Posted on 06/13/2011 7:48:02 PM PDT by SmithL
Sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage tried to convince an apparently skeptical federal judge Monday that the jurist who overturned their ballot measure should have been disqualified because he failed to disclose his longtime relationship with a male partner.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last year throwing out the ballot measure should itself be overturned because the judge didn't reveal his relationship, attorney Charles Cooper said.
Walker's 10-year relationship, which he publicly confirmed only after leaving the bench, was "a fact critically relevant to his interest in the case," Cooper declared during a nearly three-hour hearing in San Francisco.
Before presiding over the Proposition 8 trial in January 2010, Walker should have revealed his relationship and declared whether he intended to marry his partner, said Cooper, who represents backers of the November 2008 initiative outlawing such marriages.
He said Walker's silence deprived Prop. 8's advocates of information they could have used to ask him to step down from the case. That should invalidate all his subsequent decisions in a lawsuit challenging Prop. 8, including his August 2010 ruling declaring the measure unconstitutional, Cooper argued.
But Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said Cooper offered no evidence that Walker had any marriage plans at the time of the trial that would have given him a stake in the case he was deciding.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Perhaps Walker’s relationship is with Ware.
Keep in mind the prop 22 and prop 8 folks are only reacting to the laws passed against them by guys to indoctrinate their children.
No one cares what they do in their bedroom but we don’t what them teaching our children how to put on condoms and any sex is ok.
Society has a right to define itself and what it accepts as normal, always adjusting the ring.
There may be ways to overturn or vacate the Prop 8 ruling, this is not one of them.
Defending Prop 8 is a lost cause. In fact, California is a lost cause.
The only vote in California that counts these days for people with traditional values is voting with ones feet to get the heck out of the State.
I aint leaving until I am illegal. And then I will stay anyway. Heheh. My post-apocalyptic career aspiration is to be Emperor Norton III, Warlord of NorCal After People Figure That A Free Republic Was A Better Choice Than Nanny State Despotism Leading To Anarchy And Feudalism, Oh Well Too Late, You Sorry Bunch Of Starry-Eyed Drooling Dopers.
Don’t most gay-normers believe in “gay” marriage?
Prop 8 WON as far as the State of California is concerned; this is being tried OUTSIDE of California. Remember, the Supreme Ct of California overwhelmingly found that Prop 8 is valid. So the sodomite anarchists had to go elsewhere for a sympathetic ear.
And the fact that this is being tried outside of California is Prop 8's biggest strength right now.
Warning!
Use of the terms “gay” and “tossing” in the same sentence could be an FR zottable offense!
The ruling itself is flawed. There was no reason to make it personal.
Newsflash: this is in the federal courts, not the state courts. If Prop 8, a state constitutional amendment, is held as unconstitutional on appeal (it's at the 9th circus now, then off to SCOTUS) it'll effect EVERY state with marriage defined as being only between one man and one woman.
I notice some at FR see “California” mentioned and become unhinged. Facts don’t matter: it’s CA, it must be bashed.
“Remember, the Supreme Ct of California overwhelmingly found that Prop 8 is valid. “
The California SC ruled that Prop 8 was indeed an amendment, not a revision, and that the ballot initiative was proper. They made no ruling on whether it was constitutional. That’s what the current case is about.
No, the issue of a properly enacted amendment was addressed before the election. The California Supreme Court did address it’s constitutionality (with respect to California’s Constitution) after it became part of the Constitution, and it passed muster with them. This case is outside of California altogether.
I see Judge Ware was educated a Lutherite. Last I heard even
Luther did not disagree with Scripture -on Marriage. I see as well that Judge Ware was a butterbar MP.Too bad he did not
learn from the UCMJ,and benefit from the same training I had.
Judge Ware ignores the “orientation” and the history of the
Gay rights movement (since we allowed the Courts to kick God,the Bible and Prayer from school. James Wilson teaching the Consequences of Marriage under American Law reflected the Biblical model. As did Joseph Story in his Commentaries-as did the US Supreme Court in the spate of legal opinion beginning with Reynolds v. the US and ending with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints case decided in 1890. Murphy v. Ramsey and others 1885 gave the best definition of Marriage. But Orientation remains the motivation behind Judge Walkers unlawful decision. And his “orientation” prevented Judge Walker from #1 disclosing his disqualifying orientation and #2 from disclosing his anti-Christian bias.
His “orientation” not any announced plan to benefit by State recognition of the fraud of same sex marriage.was clear factor disqualifying this Judge and ought vacate his unlawful opinion.And strip him of any recognition as hero of his cause.
From the court’s ruling in Strauss v. Horton:
“In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the
separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights” theory proffered by the Attorney General. “
No mention of the constutionality of the amendment, other than the specific issues addressed in the decision.
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.