Apparently the judge in the federal gay marriage trial is himself gay.

[ProgressiveAthe]

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.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0f0Cf1RZC
​

You know the conservatives are going to be all over this. Watch as they accuse him of bias and demand he recuse himself. ​

 

[palehorse]

honestly, that fact doesn't really help matters. the opposition will obviously - and rightfully -- argue bias if/when he hands down the decision.

It would have been much better for all involved if the judge was not gay.

I personally want to see the gays earn the right to be married (read: miserable) just like everyone else, but this won't actually help their case at all.

 

[Bitek]

That's stupid. If he was hetero, and ruled to keep the ban, can we not equally accuse him of bias?

What would help conservatives most is actually making a case where heteros are actually harmed by gay people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes.
But they can't, they have no reasonable argument. Its what defenders of GM have been asking the right for years and they've chosen to ignore the question rather than answer. Now they have to, and if prop 8 fails it will be bc their argument fails.

 

[shira]

[/COLOR]

You know the conservatives are going to be all over this. Watch as they accuse him of bias and demand he recuse himself. [/LEFT]

Well, if they make demands like that, then I assume they would also demand that Antonin Scalia recuse himself if the Supreme Court ever hears an abortion-rights case. After all, Scalia is a devout Catholic, and he and his wife have NINE children. Which pretty much defines what his private attitudes about abortion (or even birth control) are.

Somehow, though, those principled right-wingers who will DEMAND that this Prop-8 case be decided by a strict heterosexual will not comprehend how Scalia could possibly be unacceptable as a jurist on an abortion case.

 

[Patranus]

What would help conservatives most is actually making a case where heteros are actually harmed by gay people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes.

I am 100% positive that proposition 8 had NOTHING TO DO with what people do/do not do in their own homes.

 

[Bitek]

I am 100% positive that proposition 8 had NOTHING TO DO with what people do/do not do in their own homes.

Are you forced to marry a gay person? No? Well why the fuck do you care?
Either:

A.) Nosy busybody who wants to intrude on other people's lives
B.) Closeted homo w/ unresolved feelings of inadequacy and insecurity

My money is a mix of a and b for the majority of prop pro-8 boosters. Secure straight people who respect personal liberty and freedom would not so viciously dictate the lives of others.

 

[Patranus]

Are you forced to marry a gay person? No? Well why the fuck do you care?
Either:

A.) Nosy busybody who wants to intrude on other people's lives
B.) Closeted homo w/ unresolved feelings of inadequacy and insecurity

My money is a mix of a and b for the majority of prop pro-8 boosters. Secure straight people who respect personal liberty and freedom would not so viciously dictate the lives of others.

Again, nothing in Proposition 8 attempts to regulate any behavior inside ones bedroom.

 

[shira]

Are you forced to marry a gay person? No? Well why the fuck do you care?
Either:

A.) Nosy busybody who wants to intrude on other people's lives
B.) Closeted homo w/ unresolved feelings of inadequacy and insecurity

My money is a mix of a and b for the majority of prop pro-8 boosters. Secure straight people who respect personal liberty and freedom would not so viciously dictate the lives of others.

There's a third explanation for those with anti-same-sex marriage attitudes: crass stupidity combined with a rigid aversion to self-examination.

 

[Double Trouble]

So we already know how that ruling is going to come down. Regardless, it's going to the SCOTUS anyway, and they'll hopefully make the correct ruling to overturn this judge's ruling.

It's like asking a man who lost his kids to a drunk driver to rule on a drunk driving case. There's just no way he could possibly keep his personal bias out of it and apply the law.

 

[woolfe9999]

There has been a rumor about Judge Walker's sexual orientation in the SF Bay Area legal community for some time. I am surprised that there is enough verifiable information for a news article as he has been very closeted for his entire career (I am assuming the article is accurate and based on verifiable information rather than rumor for the sake of argument.) Perhaps he is being outed by a gay organization. Dunno, but Walker himself is certainly not the source of this information.

- wolf

 

[Brainonska511]

So we already know how that ruling is going to come down. Regardless, it's going to the SCOTUS anyway, and they'll hopefully make the correct ruling to overturn this judge's ruling.

It's like asking a man who lost his kids to a drunk driver to rule on a drunk driving case. There's just no way he could possibly keep his personal bias out of it and apply the law.

There is arguably bias no matter what orientation the judge is.

 

[woolfe9999]

So we already know how that ruling is going to come down. Regardless, it's going to the SCOTUS anyway, and they'll hopefully make the correct ruling to overturn this judge's ruling.

It's like asking a man who lost his kids to a drunk driver to rule on a drunk driving case. There's just no way he could possibly keep his personal bias out of it and apply the law.

If you oppose gay marriage, you shouldn't be too eager to have the matter go to the SCOTUS, as there appears to be a pro-gay rights majority in that body at the moment. Kennedy is usually the swing voter, and he has 100% pro gay rights record on the court. Would be better for gay marriage opponents to have prop 8 overturned and not court the "disaster" of having all laws prohibiting gay marriage thrown out nationally.

