Prop. 8 backers: judge’s gay relationship voids ruling

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 27-April-2011 | Kathleen Gilbert

[topher]

Prop. 8 backers: judge’s gay relationship voids ruling

by Kathleen Gilbert

SAN FRANCISCO, April 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the judge who struck down California’s traditional marriage amendment last August confirmed a long-standing sexual relationship with another man earlier this month, pro-family backers have called for the ruling to be thrown out as clearly biased.

Protect Marriage, the coalition defending California’s Proposition 8, had at first remained silent when Justice Vaughn Walker on April 6 confirmed strong rumors that he was in a homosexual relationship.

...

[topher]

Bias by a liberal judge... Who would have thought???

These activist judges need to be tossed from office...

[topher]

Also this FreeRepublic thread on this subject:

Judge's relationship at issue in gay marriage case

[xzins]

If the judge had wanted to marry, then even worse. He’d have had a direct personal investment in the decision. No diff than deciding an investment case in favor of a mutual fund in which he had his own money invested

[sigzero]

Not surprised at all.

[Sans-Culotte]

While I agree that the judge ruled in the way he did because he was gay and biased; I do not know that being gay was a reason to recuse himself. If a Christian judge had ruled in favor of the proposition he would have been accused of religious bias.

The problem with his decision is that he did not seem to address the rightness or wrongness of the proposition. He apparently felt that homos should be allowed to marry and that was that.

[Pilgrim's Progress]

I agree, for what would they say if the judge was heterosexual? That he was biased against homos?

You are right, the reason had to be much deeper than that, likely that he wanted to marry his partner and overturned the law for personal gain.

Which gets a “yuck!” from me.

[sigzero]

Even if the Judge never wants to get married, the case was sensitive enough that he should have recused himself to take away all doubt.

[GunningForTheBuddha]

To all of you against this judge's ruling I have one question:


   But what if both chicks are hot?

[Waverunner]

I agree, as a transgendered lesbian trapped in a man’s body, I’m all for two hot chicks making out.

[RightOnTheBorder]

Had a Christian or any other normal person ruled against the sodomites he would have been attacked in any way possible because the left does not argue in good faith.

More to your point, would you feel that a non-drug addict shouldn't rule on a narcotics case or that a teetotaler shouldn't rule on a drunk driving case? Homosexuality is abhorrent behavior which is why the people legislated against it. It is perfectly legitimate to question whether this judge, who engages in homosexual behavior, is able to rule impartially on a case directly related to his abhorrent behavior.