, suggesting that allowing same-sex marriage would somehow turn their children gay, when there is no evidence to suggest so.

6. There is no evidence to suggest that children of same sex parents will grow up to be less well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents.

7. A religious or moral conviction about a subject cannot be presented as evidence in court, nor should it be used to deny a right to an individual, unless there is evidence that this conviction has a negative impact on society, in this case, the court finds that it doesn't.

8. California stands to gain socially and economically with the repeal of Prop 8, whereas Prop 8 hinders California socially and economically.

9. Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause as it violates BOTH gender equality and equality based on sexual orientation.

10. Proponents of Prop 8 have tried to show that homosexual relationships are unhealthy for society, for the individual, and for children, but without any concrete, statistical or hard data that would be accepted in a court of law.

My favorite quote though is this:

"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION..."

Somewhere, one of the expert witnesses for the proponents of Prop 8 actually defends polygamy in stating that a man with 5 wives is actually in 5 marriages so it's only 2 people. However he comes to that conclusion, I have no idea.

Also, most of their key witnesses did not appear before the court, "for fear of their lives."

UAL

[Edited 2010-08-05 17:53:43]
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4722
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:53 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 147):
By ruling in favor he grants himself the right to marry. That is the conflict of interest. What would you say if he was ruling on a company he owned stock in?

It's funny how you demand answers of others regarding unrelated topics when you refuse to answer such a simple question:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 141):
A straight judge is biased towards straight people?
Quoting dxing (Reply 147):

Yes, it involved one man and one woman and centered around race, not sexual orientation.

I would love for you to explain how "race" and "sexual orientation" are different.

You are in essence arguing that a gay man should be allowed to marry a gay woman. Please, explain how this makes any sense in regards to any argument in support of Prop 8.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:26 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 156):
I would love for you to explain how "race" and "sexual orientation" are different.

Most people make the mistake of assuming that being homosexual is not immediately noticeable like being of a different race is and thus can't be compared to race in regards to discrimination. But they fail to realize that it is impossible to actually be homosexual and not be identified as such. People seem to think that because it can be "hidden" it can not be equated to race, but they are wrong. And the similarities are not just on the side of being identifiable but on peoples reaction to it.

To wit: Someone who is homosexual is identifiable as such because of the fact that during their normal life they will date, talk about, live with, be romantic with, and generally spend time with a person of the same sex or at places that cater to social gatherings of the same sex. They will hold hands as they walk down the street together, look at one bedroom apartments together, and while at work even share with their workmates that they got into an awful argument with their partner last night (as always, it depends on the work setting but most people talk about their lives outside of work while at work), etc. In other words a homosexual person will generally do similar things to what any heterosexual person does.

Now once identified the issue is how do people individually or as a community react to such a person. Just like race the reaction can be similar. Homosexuals have been attacked, marginalized, forced out of communities, and had their choice limited by the majority community to what it finds "acceptable". Sometime that means someone won't rent to them, or that they can't eat somewhere because "their kind" is not welcome. Other times it means that local law enforcement will harass them or jail them for "immoral behavior", in support of their own or the communities views regardless of whether said behavior is wholly someones private business taking place in their own home.

This is why race and sexual orientation can be equated. Because you are not supposed to have to hide who you are in order to not be persecuted.

Tugg

[Edited 2010-08-06 00:49:13]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Danny
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:42 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 149):
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):

If the people voted for the law, then the law should be on the books.

Not in this country. That's why we have a Constitution. Otherwise, we could just vote you into a gas chamber.

You mean US is not a democracy then?
 
Airport
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:50 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 158):
You mean US is not a democracy then?

It is, but not like so many people seem to believe. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic. We are a respresentative democracy, meaning that the people don't make direct decisions on laws and mandates -- they simply make decisions on who makes the decisions. We are not a direct democracy. It's frightening to me how many people in our country don't know this.

Cheers,
Anthony/Airport

[Edited 2010-08-06 00:52:43]
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:01 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 158):
You mean US is not a democracy then?

No, it is not. It is in fact a Constitutional Republic:

Quote:
The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.

The "federal" part is one of three basic types of organization of power - unitary, confederal, and federal. Most nations are unitary in nature (local government with a powerful national government). There are no confederacies that I know of at this time (the U.S., under the Articles of Confederation was one; Germany and Switzerland have also had confederate systems in the past). Federal systems are common among large nations where several levels of government are needed. Australia, Canada, and Brazil are federal as well. Federations do not always work, such as in the case of the United Arab Republic.

The "republic" implies that we have a strong head of state (the President) and elected officials representing the people.

The "constitutional" part means that we have a constitution, which is pretty obvious, considering this site. Finally, the "representative democracy" part means that the people elect representatives to take care of legislative matters. Originally, the only part of the government that fit this description was the House of Representatives. Today, the Senate does, too, and in current practice, so does the Electoral College.

The mere fact that a nation has a constitution, is a federation, or is a republic, does not imply that minorities are fairly treated. It is the content of that constitution, and the values of that federation and/or republic that protects the rights of minorities.

Note that a democracy, in the true sense of the word, does not protect the minority - majority rules.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:01 pm

Quoting cws818 (Reply 151):
You are equating zoning ordinances with marriage. How is that "apples to apples"?

The charge was that safety issues had nothing to do with morality.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 150):
A company he owned stock in would be an objective conflict of interest.

