Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he is gay.

[DCal430]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/26/BAIK1J7694.DTL

The bigotry of these people knows no bounds. Just because they confirm he is gay after the trial ended they want to higher court to throw out his decision. This is clearly based on nothing more than hate and intolerance for the judge's sexual orientation.

 

[Brainonska511]

<---- P&N

 

[mugs]

 

[DCal430]

Why is this P&N material?

 

[schneiderguy]

Why is this P&N material?

P&N = Politics and News

This is News. Therefore it belongs in P&N D:

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol

 

[Farang]

I find this hilarious. After all that work to block gay marriage, they end up with a gay judge deciding the case. What are the chances?

 

[Kirby]

lol, DKV916

 

[Bignate603]

Actually, I think they may have a point. He may have made the right decision but as a judge he needs to be impartial when he makes that decision. Impartiality of the legal system is a huge deal. The ruling needs to be made by someone doing it because its the right ruling to make, and not because it affects them personally.

I'm mildly surprised that he didn't abstain from taking the case. He must have known if this came out it could cause the case to be sent back to the courts, drawing out the process.

 

[BoomerD]

I find this hilarious. After all that work to block gay marriage, they end up with a gay judge deciding the case. What are the chances?

And because of that, I agree that his decision should be thrown out...let the new judge review the case.
That's what they're asking.

Of course, since it's a bunch of crazy fundies who are pushing this, if a 100% straight judge reaffirms the ruling, they'll be protesting that as well.

 

[Bignate603]

And because of that, I agree that his decision should be thrown out...let the new judge review the case.
That's what they're asking.

Of course, since it's a bunch of crazy fundies who are pushing this, if a 100% straight judge reaffirms the ruling, they'll be protesting that as well.

Yes, but that would be a much harder case for them to argue, which is why the judge should have disqualified himself from the case in the first place. If it had been ruled on by somebody with less questionable impartiality it would be one less opportunity to reopen it.

 

[Howard]

I can't remember...

 

[actuarial]

And because of that, I agree that his decision should be thrown out...let the new judge review the case.
That's what they're asking.

Of course, since it's a bunch of crazy fundies who are pushing this, if a 100% straight judge reaffirms the ruling, they'll be protesting that as well.

Does that mean any Christian should also recuse themselves since they benefit if the motion stands?

Would all non-whites recuse themselves on an affirmative action case? How about males/females on a gender discrimination case (depending on which gender is being discriminated against)?

 

[MotF Bane]

Actually, I think they may have a point. He may have made the right decision but as a judge he needs to be impartial when he makes that decision. Impartiality of the legal system is a huge deal. The ruling needs to be made by someone doing it because its the right ruling to make, and not because it affects them personally.

I'm mildly surprised that he didn't abstain from taking the case. He must have known if this came out it could cause the case to be sent back to the courts, drawing out the process.

This. He has a potential conflict of interest in that he can benefit directly from his ruling.

 

[drinkmorejava]

Does that mean any Christian should also recuse themselves since they benefit if the motion stands?

Would all non-whites recuse themselves on an affirmative action case? How about males/females on a gender discrimination case (depending on which gender is being discriminated against)?

You're confusing bias with conflict of interest. One would hope that judges have no biases, but we know this is never the case. However, there is an obvious difference between growing up in a pro-gun or anti-gun household and owning stock in a gun manufacturing or sitting on the board of an anti-gun organization. The later cases involve personal or financial gain and are a conflict of interest.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And because of that, I agree that his decision should be thrown out...let the new judge review the case.
That's what they're asking.

Of course, since it's a bunch of crazy fundies who are pushing this, if a 100&#37; straight judge reaffirms the ruling, they'll be protesting that as well.

lets say the new judge is hetrosexual...whats to stop the gays from claiming the judge was biased because he was hetrosexual...hmm

 

[Bateluer]

lets say the new judge is hetrosexual...whats to stop the gays from claiming the judge was biased because he was hetrosexual...hmm

This. The judge's ruling should stand, or take it before the US Supreme Court. Seems like a simple matter to me, its none of the government's damn business.

 

[Perknose]

This. He has a potential conflict of interest in that he can benefit directly from his ruling.

From the OP's article:

Because Walker has never disavowed the possibility that he will marry his partner, he had a "clear and direct stake in the outcome" of his own ruling, Cooper said.

Because he's never disavowed the possibility? Seems like a bit of a reach.

Hey Bane, because you've never disavowed the possibility of being wrong about this, does that prove you are indeed wrong? :biggrin:

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

But a heterosexual judge might be friends with the gay one! It's clear that the only one that could be impartial in this matter would be a militant homophobic Christian extremist who has spoken out in favor of the elimination of all gays!

That said, those homophobes should get a one way trip to the electric chair.

 

[Joseph F]

Not agreeing with someone else's lifestyle should = death sentence? Fuck you.

 

[DangerAardvark]

lets say the new judge is hetrosexual...whats to stop the gays from claiming the judge was biased because he was hetrosexual...hmm

You know, in your rare moments of lucidity, you sometimes make a lot of sense.

 

[IGBT]

Not agreeing with someones lifestyle is not a phobia. You hoople heads need to realize that disagreement has nothing to do with fear.

 

[Fayd]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/26/BAIK1J7694.DTL

The bigotry of these people knows no bounds. Just because they confirm he is gay after the trial ended they want to higher court to throw out his decision. This is clearly based on nothing more than hate and intolerance for the judge's sexual orientation.

wow.. i'm pretty sure i voted no on that prop, but if you can't see that as a clear conflict of interest, there's little hope for you. the judge should have recused himself.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

wow.. i'm pretty sure i voted no on that prop, but if you can't see that as a clear conflict of interest, there's little hope for you. the judge should have recused himself.

Read the thread. You could use the same argument if the judge was straight....

 

[DangerAardvark]

Not agreeing with someones lifestyle is not a phobia. You hoople heads need to realize that disagreement has nothing to do with fear.

Looks like Mr. Literal decided to poke his head in and tell us "I ain't afraid of no i love you"!

phobia
Noun: An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something

You know, sort of like photophobia doesn't mean you're literally afraid of photons.