- wolf

 

[Kirby]

The obvious solution is to find an asexual judge.

 

[cubby1223]

You know the conservatives are going to be all over this. Watch as they accuse him of bias and demand he recuse himself.

How about this - go out and find these conservatives who are "all over this" - instead of quoting a liberal who merely thinks some might be.

 

[JEDIYoda]

honestly, that fact doesn't really help matters. the opposition will obviously - and rightfully -- argue bias if/when he hands down the decision.

It would have been much better for all involved if the judge was not gay.

I personally want to see the gays earn the right to be married (read: miserable) just like everyone else, but this won't actually help their case at all.

Your damned if you do and damned if you don`t....

So lets pretend the Judge wasn`t gay and the decision he hands down is against the gays....would the gay`s argue bias????
Probably not...why? because it`s called respect....

 

[JEDIYoda]

There is arguably bias no matter what orientation the judge is.

so you have something else smart@#$ to say....duh....

 

[fallout man]

a jurist of his peers...

WHY I NEVER!!!

 

[Atreus21]

When is this decision being made?

 

[EXman]

There's a third explanation for those with anti-same-sex marriage attitudes: crass stupidity combined with a rigid aversion to self-examination.

By Definition there is one word for you too. Bigot. feel free to look it up.

LoL know it all Lib progressive approach is just so bigoted and they don't even know it.

Funny some gays don't want gay-marriage but just the rights to go with it. But that wouldn't matter to you.

Feel free to slam me we all know it is coming.

 

[JEDIYoda]

By Definition there is one word for you too. Bigot. feel free to look it up.

LoL know it all Lib progressive approach is just so bigoted and they don't even know it.

Funny some gays don't want gay-marriage but just the rights to go with it. But that wouldn't matter to you.

Feel free to slam me we all know it is coming.

So where do you fit in....

To not be labeled a Bigot by definition you have to need to be tolerant of those who differ...not intolerant...

Yet this subject is NOT that easy to decide...

We are talkin g about gays/lebians havuing the same exect rights as hetrosexual people which they do not have......as long as people say well they can get married they just cannot call it marriage....thats just plain stoopid...

 

[EXman]

So where do you fit in....

To not be labeled a Bigot by definition you have to need to be tolerant of those who differ...not intolerant...

Yet this subject is NOT that easy to decide...

We are talkin g about gays/lebians havuing the same exect rights as hetrosexual people which they do not have......as long as people say well they can get married they just cannot call it marriage....thats just plain stoopid...

I have been branded.

They do have the right to get married.

They just want to change the definition of marriage. And yes there is a substancial amount that want just that. Not all gays are in your face leftist anarchists. Many just just want to live and let live have a good life. Me I could care less give them more rights but do not change a definition of a religious covenent they have no right to do.

IMO that is more tolerant than some ranting loon calling everyone that does not agree with him stoopid. In fact that is stoopid.

 

[shira]

By Definition there is one word for you too. Bigot. feel free to look it up.

LoL know it all Lib progressive approach is just so bigoted and they don't even know it.

Funny some gays don't want gay-marriage but just the rights to go with it. But that wouldn't matter to you.

Feel free to slam me we all know it is coming.

Oh, but I already know the definition of bigot. And you can't get here (to where I am) from there (that third possibility I posted).

You see, a bigot is by definition INTOLERANT of those who are "different" in ways that matter to the bigot. But I'm not in the least intolerant. I believe that crassly stupid, self-unaware people should - MUST - be allowed to marry, to vote, to procreate, to live in my neighborhood, to speak their drivel and be heard, to pursue whatever gives them happiness, even to post on ATPN.

If I were a bigot, I would be intolerant of crassly stupid, self-unaware people. But not only am I tolerant, I'm ACCEPTING of them. They are an unpleasant but necessary part of existence, a part of the whole. Just like feces and vomit and maggots are.

In fact, a part of me (the gentle, soft-hearted part) pities them. Another part of me (the egotistical, A-hole part) figuratively rolls it's eyes and wonders whether it's brain damage, bad genes, bad education, or something in the West Virginia air.

 

[jhu]

They just want to change the definition of marriage. And yes there is a substancial amount that want just that. Not all gays are in your face leftist anarchists. Many just just want to live and let live have a good life. Me I could care less give them more rights but do not change a definition of a religious covenent they have no right to do.

The institution of marriage pre-dates religion. In fact, throughout history, marriage didn't necessarily mean one man and one woman.

 

[Moonbeam]

Too bad he's gay. Way way too many gays are bigoted against gay marriage. They are threatened by the notion of monogamy and like to play a big field.

 

[dennilfloss]

[/COLOR]

You know the conservatives are going to be all over this. Watch as they accuse him of bias and demand he recuse himself. [/LEFT]

Well, a straight judge could be and biased too.