Correct. His ownership of stock would make him automatically in conflict. The same goes for his sexual orientation since that is at heart the issue in this case. He has a conflict of interest since if he has any desire to marry, and DLX posted that he wears a wedding ring, then he has a conflict of interest.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 150):
You are aware there are gay people opposed to legal efforts to secure same sex marriage, are you not? Without public statements proving his positions or a history of biased jurisprudence, there isn't any evidence that he is biased. You either don't buy the concept of subjectivity or don't get it. Innocence before guilt, no?

In this case, given that he is gay, given that he wears a wedding ring, the evidence is fairly strong towards a conflict of interest. You seem to be ok with that since the ruling went the way you thought it should.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 150):
You also inadequately addressed the point that a heterosexual judge would be just as *potentially* biased if they had personal opinions or religious beliefs that reflected those of the Prop 8 proponents - which would mean nobody would be suitable to handle this case unless they were openly asexual. That's OK, law school isn't for everyone.

Hetrosexual Judges have made rulings in favor of gay marriage several times now in different States. I think that demonstrates that they are not only not biased, but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/has.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 150):
Nonsense, he was outed in the media in both blogs and the San Francisco Chronicle when the trial began in February.

Sorry, but I don't bother with blogs nor do I read the San Francisco paper.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 151):
To follow your line of reasoning, if Justice Marshall or Justice Thomas were on the Supreme Court when 'Brown v. Bd. of Educ.' was argued, should they have recused themselves because they are African-American?

But they weren't so your example is moot.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
1. Every expert witness for proponents of Prop 8 were lacking in credibility for the testimony they were giving. Therefore, their testimony was ordered to have little or no weight.

Let's see, gay Judge possibly wearing a wedding ring....go figure the court came to that conclusion.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
2. The legalities of marriage have changed over time to include bi-racial marriage, and gender-equal unions.

Bi-racial still meaning one man and one woman.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
3. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex marriage will somehow devalue opposite marriage. Arguments made that it would, included procreation, but were shot down because if marriage was about procreation, not everyone gets married to procreate.

There doesn't have to be. Common sense tellls you that if you allow same sex marriage then the basic definition of marriage is changed and by that change, there is no longer any legal reason to deny polygamists or even incestual relationships as long as they involve consenting adults. As to procreation, hetro couples that don't have children for the most part choose not too. The equipment to procreate is still there and science can make things work that don't on their own. Show me the male gay couple that can produce an egg between them or a lesbian couple that can produce sperm between them to fertilize their egg and then this line of thinking would have validity.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
4. The term Marriage holds a status that, under prop 8, is denied to citizens. While domestic partnerships offer parallel benefits, it does not offer the status of a marriage.

How so? What legal protections cannot be extended to domestic partnerships that are not available now? Most all legal protections and many of the benefits are already to extended to same sex partners save the tax system which is in serious need of an overhaul anyway. This is more of the conflict of interest surfacing.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
5. The supporters of Prop 8 knowingly used blatant stereotypes to stir up fear about homosexuals, using children in commercials to incite fear in parents, suggesting that allowing same-sex marriage would somehow turn their children gay, when there is no evidence to suggest so.

Tha'ts nothing more than the Judges personal opinion. If it is in the record it should be struck.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
6. There is no evidence to suggest that children of same sex parents will grow up to be less well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents.

Probably the only point I agree on.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
7. A religious or moral conviction about a subject cannot be presented as evidence in court, nor should it be used to deny a right to an individual, unless there is evidence that this conviction has a negative impact on society, in this case, the court finds that it doesn't.

Yet the case to extend same sex marriage is based on nothing but morality..that is fair and the right thing to do.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
8. California stands to gain socially and economically with the repeal of Prop 8, whereas Prop 8 hinders California socially and economically.

Supposition.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
9. Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause as it violates BOTH gender equality and equality based on sexual orientation.

This ruling violates the 10th amendment since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 155):
10. Proponents of Prop 8 have tried to show that homosexual relationships are unhealthy for society, for the individual, and for children, but without any concrete, statistical or hard data that would be accepted in a court of law.

Which would be their right to do so but has nothing to do with legal validity of the vote or gay marriage.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 156):
I would love for you to explain how "race" and "sexual orientation" are different.

Are you suggesting that gays are their own race?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 156):
You are in essence arguing that a gay man should be allowed to marry a gay woman. Please, explain how this makes any sense in regards to any argument in support of Prop 8.

Yes, they should since it would be one man marrying one woman, the definition of marriage.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 157):
Most people make the mistake of assuming that being homosexual is not immediately noticeable like being of a different race is and thus can't be compared to race in regards to discrimination. But they fail to realize that it is impossible to actually be homosexual and not be identified as such.

Please, after all the years of "we're just the same as everyone else" to try and pull the "we are different, just like people with different color skin" is not going to fly. People with different color skin are readily identifiable walking down the the street. Care to explain how a homosexual walking down the street is identifiable? Short of you telegraphing it verbally or in the written word it is left up in the air as to what your orientation is. I don't even bother to try and guess what another persons sexual leanings are, that's their own business. But marriage is between a man and a woman. Millions of voters, some of them black and asian agreed with that. It took one gay judge to dismiss their concerns and wishes out of hand.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:07 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):

Quoting cws818 (Reply 151):
To follow your line of reasoning, if Justice Marshall or Justice Thomas were on the Supreme Court when 'Brown v. Bd. of Educ.' was argued, should they have recused themselves because they are African-American?

