Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prop. 8 supporters move to erase ruling because trial judge is openly gay
San Jose Mercury News ^ | 4/25/11 | Howard Mintz

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; pervert; pervertjudge; pervertpower; prop8; vaughnwalker

1 posted on 04/25/2011 5:27:31 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I thought everyone in California was gay.


2 posted on 04/25/2011 5:34:55 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Judge had “presumable” bi-ass??

I think his longtime hosemonkey would beg to differ.

Emphasis on the “beg.”


3 posted on 04/25/2011 5:38:48 PM PDT by HKMk23 (Farther up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Na, just happy.


4 posted on 04/25/2011 5:45:03 PM PDT by edcoil (Democrats doing to America what Reagan did to russia. Driving it to bankrupcy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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!


5 posted on 04/25/2011 5:50:55 PM PDT by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

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!!


6 posted on 04/25/2011 5:52:35 PM PDT by SoldiersPrayingMom (....A nation divided against itself, cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

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!!


7 posted on 04/25/2011 5:52:44 PM PDT by SoldiersPrayingMom (....A nation divided against itself, cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paratrooper82

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?


8 posted on 04/25/2011 5:56:08 PM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; StayoutdaBushesWay; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


9 posted on 04/25/2011 5:57:29 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
If he was undergoing a bad divorce, he should recuse himself from hearing divorce case that may affect the outcome of his decision, that is a given!

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!

10 posted on 04/25/2011 6:07:54 PM PDT by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25

Strange, you don’t have a rainbow on your page.


11 posted on 04/25/2011 6:09:07 PM PDT by itsahoot (Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

My brother the Force Recon Marine would beg to differ. But beyond that, yeah, they’re pretty gay.


12 posted on 04/25/2011 6:18:35 PM PDT by vpintheak (Democrats: Robbing humans of their dignity 1 law at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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


13 posted on 04/25/2011 6:18:53 PM PDT by joma89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“I thought everyone in California was gay.”

No, only the ones who moved here from your state.


14 posted on 04/25/2011 6:21:04 PM PDT by Forty-Niner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25

Because “openly gay” gays have an agenda. Sorry, but it’s true.


15 posted on 04/25/2011 6:22:00 PM PDT by FrdmLvr (Death to tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr
The "check" on his ruling exists at the appellate level.

His ruling was flawed on the merits. This smacks of spite.

16 posted on 04/25/2011 7:09:50 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25
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?

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.

17 posted on 04/25/2011 7:09:58 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25
why would it matter whether he’s gay.

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.

18 posted on 04/25/2011 7:56:14 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Because, as a homosexual in a relationship with a "partner," he stood to directly gain from the result he rendered in court.

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.

19 posted on 04/25/2011 8:20:48 PM PDT by RDAardvark (impeach the long-legged mack daddy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RDAardvark

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”!!!


20 posted on 04/26/2011 5:17:11 PM PDT by SoldiersPrayingMom (....A nation divided against itself, cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson