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 ...
>>Gender: Male
Gender:
MaleEunuch / Drone
There, fixed it.
Nice try at dodging my response. Sexuality can be changed with surgery.
You are obviously unable to debate a topic without the use of straw men or obfuscation.
“Sexuality can be changed with surgery.”
And what surgery would that be?
“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.”
Oh, no, you won’t be allowed to exclude the truth on the specious grounds that a particular term does not appear in a court decision. That you would even try is despicable.
As Julius Paulus wrote, “What is right is not derived from the rule, but the rule arises from our knowledge of what is right.”
Funny how people who claim to be conservative argue like leftists (that is, dishonestly) when they argue in favor of leftist propositions.
I think the problem is that if you try to argue leftist positions honestly, you find you have nothing to say. Dishonesty is the only course of action.
Judge Walker, is that you?
>> Antoninus to dogz: What you wrote was ridiculous.
Vegas odds in favor of trumandogz regarding the reality of the current judicial process and law.
Despite my prejudice of Walker’s handling of the case, I can’t think of one legally acceptable reason why he should be removed from the case.
I’m not sure we can make conclusions about the effective outcome of Walker’s role in the process. His potential bias in favor of ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional could be viewed as judicial activism making matters more contentious and counterproductive for the gay agenda.
“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.”
No, I am simply comparing the mindsets of those who want judges excluded due to their race and those who want judges excluded due to their sexuality and there is no difference between those mindsets.
“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.”
It would if advanced in support of the proposition that Walker’s advocacy of the legitimization of SSAD reflects mental disorder.
Who would hold that such a thing is healthy and normal did he not suffer from disordered thinking?
>> Counterproductive initiative? I’m not sure I understand you. Are you agreeing that SCOTUS will shoot down laws against same sex marriage?
SCOTUS allowed for abortion, why not SSM? I don’t trust SCOTUS will reflect the Conservative opinion regarding SSM.
Prop 8 is currently local. If ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, it’s unconstitutionality now has national implications.
“I can’t think of one legally acceptable reason why he should be removed from the case.”
Conflict of interest didn’t occur to you?
If ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, the unconstitutionality will have national implications.
I’m sorry, but you cannot just walk into a courtroom and argue that a judge should be removed due to his race, sexuality, gender or religion.
So please, cite a court case that would back-up your theory about homosexuality. If you could do that, at least you would not be laughed out of the courtroom.
An AA judge trying a case about racism and a homosexual judge trying a case about homosexual marriage is the same thing?
Whatever.
>> Conflict of interest didn’t occur to you?
Isn’t that concern intrinsic to every judge?
>>This judge should not be involved with the case.
The Nazis shouldn’t have been allowed to govern Germany either; but when a group of politically astute, amoral, pathologically dysfunctional individuals take over the asylum via the indifference of the sheeple.... bad things do generally happen.
Rome’s burning but hey... today’s Super Bowel Sunday so Who gives a flush?
His homosexuality has NOTHING TO DO with his eagerness to overturn the will of Kalifornia voters! Just a coincidence!
Only if you want Pat Robertson deciding what judge should preside over every case having to do with gay marriage and only if you want Al Sharpton deciding which judge should preside over every racially charged court case.
“No, I am simply comparing the mindsets of those who want judges excluded due to their race and those who want judges excluded due to their sexuality and there is no difference between those mindsets.”
Utter nonsense.
Race is not a mental disorder. SSAD is. Race does not interfere with a person’s rationality. SSAD does. Race is not inherently destructive. SSAD is.
People of a given race do not prey upon youth of different races, attempting to convert them to their own race through seduction or rape. SSAD sufferers prey upon innocent youth, attempting to induce SSAD in them through the trauma of homosexual seduction or rape.
And don’t *even* bother to come back with the lies about SSAD sufferers not recruiting, and not being attracted to barely post-adolescent youths. Reality had rebutted those propositions thousands of years ago. They were never doubted until the 20th century SSAD activists, with the help of the media and Satan, set about to convince people that truth was falsehood, and falsehood, truth.
Looks like you fell for it, but don’t expect people here to roll over and cower just because you sling insults around.
This country's legal system is based on Natural Law and God's Law. Homosexuality is not natural nor is it moral. So, NO, a judge who is straight does not have to recuse himself.
This is clearly bias. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is fully illegal in California. So the correct analogy would be to have convicted thief judge sitting over the case of a thief. How can a homo judge make a correct decision over an illegal act if he himself is immersed in the lifestyle? Total liberal insanity!
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.