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

[ebaycj]

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

So gays can legally get married, as long as the ceremony is performed in their bedrooms?

 

[ebaycj]

When is this decision being made?

Why? Gonna go hide in your fallout shelter from all the homos you will attract?

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

On top of that, he's not even married?? How is he qualified to make such an important decission??

 

[EagleKeeper]

On top of that, he's not even married?? How is he qualified to make such an important decission??

He has not been contaminated:hmm:

 

[sandorski]

It's Ironic, nothing much more than that.

 

[mect]

The obvious solution is to find an asexual judge.

Quick, get a eunuch!

 

[LunarRay]

OMG, now being Gay obviates the ability to rationalize.
Some bigots are sooooo cemented into their cocoon of the inane that to claw their way out to the world they inhabit would require the very quality they accuse the Gays of lacking.

 

[Moonbeam]

On top of that, he's not even married?? How is he qualified to make such an important decission??

Nobody who's been married would ever legalize it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Nobody who's been married would ever legalize it.

LOL, I assume you're familar with "hall sex"?

 

[Slew Foot]

I think its funny that they're having a gay marriage trial in San Francisco with a gay judge. Honestly, does anyone not know what the ruling is going to be?

 

[Acanthus]

Yeah, the definition of marriage is protected by the sanctity of the rich whites only church?

 

[nobodyknows]

I think its funny that they're having a gay marriage trial in San Francisco with a gay judge. Honestly, does anyone not know what the ruling is going to be?

Yeah, appealed.

 

[LunarRay]

I think its funny that they're having a gay marriage trial in San Francisco with a gay judge. Honestly, does anyone not know what the ruling is going to be?

Yeah!!! I think all Judges to the Federal Bench ought to be Catholic Priests... Jesuits, in fact. And the State Benches ought to be populated by any other Christian Minister. The Non Christian Clergy can switch to another applicable religion if they wish to occupy a Judgeship position... and the Atheist... heck they confine themselves to Global Warming issues and Evolution. Everyone else is just apathetic so who cares about them anyhow.

 

[jhu]

It's Ironic, nothing much more than that.

No, it's just a coincidence despite what Alanis Morissette would have you believe. It'd be ironic if the lawyers arguing against gay marriage were gay.

 

[Lemon law]

On top of that, he's not even married?? How is he qualified to make such an important decission??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in terms of is the Pope catholic? And do bears shit in the woods?

How is a pope that is presumably celibate qualified to decide what forms of birth control we can and can not use? And when it goes to push v shove on religion, the Catholics are the biggest 800 pound gorilla or bear in the world.

But we still miss the point, the judge in question becomes the drip under pressure to decide if a law passed by the majority of the State's electorate is constitutional or not. Nor will the judge be the last word, and even if Scotus ultimately decides to uphold that law, its still no guarantee that Scotus will not revisit the case later and decide differently.

Meanwhile I advocate my constitutional right to not be a bigot and a prick while various self appointed people of God choose to be bigots and total pricks.

When the USA was first formed, the majority upheld human slavery, it took 130 years to get women the vote, the majority is not always right, but in denying human rights to others, we only deny those same rights exist for everyone.

 

[LunarRay]

No, it's just a coincidence despite what Alanis Morissette would have you believe. It'd be ironic if the lawyers arguing against gay marriage were gay.

An advocate, an attorney, ought to be able to argue any side of an issue at the bench. Sort of like a Lawyer defending an accused in a case the lawyer finds personally repugnant. The law is the law.. it be blind to the individual...

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that 'Marriage' is an individual 'Right'. It seems this is a protected 'Right' under the implicit determination of the Constitution. The key is the 'Individual' bit... In order, it further seems to me, to provide individual guarantees AND limit them in some manner requires an explicitly stated Amendment to the Constitution doing so. Failing that condition I fail to see how a State can bar an individual's right to enjoy a 'Right' not otherwise in deference to a States Compelling Interest... So to speak..

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think its funny that they're having a gay marriage trial in San Francisco with a gay judge. Honestly, does anyone not know what the ruling is going to be?

honestly are you such a dimwit???

 

[woolfe9999]

For the record, Judge Walker, though he is rumored around here to be gay, has a largely conservative record on the bench.

- wolf

 

[sportage]

Hetro's have ruled on gay issues, state bans, so on and so on.
Where was the conflict?
White judges have ruled on black issues.
Considered ok to everyone then.
I dont think they want to "go there" in creating an issue over this.

Naturally some will seek to make a big deal of this, but
I would assume there ARE judges that can follow the law 100%
in decission making, unlike a few white judges (and one black) on the current
US Supreme Court.

 

[jhu]

An advocate, an attorney, ought to be able to argue any side of an issue at the bench. Sort of like a Lawyer defending an accused in a case the lawyer finds personally repugnant. The law is the law.. it be blind to the individual...

While a good lawyer should be able to argue both sides, the irony occurs if a gay lawyer willingly argues against gay marriage.

 

[Skitzer]

To me this is a non-issue, Judge Walker has sworn to uphold the law. Who cares what his sexual orientation is ...... it doesn't matter.
I believe he is a fair judge in all respects.

 

[Robor]

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.

Says who? You?

 

[nobodyknows]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in terms of is the Pope catholic? And do bears shit in the woods?

How is a pope that is presumably celibate qualified to decide what forms of birth control we can and can not use? And when it goes to push v shove on religion, the Catholics are the biggest 800 pound gorilla or bear in the world.

But we still miss the point, the judge in question becomes the drip under pressure to decide if a law passed by the majority of the State's electorate is constitutional or not. Nor will the judge be the last word, and even if Scotus ultimately decides to uphold that law, its still no guarantee that Scotus will not revisit the case later and decide differently.

Meanwhile I advocate my constitutional right to not be a bigot and a prick while various self appointed people of God choose to be bigots and total pricks.

When the USA was first formed, the majority upheld human slavery, it took 130 years to get women the vote, the majority is not always right, but in denying human rights to others, we only deny those same rights exist for everyone.

I think your sarcasm meter needs an good cleaning.