But they weren't so your example is moot.

No it is not - my question, not example, goes straight to your argument about bias/conflict of interest. Do you think recusal would be appropriate in that situation or not?
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:13 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Tha'ts nothing more than the Judges personal opinion. If it is in the record it should be struck.

Actually, the proponents of Prop 8, if you actually read the entire ruling, admitted they used fear and scare tactics to support their proposition in their commercials. Like I said, I think you need to read the entire 100 + page document. I know you haven't.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Yet the case to extend same sex marriage is based on nothing but morality..that is fair and the right thing to do.

No, it's based on scientific evidence that nothing supports banning it, not morality.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Supposition.

Again, if you really want to have a sound argument, you need to read the entire court ruling, as it was recorded, with the case summary, and both sides and their sources they quote as evidence, to really see the weak argument that Proposition 8 should be allowed to stand. The argument for prop 8 is legally, VERY weak.

I'm telling you, read it. It's a very interesting read whether you agree with it or not. And it's very interesting to see how the proponents present their case, or lack thereof.
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:23 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Please, after all the years of "we're just the same as everyone else" to try and pull the "we are different, just like people with different color skin" is not going to fly. People with different color skin are readily identifiable walking down the the street. Care to explain how a homosexual walking down the street is identifiable? Short of you telegraphing it verbally or in the written word it is left up in the air as to what your orientation is. I don't even bother to try and guess what another persons sexual leanings are, that's their own business.

People with different skin color are not fundamentally different from anyone else. There is no change in "the argument". The issue is that once identifed as such, homosexuals have been attacked and maginalized and essentially punished for being who they naturally are. Just like people of different races have been.

I gave you several examples of why a homosexual person, living openly and normally is readily identifiable in society. The fact that historically homosexuals have successfully hidden the fact that they are homosexual does not change the argument. It is not about whether they can be "instantly identified" walking down the street, it is about the fact that they can't live their lives openly and freely without risk of being identified. One should not have to go through life hoping people don't find out that they are homosexual.

And to use your words, what would be so wrong if they did want to "telegraph it verbally"? Could it be because it is possible that there might be consequences from the community they are living in? Ever experience that momentary urge to yell at the top of your lungs "I LOVE (Linda, Bill, whoever)" because you feel joy in your heart that you just found "that person", the one you are in love with and want to spend your life with (or seen someone else do it)? Ever been concerned that you will suffer any lasting consequences from such an outburst? Why should a homosexual have to worry any more than a heterosexual.

And I gave you examples of the fact that they have been similarly constrained and marginalized if identified as homosexual. That you are choosing to ignore that is your choice.

Homosexuality is not something to be ashamed of, attacked for, or to suffer any societal consequences for.

Tugg

[Edited 2010-08-06 15:31:50]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:57 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
I think that demonstrates that they are not only not biased, but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/has.

So, in the dxing world, heterosexual judges are not biased, while homosexual judges are?

Tell me something: do you think Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas should have recused themselves from Bush v. Gore, given their obvious bias? That's a much stronger case than "he's [been said to be] gay, therefore he can't fairly rule on an issue involving gay rights."
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:22 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):

So, in the dxing world, heterosexual judges are not biased, while homosexual judges are?

LOL that would be a failing grade in critical thinking. He can spin it all he wants, it's impossible to justify that point of view.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:26 am

Quoting cws818 (Reply 162):
Do you think recusal would be appropriate in that situation or not?

The point is moot. But since you won't take that as an answer the answer would have been no if they had been there. They would not have been going to school. This judge is, by one account, wearing a wedding ring and is gay. That smacks of immediate bias towards agreeing with same sex marriage.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 163):
I know you haven't.

You're right. I'm on 12 on and 12 off for the next few days. Rest assured when I do get free time I will. But what you listed is easily dismissed.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 163):
No, it's based on scientific evidence that nothing supports banning it, not morality.

What science is there in marriage? That's a good one, who thought that up? I've been married for 24 years and no science has ever been able to predict what my wife will say at any given moment.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 164):
People with different skin color are not fundamentally different from anyone else.

That's ridiculous. You can't hide skin color. In order to know someone is gay takes either an admission from the gay individual or confirmation from an informed third party.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 164):
homosexuals
Some have, the vast majority have not. Please don't attempt to use the tired ploy of trying to promote the odd event as the norm.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 164):
And to use your words, what would be so wrong if they did want to "telegraph it verbally"?

Nothing. But I don't care and I believe the vast majority of people don't care. That being said, most people that see the pictures of the small but media hogish idiots at gay pride parades wearing the leather chaps and not much else do the gay community no service at all.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 164):
Could it be because it is possible that there might be consequences from the community they are living in?

Then they can move as I have several times when the area I was living in went below what I consider my standards.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 164):
Ever experience that momentary urge to yell at the top of your lungs "I LOVE (Linda, Bill, whoever)" because you feel joy in your heart that you just found "that person", the one you are in love with and want to spend your life with (or seen someone else do it)?

No. People who do do that usually are people I avoid to begin with.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 164):
Homosexuality is not something to be ashamed of, attacked for, or to suffer any societal consequences for.

Never said it was but it also is not something that should require the complete redefinition of a word that has long term meaning and expectations.

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
So, in the dxing world, heterosexual judges are not biased, while homosexual judges are?

So in the real world hetrosexual judges have ruled in favor of same sex marriage in how many cases so far?

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
Tell me something: do you think Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas should have recused themselves from Bush v. Gore, given their obvious bias?

How so? Had they been pictured campaigning for Bush? Seen in the Presidents company? Listed as contributors? Where is their "obvious bias"? They certainly weren't appointed by President Bush.

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
That's a much stronger case than "he's [been said to be] gay, therefore he can't fairly rule on an issue involving gay rights."

I don't think so, especially since you added:

Quoting D L X (Reply 136):
and noticed his wedding ring

which pretty much would telegraph how he feels on the subject of same sex marriage if he truly is gay. Or do you think that like some women, he just wears it so he won't be hit on all the time?  

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 163):
The argument for prop 8 is legally, VERY weak.


It was legally put on the ballot and passed. Millions of people cast their ballot saying they do not want same sex marriage to be legal in the State. Those million included minorites that don't see same sex marriage as relating in any way to prejudices they have had to face. It took one Judge who looks pretty much like he had his mind made up before the argument even reached his court to trash that vote. That is what is very very weak. Had this been a panel of judges then credibilty would have existed in the decision. What we have here is one man dictating to millions.

Aaron, you are essentially saying that no matter if he had bias or not, since the ruling went the way you think it should have that you will overlook that fact. You are the one that is spinning so the ruling will look like it was reached fairly when it is becoming more obvious that the Judge was most likely leaning one way before hearing arguments.

[Edited 2010-08-06 17:29:10]

[Edited 2010-08-06 17:29:31]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12558
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:26 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
People with different color skin are readily identifiable walking down the the street.

Sure. But you certainly can't always identify the race. I've had people speak to me in Spanish many times....and I don't speak a word of Spanish.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Hetrosexual Judges have made rulings in favor of gay marriage several times now in different States. I think that demonstrates that they are not only not biased, but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/has.

Well, at least you used evidence in the heterosexual judge case. None of that mentioned for the possibly homosexual judge.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Common sense tellls you that if you allow same sex marriage then the basic definition of marriage is changed

Certainly. It was also changed when interracial marriage was legalized. No one is debating that the meaning of 8 specific letters written in a particular order is changing.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
and by that change, there is no longer any legal reason to deny polygamists or even incestual relationships as long as they involve consenting adults.

Now THAT is a bigger stretch. Firstly, I don't have a problem with polygamous relationships, as long as they are equal and healthy for those involved. But incest has scientifically shown that it can be damaging to the children.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
As to procreation, hetro couples that don't have children for the most part choose not too.

So, by my reading of many people's objections to gay marriage, such couples should be stripped of their marriage licenses.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Yet the case to extend same sex marriage is based on nothing but morality..that is fair and the right thing to do.

Fair, yes. I'm not particularly concerned whether everyone thinks it's the right thing to do.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Please, after all the years of "we're just the same as everyone else" to try and pull the "we are different, just like people with different color skin" is not going to fly.

Well, given that you refer to the judge as a gay judge so much, I have to imagine you think he's different from a straight judge:

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
given that he is gay,
Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/ha
Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
gay Judge
Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
gay judge
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:33 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
This judge is, by one account, wearing a wedding ring and is gay. That smacks of immediate bias towards agreeing with same sex marriage.

LOL. That assumes that every gay person is in favor of gay marriage.

This same judge also successfully sued to stop the Gay Games being called the Gay Olympics.

Judge Vaughn Walker, despite whatever his sexuality may be, is a conservative justice. He was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, but was held up by democrats and gay rights activists. Judge Walker made a name for himself by successfully suing the “Gay Olympics,” which were forced to change their name to the “Gay Games,” and putting a lien on the losing homosexual defendant despite his failing health. He finally made it to the bench under the watch of George H. W. Bush."

In that case, he made a lot of enemies in the gay community.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:34 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 168):
But you certainly can't always identify the race

But you know they are of a different race, that is the qualifier.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 168):
It was also changed when interracial marriage was legalized

Not so. That was still one man and one woman.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 168):
Now THAT is a bigger stretch.

I don't see how. If you are going to change it for one group then you need to change it for all.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 168):
So, by my reading of many people's objections to gay marriage, such couples should be stripped of their marriage licenses.

No, choice is a far different thing from total inability as in the right equipment is not even present.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 168):
Well, given that you refer to the judge as a gay judge so much, I have to imagine you think he's different from a straight judge:

In so much as it demonstrates a conflict of intrest. Even more interesting is the post that says he wears a wedding ring. I'd be interested to know if his spouse is male or female. If male that would demonstrate even further his bias.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:38 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
Even more interesting is the post that says he wears a wedding ring. I'd be interested to know if his spouse is male or female. If male that would demonstrate even further his bias.


LOL again.

I'm gay, my spouse is male, I wear a wedding ring and have done so for twenty two years. That doesn't make me in favor of gay marriage.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:45 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Aaron, you are essentially saying that no matter if he had bias or not, since the ruling went the way you think it should have that you will overlook that fact.

No, I'm essentially saying you don't understand the law where criteria for recusal and application of equal protection are concerned. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just how it is.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:49 am

Dxing,

I think everyone here can go around and around with you. The fact is, the Mormon Church in Utah, along with the Catholic Church of California and numerous Evangelical Churches poured MILLIONS into promoting homophobia so prop 8 could be passed. They admitted it in court! They ADMITTED that they recognized there was a large amount of discrimination against homosexuals and they used that discrimination and that fear of the homosexual in their ad campaigns, which featured children. The whole thing was used to say, "If you let gays get married, they will recruit your kids and make them gay," which played well into the ignorant bigots who actually believe that crap. Again, all this by admission.

