Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137462 Apr 24, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do know of a gay judge that ruled against a gay charity/cause! This very judge! Judge Walker ruled against the Gay Olympics in a case he had before him! Stop with the B.S. it's already been proven to you overwhelmingly that Judge Walker had no valid reasons to recluse himself and the courts agreed with him and have backed him up 100%! Now get a new trick you one trick pony,you've become quite boring! But do please continue to hold your breath and do us all a favor you whack job!
Judge Walker did not rule against the Gay Olympics case, Bird Brain -- he wasn't even a judge at the time.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#137463 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Pull your head out of your ass: this lame point has been rebutted a thousand times already.
And vice versa.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Heterosexual judges have a history of impartiality in homosexual cases; homosexual judges don't.
What a stupid comment to make.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Or maybe you know of a homosexual judge who decided against a pro-LGBT case?
Provide his name.
I won't hold my breath.
Do you actually understand what impartiality means? It does not necessarily mean finding against one's own interest, although it does mean putting one's interest aside and deciding the case on the merits.

Feel free to cite examples where Judge Walker's decision is not rooted in fact or law that would clearly indicate bias. You can't. What is more, his decision has been upheld by the appeals court, who also stated that his sexual orientation was not valid grounds for him to have to recuse himself.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137464 Apr 24, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Walker only looks biased to homophobic morons.
What's your point, bird brain -- only heteros can be biased?

Is that it?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#137465 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Judge Walker did not rule against the Gay Olympics case, Bird Brain -- he wasn't even a judge at the time.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

He didn't rule on the trial, he was the lawyer against the gay olymic games.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137466 Apr 24, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And vice versa.
<quoted text>
What a stupid comment to make.
<quoted text>
Do you actually understand what impartiality means? It does not necessarily mean finding against one's own interest, although it does mean putting one's interest aside and deciding the case on the merits.
Feel free to cite examples where Judge Walker's decision is not rooted in fact or law that would clearly indicate bias. You can't. What is more, his decision has been upheld by the appeals court, who also stated that his sexual orientation was not valid grounds for him to have to recuse himself.
I see.

So your point is his homosexuality played no part in his deliberations?

I'm curious. How can you possibly know this?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#137467 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
I see.
So your point is his homosexuality played no part in his deliberations?
I'm curious. How can you possibly know this?
Because I can read. If one has that ability they can read the decision and see that each point is solidly supported by existing law and court decisions.

Added to that, one can read the appeal and see that the appellate court also found that Walker's sexual orientation was not valid grounds for recusal.

Feel free to cite specific examples from Walker's decision that display a bias on the basis of sexual orientation. The fact that you quickly try to redirect the topic tends to indicate that you can't.
kyre

Maputo, Mozambique

#137468 Apr 24, 2012
How
kyre

Maputo, Mozambique

#137469 Apr 24, 2012
why not?
renwick

Berlin, Germany

#137470 Apr 24, 2012
How come when conservatives talk about marriage it sounds more like a discussion about animal husbandry than about human relationships?
renwick

Tampa, FL

#137471 Apr 24, 2012
What you people chose to do with your time is your business and I respect that, but do have to wonder what motivates people to engage in such a long debate that seems to be no more than a rehashing of the same points over and over again, sometimes changing your names to give the impression of different participants, but obviously the same people making the same points over and over. I could understand it there was at some point a definitive winner on the merits of argument but it seems that the only criteria for winning here is the person who lasts the longest in this repetition. Again, your business what you do but I have to make the observation that this seems incredibly odd and unhealthy.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#137472 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that relevant, You Dumb Cluck?
Moreover, if there was evidence he intended to marry would you then concede he should have recused himself?
I'll answer that for you -- no, you wouldn't.
Your point is clear: gay and lesbian judges don't have to play by the rules. Nothing in their profile can ever be a reason for recusal.
And that's your opinion in a nutshell, isn't it?
There is no rule that a judge must disclose their sexual preference.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#137473 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So your point is his homosexuality played no part in his deliberations?
I'm curious. How can you possibly know this?
How could you possibly know that it did?

A judge looks at the evidence presented. The PropH8 crowd FAILED to prove their case. Period.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137474 Apr 24, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
He didn't rule on the trial, he was the lawyer against the gay olymic games.
Which is exactly what I said, flea brain:
Prof Marvel wrote:
Judge Walker did not rule against the Gay Olympics case, Bird Brain -- he wasn't even a judge at the time.
Seriously, Lides, your manifold reading comprehension problems are lowering the bar. Are there night schools where you live offering adult education courses?

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137475 Apr 24, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
How could you possibly know that it did?
A judge looks at the evidence presented. The PropH8 crowd FAILED to prove their case. Period.
Your point seems to be judges are incapable of bias.

Or is it, gay judges are incapable of bias?

Or ... do you simply question the need for recusal rules?

Pick one and stick with it, please.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137476 Apr 24, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no rule that a judge must disclose their sexual preference.
Why don't you tell us 20 more times so the people who missed you saying it for the past 2 weeks won't miss how you continue to get everything discussed here ass-backwards?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#137477 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Which is exactly what I said, flea brain:
Do you lie ever? He did represent a client whose position went against his interests as a gay man. This tends to illustrate an ability to be impartial.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Seriously, Lides, your manifold reading comprehension problems are lowering the bar. Are there night schools where you live offering adult education courses?
Wow, prof, your regular divergence into ad hominem attacks is undermining the legitimacy of your argument. Someone with a valid argument could stay on topic and make their case, whereas someone without a valid argument would have to depend upon personal attacks. I see you are employing the latter.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#137478 Apr 24, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>If the queen had balls she'd be king. if, if, if, if
You seem to think gay judges are above recusal rules.

Same-sex marriage is about sexual orientation -- specifically, homosexuality. You want us to believe a homosexual judge can be impartial on the issue but that's like saying a pedophile judge can be impartial in a pedo case.

Do you also believe that, you community college flea brain?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#137479 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point seems to be judges are incapable of bias.
Or is it, gay judges are incapable of bias?
Or ... do you simply question the need for recusal rules?
Pick one and stick with it, please.
No, the point is, you have failed to indicate any bias in the decision, and an appeals court has held that Judge Walker need not have recused himself.

Simply put, you haven't made even a fundamental case for your position.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#137480 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point seems to be judges are incapable of bias.
Or is it, gay judges are incapable of bias?
Or ... do you simply question the need for recusal rules?
Pick one and stick with it, please.
There is no rule that requires a judge to disclose his/her sexual orientation.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#137481 Apr 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think gay judges are above recusal rules.
Same-sex marriage is about sexual orientation -- specifically, homosexuality. You want us to believe a homosexual judge can be impartial on the issue but that's like saying a pedophile judge can be impartial in a pedo case.
Do you also believe that, you community college flea brain?
I really don't care what you think and neither does the Court.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California counties see higher turnout under ne... Jun 18 Solarman 1
Best MILF \ cougar dating sites San Mateo Jun 8 zan 1
what is the best free dating site (Sep '13) Jun 6 zan 2
News Conviction in fiscal elder abuse case May '18 TrustforSeniors 1
News Redwood City: Seven-story housing complex going... Mar '18 nita singler 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Feb '18 CDNClerk 143
News Redwood City: Tenants protest large rent hikes ... Jan '18 Ur Fired 3

Redwood City Jobs

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages