Posted on 02/07/2010 10:47:44 AM PST by SmithL
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.
They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.
"There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“It is for sodomite activists to prove that it is anything more than behavior.”
No, now that the judge has been selected and the trial is underway, it is up to those who wish to remove Walker to prove that he is incapable and being impartial.
Couldn’t be worse than Souter.
It staggers the mind that this judge didn't recuse himself. The fact that he did not demonstrates a serious lack of judge-eh-ment (/Biden).
“Sexual orientation can be changed with surgery?”
There is no such thing as “sexual orientation.”
It is a fictional construct invented by those who would deceive us, to facilitate the construction of irrational arguments that can lead one into error.
Everyone is heterosexual. Some suffer from milder or more severe cases of SSAD, but that is a disorder of their heterosexuality, not a stand-alone “orientation.”
Everyone is heterosexual.
Do you have the data to back up that assertion?
I guarantee if you look into this queer judge’s past, you will find misconduct. Remember when homosexual sodomy was strictly illegal? Well as a legal official, did this ‘judge’ knowingly and intentionally break the law? Did he ever serve in the armed services? If so, he lied on his enlistment and almost certainly violated the UCMJ. There is a lot more, but plain and simple this homo ‘judge’ is a scoundrel unfit to serve.
No grounds for appeal based on Judge Walker's sexuality.
“My bet is that when Prop 8 goes before the SCOTUS, that Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens and the rest will refuse to hear anything regarding Judge Walker’s sexuality”
The case that they hear will be narrowly construed, and will not extend to the question of whether Walker should have recused himself. Under those circumstances, of course they will refuse to hear arguments on that question.
Now, if someone were granted a writ of certiorari on a case alleging that Walker *should have* recused himself, then they would hear arguments regarding—not his sexuality—his mental state.
Not his “sexuality” because homosexual acts are not sex. They are symptoms acted out in response to an unhealthy compulsion created by same-sex attraction disorder.
A compulsion to engage in such behavior is indicative of an underlying mental disorder.
“Do you have the data to back up that assertion?”
You writhe about like a snake with a forked stick on its neck.
A demand for “data” in response to such an assertion is patently ridiculous.
Given the present state of academia and other research organizations, not to mention the foundations and other bodies that fund research, it can only be seen as a demand for data that the speaker well knows would be impossible to gather.
I’m sure you don’t want to know how I arrived at that conclusion, but I’m going to tell you anyway.
I began debunking one pro-SSAD assertion after another, working backwards to the thing itself, and when all the nonsense and lies were cleared away, that was all that remained.
Testing that conclusion, using observation and applying reason to those observations, only supported it.
If you have some actual data to the contrary—aside from the self-reports of people who suffer from a mental disorder, that is—I’d be more than happy to give it full, open-minded, honest consideration—which is more than you offer.
“No grounds for appeal based on Judge Walker’s sexuality.”
Blatant conflict of interest.
You just can’t get around it.
Pure blarney. You've regulated yourself to a position of not being taken seriously.
As Cicero said, laws that go against Natural Law are unjust—and the US was founded under those principles.
Those abortion laws are unconstitutional as are any laws that support or give special privilege to sexual acts that go against nature. It is a fact that unborn children are living, human beings. The science proves it and it has to be unconstitutional to kill those children.
Yes, our laws have been corrupted but we have the documents and history on our side to rectify it. It is an abomination that abortions are allowed.
And be careful what you wish for as this judge if removed could be replaced with a Carter, Clinton or Obama appointee.
EXACTLY
this judge should no way be involved in this case. Any judge looking to gain form his own decision should be stepping down and to try and twist this any other way is utter B/S troll crap
Hell this should not even be a case let alone us debate this
I do think it is a mental disorder and so did the law until a handful of liberal shrinks tonight otherwise,
To say it is normal means that the person saying so needs to have have their pervert4ed sick head examined too
Excellent transition of interpretation, but my question about the indisputable nature of intrinsic bias is not something that can be proven to be invalid.
Let’s revisit your preceding question: “Conflict of interest didn’t occur to you?”
The easy answer is “Yes, it did occur”, but what I interpret as conflict of interest is irrelevant.
To support your concerns stemming from SSAD, it would seem that SSAD first requires some form of legal definition, which it may; prove why suffering from SSAD must disqualify the judge from serving; then prove the judge suffers from SSAD.
Personally, I would like to see the case served by a Conservative judge. Would you?
>> Those abortion laws are unconstitutional
>> Yes, our laws have been corrupted but we have the documents and history on our side to rectify it.
Agreed.
Let me get this straight (no pun intended): an avowed sodomite is going to sit in judgment in a trial concerning the current illegality of homosexual ‘marriage’? Can you say biased liberal activist judge?
“And you sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton screaming that African American defendants should always be put on trial before an African American judge and a jury made exclusively of African Americans.”
Actually, I think the analogous argument is that African-American defendants should always be put on trial before a WHITE judge and a WHITE jury. Still a problematic argument...
Maybe given the current culturally depraved climate it’s not possible to argue that a homosexual will be biased in such a case, but the facts are not the same as the current cultural climate.
If judges in CA who are members of the Boy Scouts of America cannot sit on cases involving homosexuals, why should homosexuals be allowed to do so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.