Also, you need to look into the actions of the Mormon church on this, and the history of it. How they went about gathering funds with threatening excommunication from the church if families did not give. Watch the documentary: "Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition."

They knew if they could get the fear of the people going, it would gain momentum, and sure enough it did.

Also, you bring up the race thing. Racial minorities are highly homophobic due to their rather conservative outlook on familial values, mainly because of their higher exposure to the christian church. It is also socially much more difficult for someone to be a minority AND gay and not be rejected by the minority group that they stem from due to a higher rate of misogynistic tendencies in minority groups.

Typically put, it's all about homophobia, with you, and everyone who cannot look at the legal and scientific evidence without bias.

[Edited 2010-08-06 17:52:35]
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:52 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
So, in the dxing world, heterosexual judges are not biased, while homosexual judges are?

So in the real world hetrosexual judges have ruled in favor of same sex marriage in how many cases so far?
DODGED!!!
Why can't you answer the question? Here, I'll ask it again: in the dxing world, are heterosexual judges not biased, while homosexual judges are?

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
Tell me something: do you think Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas should have recused themselves from Bush v. Gore, given their obvious bias?

How so? Had they been pictured campaigning for Bush?

They are staunch conservatives. You can't possibly disagree can you? Considering your many positions about The Court over the years.

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
I don't think so, especially since you added:

Quoting D L X (Reply 136):
and noticed his wedding ring

which pretty much would telegraph how he feels on the subject of same sex marriage if he truly is gay. Or do you think that like some women, he just wears it so he won't be hit on all the time?  

Actually, if I'm correct, then it means he's ALREADY MARRIED, and this challenge would have absolutely nothing to do with him since it only applies to people who ARE NOT already married.

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 163):
The argument for prop 8 is legally, VERY weak.


It was legally put on the ballot and passed. Millions of people cast their ballot saying they do not want same sex marriage to be legal in the State.

So, if segregating public schools were put on the ballot and passed with millions of people casting their ballots saying they did not want white kids going to the same school as black kids, would that be okay? (You know the answer here.)
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12558
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:59 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
But you know they are of a different race, that is the qualifier.

No, I don't. I can't tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican. I often can't tell Chinese from Korean from Japanese. Hell, half the time I can't tell a dark-skinned Mexican from my own race!

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
Not so. That was still one man and one woman.

I didn't say that it changed the genders. I said it changed the definition....which, at that time, was more strict that just "one man, one woman".

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
I don't see how. If you are going to change it for one group then you need to change it for all.

Well, I did explain it right after that sentence:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 168):
But incest has scientifically shown that it can be damaging to the children.
Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
No, choice is a far different thing from total inability as in the right equipment is not even present.

Gay people who are married can certainly choose to have children through normal sexual intercourse (or through insemination). They just have to find a willing woman.

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
In so much as it demonstrates a conflict of intrest

Where's the evidence? Where are the examples of past rulings that have demonstrated a bias toward "gay" issues?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:01 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
This judge is, by one account, wearing a wedding ring and is gay. That smacks of immediate bias towards agreeing with same sex marriage.

The operative words being: "by one account"

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
So, in the dxing world, heterosexual judges are not biased, while homosexual judges are?

So in the real world hetrosexual judges have ruled in favor of same sex marriage in how many cases so far?

You dodged the question.

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
Even more interesting is the post that says he wears a wedding ring.

How do you know it is a wedding ring? Do you even know? Maybe it's a class ring. You certainly haven't seen the ring, yet it has you all riled up.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:07 am

Dxing,

This is about legalities....and whether or not there is a justifiable, quantitative, understandable, and ethical reason as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to married. It's not about what you think about them, this is about data, psychology, economics, science, and government.

No expert can give ANY reason that falls in the above categories as to why gay individuals cannot get married. Though, all the evidence points in the direction that gay marriage is beneficial to society, to psycho-social behavior, to economics, and to the progression of equal rights.

"Because I don't like it" -or- "Because God says so" does not stand up in a court of law. When you pull up incest: It's been proven, by science, that it has a negative impact on children. When you bring up animals and humans, it fails because an animal cannot give consent by understanding the ramifications of such marriage. The same applies for children, they cannot consent by understanding.

Polygamy, is another story. However, the legal mess that it causes means that anyone who tries to challenge it, may have much difficulty doing so.

Why the Churches involved in this political activism have not been stripped of their tax-exempt status, I'll never know. This is not charity for the good of humanity, it's plain bigotry, and admitted bigotry and heightening of unjustified and uneducated fears.

You cannot and will not get around that.

And finally, can you please answer the question: "If a ballot was placed in California that Black and White children should be subject to segregation in the school system and passed, would that be okay with you because the people wanted it?"

Look, I know where you are going to go with that. You are going to say this is not about race, but about marriage. And you are right, that is about race and this is about marriage, but the common thread in both is the fact that both deny rights to certain individuals based on biological differences. Now, would you agree with segregation if people voted for it? Because as far as the courts are concerned, without bias, this is essentially the same type of case. It's a civil rights case where a certain class of people are being denied rights the majority enjoy. Sometimes it seems that all reason fails you. Either that, or you are just as homophobic as the Mormon's who started this entire movement. You try and find every reason you can to deny the facts, yet your reasons have no factual backing or proof that they are correct. The multi-million dollar lawyers representing the Proponents of Prop 8 certainly couldn't make it work, I highly doubt that you can either.

UAL

[Edited 2010-08-06 18:15:25]
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:24 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 169):
LOL. That assumes that every gay person is in favor of gay marriage.

It makes no difference save for this judge. Not every gay person was making the ruling.

Quoting mariner (Reply 169):
This same judge also successfully sued to stop the Gay Games being called the Gay Olympics.

That would be a trade mark infringement would it not?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 172):
No, I'm essentially saying you don't understand the law where criteria for recusal and application of equal protection are concerned. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just how it is.

And I'm saying a Judge can recuse him or herself for any variety of reasons. You know that is true. Why you attempt to spin around that fact is beyond me other than you purposely want to avoid it since it taints the ruling.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 173):
They admitted it in court!

So what. The left lied through their teeth about President Bush to try and get him unseated in 2004 to include making up stories about his military record. Show me an emotionaly charged election and I'll show you a whole bunch of lies on both sides of the issue. That does not change the fact that the majority of the population voted against same sex marrige in their State.

Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
DODGED!!!
Quoting cws818 (Reply 176):
You dodged the question.

No, I already answered the question in reply #161

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Hetrosexual Judges have made rulings in favor of gay marriage several times now in different States. I think that demonstrates that they are not only not biased, but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/has.

If you don't like the answer that is your problem, not mine.

Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
They are staunch conservatives.

Do you know that they voted for President Bush? Or that they voted at all?

Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
Actually, if I'm correct, then it means he's ALREADY MARRIED,

Are you sure?

Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
(You know the answer here.)

Why don't you tell us what my answer is since you seem to be such an expert on what I think. You've already ignored several questions as is your usual style of posting.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
No, I don't. I can't tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican.

"Mexican" and "Puerto Rican" are not races, they are nationalities. Both are Hispanic.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
I often can't tell Chinese from Korean from Japanese.

Same as above except all three are Asian.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
I said it changed the definition....

The definition for quite some time has been one man and one woman. Loving did not change that definition.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
Gay people who are married can certainly choose to have children through normal sexual intercourse (or through insemination). They just have to find a willing woman.

You just confirmed my argument. They cannot, between themselves, provide the necessary ingredients to produce a child, an egg and sperm.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
Where's the evidence?

Read the thread.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 176):
The operative words being: "by one account"

It is an eye witness account, ask him yourself.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 176):
How do you know it is a wedding ring?

Ask DLX, he is the one who specifically referred to it as a "wedding ring".

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Hetrosexual Judges have made rulings in favor of gay marriage several times now in different States. I think that demonstrates that they are not only not biased, but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/has.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:30 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):


Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
DODGED!!!
Quoting cws818 (Reply 176):
You dodged the question.

No, I already answered the question in reply #161

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Hetrosexual Judges have made rulings in favor of gay marriage several times now in different States. I think that demonstrates that they are not only not biased, but lack the conflict of interest this Judge had/has.

If you don't like the answer that is your problem, not mine.

That does not answer the question. Just because heterosexual judges have issued pro-gay marriage rulings does not mean that this judge has a conflict of interest. You clearly think he has one, but you have not established it as anything more than that.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:31 am

Dxing,

You are sounding like an idiot. You don't answer any of the questions, and ignore any points made in favor of gay marriage simply because you don't agree with it. Instead of addressing questions directed toward you, you turn a question directed toward you into another tangent argument that makes the entire thread run the course you wish it to. Kind of like saying, "So what people lied in 2004 with Bush." WTF does Bush have to do with this?

There is no point in arguing with someone who fails to provide any evidence to back up their argument, while the entire other side of the argument is burdened with providing you a slew of information and evidence of which you totally reject and refuse to listen to.

Again, if the will of the people was to reintroduce segregation in the state, would you be for it, since it was the will of the people?

[Edited 2010-08-06 18:32:45]
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:35 am

Quoting cws818 (Reply 179):
That does not answer the question. Just because heterosexual judges have issued pro-gay marriage rulings does not mean that this judge has a conflict of interest. You clearly think he has one, but you have not established it as anything more than that.

On this issue, by Dxing's beliefs, we shouldn't have judges period, since EVERY judge has grown up in their own set of social coordinates. Some with gay influences, some with poor influences, some with rich influences, some with hindu influences, some with criminals in their family, some not, some drive Jaguars, some drive Chryslers, some eat Sushi, some hate fish.............

Come on man.
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:43 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
It makes no difference save for this judge. Not every gay person was making the ruling.

How do you know this judge is - personally - in favor of gay marriage?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:44 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
DODGED!!!
Quoting cws818 (Reply 176):
You dodged the question.

No, I already answered the question in reply #161

How do you answer a question in Reply 161 that wasn't asked until Reply 174? Your quote in Reply 161 says nothing about gay judges.

So, I'll ask again until you answer it:

Do you believe that heterosexual judges are unbiased but homosexual judges are biased? YES or NO.

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
They are staunch conservatives.

Do you know that they voted for President Bush?

Um, they PUBLICLY voted for Bush.

Now, answer the question and quit dodging:

Should Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and O'Connor have recused themselves instead of hearing the case? Just answer yes or no. Don't ask me a question in response. Your failure to answer the question speaks volumes - it says that you recognize that I have caught you in hypocrisy.

