Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 04/25/2011 5:27:29 PM PDT by SmithL
Backers of California's same-sex marriage ban today moved to wipe out last year's ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying the federal judge who heard the historic case should have recused himself because he is gay and has been in a long-term same-sex relationship. .
In court papers, the Proposition 8 campaign argues that former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had a presumed bias in the case because he is openly gay. Walker has never concealed the fact he is gay, but never discussed the issue publicly until a meeting with reporters last month in his San Francisco office before he left the bench.
The 67-year-old Walker retired earlier this year and is moving into private law practice. Walker struck down Proposition 8 last summer, concluding that it violates the federal equal protection rights . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
I thought everyone in California was gay.
Judge had “presumable” bi-ass??
I think his longtime hosemonkey would beg to differ.
Emphasis on the “beg.”
Na, just happy.
Asking the Judge not to consider the fact he is in a gay relationship while deciding Prop 8, dealing with gay marriage, is like asking this Judge to perform mental gymnastics! Kind of like the gymnastics he performs in the bedroom with his significant other!
WELL NOW!! I guess you weren’t gettin’ paid to think were you?
I’ve been living in California for almost 45 yrs...neither I, nor anyone in my family is gay...so, get over it!! Your not as ‘Brilliant’ as you thought yourself to be!!
WELL NOW!! I guess you weren’t gettin’ paid to think were you?
I’ve been living in California for almost 45 yrs...neither I, nor anyone in my family is gay...so, get over it!! Your not as ‘Brilliant’ as you thought yourself to be!!
why would it matter whether he’s gay. Lets say he was straight and had a girlfriend or a wife. Would the other side be right in asking him to recuse himself for that reason? Should only asexual judges be allowed to decide a case like this?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Deciding a landmark gay marriage case while you are in a gay relationship and you keep it quite while you are deciding the case and then only disclose this fact to others after you decided against Prop 8, you have acted unethical!
Judges are to avoid even the [appearance] of impropriety and deciding a case where he might have a conflict of interest involved!
It is the very fact that he was deciding a gay marriage civil case while in a gay relationship! If he was gay and deciding if a child should live with a gay couple and you were straight, would you want him to decide your case and expect the Judge not to be influenced by the very fact he is gay? Of course that would affect his decision and no one should expect a just decision if the Judge is going to keep it a secret until he has rendered a decision!
Go figure!
Strange, you don’t have a rainbow on your page.
My brother the Force Recon Marine would beg to differ. But beyond that, yeah, they’re pretty gay.
Go get them folks! Progressives hope that no one opposes them which is why they try to get people to not oppose them by using fear tactics.
JoMa
“I thought everyone in California was gay.”
No, only the ones who moved here from your state.
Because “openly gay” gays have an agenda. Sorry, but it’s true.
His ruling was flawed on the merits. This smacks of spite.
Becomes homosexuality is a perversion.
Better analogies would be: 'If the Judge was a rapist, should he recuse himself from rape cases?'; 'If the Judge was a bank robber, should he recuse himself from bank robbery cases?'; if the Judge was a pedophile, should he recuse himself from child pornography cases?'; etc...
Now we are all sinners, but if the Judge happens to be caught up a particular perversion - sure he should recuse himself from such cases.
Because, as a homosexual in a relationship with a "partner," he stood to directly gain from the result he rendered in court. A sexually normal judge wouldn't have stood to gain a direct benefit.
Exactly. Ideally, the potential benefit doesn't even need to enter the equation. People with mental disorders - which homosexuality is - should not be considered fit for the bench. They need help, not a position of authority.
You are so right!! He should not even have a judgeship and that kind of aurthority! This should have rendered him...”Unable to Serve” and “Excused for Cause” PERIOD!! In other words...”RECUSED”!!!
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.