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 ...
I am opposed to gay marriage, but understand that the current gay marriage bans are likely to be struck down by the SCOTUS based on the Equal Protection Clause.
We know the Pro Gay Marriage side have four solid votes on the SCOTUS with Stevens, Ginsburg, Bryer and Sotomayor and it was Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion for Lawrence v. Texas.
See post #11.
This is beyond outrageous. I knew the judges in SF were liberal activists, but to have someone who practices that lifestyle judging the case is totally absurd. Can a judge who is a proud member of NAMBLA preside over a child molestation case? Hello? On the bright side, this guarantees the case will be overturned on appeal.
Good luck proving that one in front of a court of law.
Your straw man arguments don’t add up. You’re comparing being an African American, which cannot be changed- no matter what kind of surgery or psychotherapy is performed, with being a homosexual- which is defined totally by sexuality, which CAN (and does) change with surgery or psychology.
An AA judge ruling on a case of racism is NOT the same as a homosexual judge ruling on Prop. 8.
Sexual orientation can be changed with surgery?
Michael Jackson sure gave it a hell of a try,though....
Our judicial system is so broken.
Wrong! Any judge that stand to gain personally in the outcome of the trial should be removed from the case.
“Q: Unbelievable! Why was this guy not removed from this case?
“A: For the very same reason that heterosexual judges are not removed from cases sexuality.”
Let’s translate:
“Q: Why wasn’t this man, who suffers from same-sex attraction disorder, removed from a case involving the legitimization of that disorder as normal and healthy, when his status as one who suffers from that disorder obviously must and clearly does (given his past behavior) prejudice him in favor of the plaintiffs?”
“A: For the same reason healthy men who have no vested interest in the outcome of a case are not removed from those cases.”
That makes a lot of sense.
Another reason to remove him, of course, is that people who suffer from mental disorders cannot be trusted to think rationally and reason correctly. Oh, sometimes they do, sure, but then (as you can see from the writings of Camile Paglia and every person who suffers from SSAD) something comes along that tweaks their disorder, and off they shoot into irrationality.
He should be removed because no one who suffers from SSAD should *ever* be placed in a position of responsibility, in the private sector or the public.
Can you cite a court case the states that gays suffer from a "same-sex attraction disorder?"
Until you can do that, your opinion on homosexuality has no bearing on this case.
>> current gay marriage bans are likely to be struck down by the SCOTUS
Potentially making Prop 8 a counterproductive initiative on the national level.
Gotta read this whole thread as soon as my computer quits trying to destroy itself - maybe later today.
If judges who are members of the BSA can’t sit in cases involving homosexual agenda, then why can avowed homosexuals sit on such cases?
It’s disgusting.
Counterproductive initiative? I’m not sure I understand you. Are you agreeing that SCOTUS will shoot down laws against same sex marriage?
“No, what ichwhatudo wrote was spot on. What you wrote was ridiculous.”
My only point is that we cannot exclude judges from cases due to their race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, eye color etc.
“For the very same reason that heterosexual judges are not removed from cases due to their sexuality.”
Doesn’t wash.
Hetero behavior is normal. Our species would not exist without it.
Homo behavior is perverted and unnatural. It is associated with disease and death.
Exactly.
For example, when Roe struck down the Texas ban on abortion, abortion laws across the country also fell.
When Lawrence struck down the Texas sodomy law based on the Equal Protection Clause, other state's sodomy laws also fell.
And if Prop 8 is struck down at the SCOTUS, the other gay marriage bans will also fall.
For some reason, I do not believe that argument will work when presented in a courtroom in an effort to have Judge Walker removed from this case.
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.