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
Quoting D L X (Reply 174):
Actually, if I'm correct, then it means he's ALREADY MARRIED,

Are you sure?

Another DODGE! You're like that batter in little league that's looking for a walk! You won't swing at any pitches.

So, do you not have an argument in response to mine, that because he is already married (if I'm correct that he wears a ring) then this case has absolutely no effect on him?

You're the one arguing that Judge Vaughn Walker should recuse himself, so you have the burden to show it. I've shown you the statute that says so, so where is it?

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
You've already ignored several questions as is your usual style of posting.

I haven't ignored anything. I just won't answer your question until you answer mine. You keep trying to change the subject, but I'm going to force you back on it.
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1761
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:45 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 170):
In so much as it demonstrates a conflict of intrest. Even more interesting is the post that says he wears a wedding ring. I'd be interested to know if his spouse is male or female. If male that would demonstrate even further his bias.

So, as has been said before repeatedly, but has been ignored by you time and time again:

If being a gay judge in a sexuality related case makes said judge biased, then why doesn't being a female judge in a gender discrimination case make a different judge biased? Or a black judge in a racially based case? Or how about a devout catholic judge in a same-sex marriage case?

Along your line of argument, a judge should never rule anything that affects him or herself in any way whatsoever. So if a judge drives a Toyota, he/she should never rule on a case involving Toyota. Heck, he/she shouldn't rule on a case involving constuction/paving companies because that affects the Toyota that he or she drives!

Sounds to me like you almost need a super-human to be so detached from every issue imaginable to acheive this. Or, better yet, some higher being than a human. Wait, I know who...



The ONLY suitable judge for matters of humans...
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12558
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:59 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
"Mexican" and "Puerto Rican" are not races, they are nationalities. Both are Hispanic.
Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
Same as above except all three are Asian.

Fair enough - I always forget what the difference is.

Still, my last example does stand:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
Hell, half the time I can't tell a dark-skinned Mexican from my own race!
Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
You just confirmed my argument. They cannot, between themselves, provide the necessary ingredients to produce a child, an egg and sperm.

(I hate to bring up a oft-repeated argument, but) nor can infertile people. Should all applicants for marriage licenses be subject to fertility testing?

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
Read the thread.

Already done. My question was two sentences long:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 175):
Where's the evidence? Where are the examples of past rulings that have demonstrated a bias toward "gay" issues?

Everything I read in the thread points to evidence that he's possibly gay; it doesn't point to a gay-friendly bias demonstrated in his previous rulings. In fact, what little evidence I've seen in the thread points in the other direction regarding his rulings.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:30 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
Yet the case to extend same sex marriage is based on nothing but morality

It's actually based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
This ruling violates the 10th amendment since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Nor is education, but we've had several landmark rulings about that. The 10th Amendment does not give the states carte blanche to do what they like - it gives them authority to legislate in certain areas, but the 14th Amendment requires them to provide equal protection when doing so. Nobody is arguing that California does not have the right to determine its own marriage regulations - the argument is that the way in which they do it because of Proposition 8 does not provide equal protection, and is thus unconstitutional, null, and void.

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
The equipment to procreate is still there and science can make things work that don't on their own.

This is true for gay couples as well.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
etherealsky
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:13 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:30 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 171):
I'm gay, my spouse is male, I wear a wedding ring and have done so for twenty two years. That doesn't make me in favor of gay marriage.

I told myself I was only going to watch this thread from a distance, but you've got me stumped on that one - huh?
If a person is gay, why would they not be in support of gay marriage?  
"And that's why you always leave a note..."
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:34 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
This ruling violates the 10th amendment since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

dxing, stop making this bad argument. The 14th Amendment abrogates the 10th Amendment. It specifically targets the states, preventing them from doing certain things, such as discriminating. This bad argument has been refuted every time you've mentioned it, which you simply ignore.

Quoting Mir (Reply 186):
Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
The equipment to procreate is still there and science can make things work that don't on their own.

This is true for gay couples as well.

Seriously. It's not like their goodies don't work because they're gay.
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:36 am

Quoting etherealsky (Reply 187):
If a person is gay, why would they not be in support of gay marriage?

For the same reason the log cabin republicans exist. For the same reason Mary Cheney exists. The reason? I dunno, but it does happen.
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:46 am

Quoting cws818 (Reply 179):
You clearly think he has one, but you have not established it as anything more than that.

And never will to your satisfaction which is why I tagged it with "if you don't like the answer that's your problem".

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 180):
You are sounding like an idiot

Well thanks for keeping it civil.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 180):
You don't answer any of the questions, and ignore any points made in favor of gay marriage simply because you don't agree with it.

I have answered all the questions, some multiple times, you don't like the answers. I have also refuted the points made in favor of same sex marriage and for my efforts am personally insulted. I think we are done.

Quoting mariner (Reply 182):
How do you know this judge is - personally - in favor of gay marriage?

How do you know he's not? The evidence would point to him being for it. The report linked in reply #150 is quite telling.

Quoting D L X (Reply 183):
I haven't ignored anything. I just won't answer your question until you answer mine

Then I guess we're done becaue the last time you said this you still didn't answer the questions posed to you . I gave the reply in which the answer to your question, which was the same one asked by another poster you didn't read. The answer is not going to change so either accept it of not, I care not which you do. BTW how's that case against the Salahis coming along? Any charges yet? You certainly nailed that one.


Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 185):
nor can infertile people

Many supposedly infertile people can donate both and egg and sperm to produce a child. No same sex marriage can make such a claim.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 185):
Everything

There doesn't have to be a record. According to the article in reply #150:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise — or advertise — his orientation.


The line that really tickles me is:

In fact, wondering whether a gay judge might be biased in a gay marriage case is arguably reflective of bias

So in other words just questioning his possible prejudice is showing prejudice? That's absurd. How would you ever interview someone for a job if you couldn't question them on possible problem areas that might arise?

Finally the line that sums up the entire case as this point:

Judge Walker’s orientation really doesn’t matter, since nobody thinks this case will be settled at the trial level anyway — it’s going up to the Ninth Circuit, and possibly up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But unfortunately it does matter and it will forever taint the outcome.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
etherealsky
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:13 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:49 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 189):
For the same reason Mary Cheney exists.

I don't really understand your post. Why should politics (if that's what you were implying) make a difference in this kind of issue... isn't this more of a universal 'rights issue' ? Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I would view this issue in a similar category as women receiving the right to vote and segregation being outlawed.
"And that's why you always leave a note..."
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:56 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
I gave the reply in which the answer to your question,

No dude, you gave me a reply to another place where you dodged the question, and I told you how you could fix your answer, but you ran from it again. You're looking for a walk instead of swinging at the pitch. Why won't you just answer yes or no?

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
Then I guess we're done

That's really too bad. I gave you many opportunities to clarify your non-answer. But I've seen a pattern to your answers to questions on this thread: instead of answering the question (from almost anyone!), you ask another question. That it dodging, whether you admit it or not. That's why everyone is trying to get you to answer the question. Just admit it!
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:58 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
I have answered all the questions, some multiple times, you don't like the answers. I have also refuted the points made in favor of same sex marriage and for my efforts am personally insulted. I think we are done.

Yeah, you still haven't answered the question multiple people have asked you throughout this thread, that really is so important to the crux of your argument:

"If the majority of people voted for segregation in said state, would YOU, Dxing, support the will of the people and allow segregation to exist?" Answer that, then we are done. And don't answer with a question, just a yes or no.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 189):
For the same reason the log cabin republicans exist. For the same reason Mary Cheney exists. The reason? I dunno, but it does happen.

No, not bringing in politics. I'm saying that it's an oxymoron that a gay man would not support the idea of gay marriage, but it's also and oxymoron that gay log cabin republicans exist, since their party absolutely stands against gay rights. Mary Cheney is of the Republican party, yet it's the party who is so vocal on denying gay rights. But these people do exist. That does not make them incapable of applying the law without bias however. That's all I meant. Simply that people can fit in a certain social, economic, or religious group, but are capable of thinking and applying the law without bias because of the group they belong to.

[Edited 2010-08-06 20:01:04]
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:01 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 186):
This is true for gay couples as well.

If you would care to clarify that I'd appreciate it. In a male-male couple where is the egg coming from save from outside the relationship? In a female-female relationship which female is donating the sperm?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 193):
"If the majority of people voted for segregation in said state, would YOU, Dxing, support the will of the people and allow segregation to exist?" Answer that, then we are done. And don't answer with a question, just a yes or no.

So Dxing, what is your answer? Yet another post from you, and you still fail to answer this question.
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:10 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 194):
If you would care to clarify that I'd appreciate it.

Sure:

Quoting dxing (Reply 194):
In a male-male couple where is the egg coming from save from outside the relationship?

From the same place the egg would come from in a heterosexual relationship where the woman was incapable of producing one. A surrogate mother, for instance.

Quoting dxing (Reply 194):
In a female-female relationship which female is donating the sperm?

The sperm would come from the same place it would in a heterosexual relationship where the man was incapable of producing it. A sperm bank, for instance.

Simply put, the same problems that science can solve for heterosexual couples, it can solve for homosexual couples.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:10 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
How do you know he's not? The evidence would point to him being for it. The report linked in reply #150 is quite telling.

I don't know. I don't presume to know anything about his his private life, his personal thoughts.

The link in post #150 suggests he may be gay - it says nothing about his attitude to gay marriage. From the same link:

"In other words, just because Judge Walker likes to s some d might be gay in no way precludes him from ruling impartially in a gay marriage case. In fact, wondering whether a gay judge might be biased in a gay marriage case is arguably reflective of bias"

Some truth there. LOL.


mariner

[Edited 2010-08-06 20:11:22]
aeternum nauta
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:13 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 195):
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 193):
"If the majority of people voted for segregation in said state, would YOU, Dxing, support the will of the people and allow segregation to exist?" Answer that, then we are done. And don't answer with a question, just a yes or no.

So Dxing, what is your answer? Yet another post from you, and you still fail to answer this question.

Still can't answer.......pathetic.
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:24 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 196):
Simply put, the same problems that science can solve for heterosexual couples, it can solve for homosexual couples.

Hardly. In the case of a hetrosexual couple the man with no sperm can still donate the dna for the womans egg. Both sides contribute chromosomes. Not so in a male-male relationship. In the case of no egg, which means that almost certainly her ovaries would have to be destroyed, cancer or some such thing, at least the male in the relationship can donate his chromosomes, Are you inferring that someone who loses the ability to donate an egg through no fault of their own is on the same level as someone who couldn't no matter what the circumstances?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: afcjets, speedygonzales and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos