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

[Craig234]

What is a gay agenda exactly? And even if so, should we then question a married judges decisions in divorce cases? Or a childless judge in a custody case? Come on. Now, if you show the judge was some kind of wacko activist, there might be a point. But implying that because he's gay he might have a gay agenda is no more of a stretch than saying a white judge has a white agenda.

Let me define gay agenda.

What it actually is: an 'agenda' to end bigoted discrimination and have equal rights.

What it means to the bigots who use the phrase:

The word "agenda" means to them a corrupt, selfish plan to want something they don't deserve.

By using the phrase, it lets them attack gays and think they made an argument that discredited gays' position, by 'proving' it's 'corrupt'.

It implies gays want something illegitimate, 'special treatment', unfair advantage - and it has a vague ominous overtone, like 'communist agenda'.

They must want something evil and disastrous for the country.

The reason is, they can't argue against the actual position of gays, and defend their bigotry - so the phrase 'gay agenda' lets them do so irrationally.

Basically every bigot movement I can think of comes up with such 'code words' that give the people something to use for their hate.

'Law and order' became a code phrase for opposing equal black rights, by tapping into the fears of the bigots of black uprisings and coming after them.

 

[sactoking]

The only facade is that you are reasonable. You can't tell the difference between reasonable and your ass. You see through bigots eyes.

Why is the fact that a judge doesn't disclose his marital status at a divorce trial imply that he could have had undisclosed motives that would disqualify him from such a trial. He could be biased in favor of men if he is a unhappily married man, or anti-diverse because he's Catholic and didn't mention it. What has happened to you is that the bigot that lives in your ass sees the fact that a man is gay and has a partner to be a sign that he can't impartially judge the matter of gay marriage when any other judge would bring some similar bias to the table. A straight judge is clearly unfit to judge gay marriage by the absurd standard you want to use. No, you are a bigot and see with bigot blindness.

By the way, I don't hate you because you are a bigot. You can't help but be. It's you who hates yourself because you are one and being told so just brings that hate to the surface. You hate bigots, not me, and that is why you don't want to cure yourself. You would first have to see how much you see yourself as an asshole. I see you as a person with a treatable mental condition who is in need of somebody like myself who can show you the truth of your condition.

You, sir, are now officially the single most clueless person I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with.

 

[ky54]

If one wants to prosecute Bush for war crimes then Obama should be right beside him for the exact same reasons.

 

[waggy]

If one wants to prosecute Bush for war crimes then Obama should be right beside him for the exact same reasons.

what does that have to do with a Gay judge?

 

[jonks]

Sandra Day O'Conner generally recused herself from SC cases involving Telecom companies because she owned telecom stock and could be seen as "profiting" based on her rulings. Elena Kagan is somewhat expected to recuse herself from any potential PPACA action because she was Solicitor General. The antitrust lawsuit the NFLPA filed against the NFL bounced around Federal judges for a couple days b/c the judges constantly recused themselves because they had in their employ people that had previously litigated against or on behalf of the NFL. Walker could reasonably be perceived as "profiting" from his ruling by overturning Prop 8 and allowing himself to marry. Social aspects aside, there are legitimate economic advantages to being married.

By the Prop 8 proponents own arguments, a heterosexual judge would "profit" by denying gays the right to marry b/c it would preserve his own marriage, since the proponents claim that allowing gay marriage has a deleterious effect on straight marriage. You cannot preface a partiality challenge on a criteria into which every possible judge falls.

As an aside, the "legitimate economic advantages" of marriage, if any, are not consequential enough to consider as influencial on a judge. Regardless, I believe CA has a domestic partnership law which is nearly indistinguishable from marriage in the benefits accorded. This case concerns state law and as such has no effect on federal tax filings benefits for married couples, if any exist. Additionally, if Walker could profit in some important and tangible way from marriage, nothing is stopping him from marrying a woman.

 

[Atreus21]

It's quite true that merely not agreeing with someone's lifestyle is indeed not a phobia. :thumbsup:

But fearing that another American's choice of a marriage partner will somehow taint the "sanctity" of yours pretty much defines an irrational phobia. Aiiiiieeee, Teh Gay, Teh Gay! D:

Only a true hoople head couldn't see this.

For all the rest of us, only a intellectually dishonest bigot trying to disguise their ugly bigotry would even try to not admit that attempting to use the power of the Federal government to prohibit other Americans from marrying the person of their choice*, especially if they're otherwise militantly for "small government" and "only what the constitution specifically empowers the government to do," is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Hoople head. Intellectually dishonest bigot. Step up and take your pick.

*Incestuous and polygamous couples excepted. That's not bigoted.

Fixed.

 

[ky54]

what does that have to do with a Gay judge?

LOL, sorry, I hit the wrong button.

 

[sactoking]

By the Prop 8 proponents own arguments, a heterosexual judge would "profit" by denying gays the right to marry b/c it would preserve his own marriage, since the proponents claim that allowing gay marriage has a deleterious effect on straight marriage. You cannot preface a partiality challenge on a criteria into which every possible judge falls.

Academically, is prevention of a loss the same as profit? I think a valid case could be made either way. From a social perspective it seems reprehensible that a group would "profit" from denial of another group.

Your last sentence in the quote above, I think, is where our perceptions have differed. You view the partiality challenge as two sides of the same coin. I view the partiality challenge as mutually exclusive; a single judge cannot be subject to questionable impartiality for being both homosexual and heterosexual. I do see your point: if a single question paired with its opposite can serve to impugn the impartiality of the population, is it valid?

As an aside, the "legitimate economic advantages" of marriage, if any, are not consequential enough to consider as influencial on a judge. Regardless, I believe CA has a domestic partnership law which is nearly indistinguishable from marriage in the benefits accorded. This case concerns state law and as such has no effect on federal tax filings benefits for married couples, if any exist. Additionally, if Walker could profit in some important and tangible way from marriage, nothing is stopping him from marrying a woman.

Given the state of DOMA, does the Fed recognize marriage as defined by the State? For example, if married in Connecticut (regardless of gender) does the Fed automatically recognize the marriage? CA does have a domestic partnership law that proffers similar benefits to marriage (I believe the only true difference is name). For whatever reason I was under the impression that "civil unions" also had the drawback of not influencing some rights at the Federal level.

Also, just to jab you, be careful with that last sentence. You're suggesting that he impugn his morality for economic gain. I can think of a few friends (male) who think it a great insult to suggest that they marry a woman.

edited for quoting error

 

[zsdersw]

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

I never say "f*ck you" to someone I'm not prepared to actually do that to... and it would be smart of you to do the same. Also, it's not about f*cking them cuz they'd enjoy it, but because I'd enjoy making them my b**ch.

 

[jonks]

Given the state of DOMA, does the Fed recognize marriage as defined by the State? For example, if married in Connecticut (regardless of gender) does the Fed automatically recognize the marriage?

The federal govt does not recognize same sex marriage even in states where it is legal. A true conundrum for the small government "state's rights" social conservative. A SS couple cannot file jointly, nor can a person get a green card or avoid deportation through a legal SS marriage. At least until DOMA sec. 3 is tossed.

Also, just to jab you, be careful with that last sentence. You're suggesting that he impugn his morality for economic gain. I can think of a few friends (male) who think it a great insult to suggest that they marry a woman.

Tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

 

[sactoking]

The federal govt does not recognize same sex marriage even in states where it is legal. A true conundrum for the small government "state's rights" social conservative. A SS couple cannot file jointly, nor can a person get a green card or avoid deportation through a legal SS marriage. At least until DOMA sec. 3 is tossed.



Tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

The nebulous status of DOMA as it stands always confuses me. Especially since I thought I just saw that the law firm defending it had petitioned to remove itself, I wasn't sure where that left the whole situation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If one wants to prosecute Bush for war crimes then Obama should be right beside him for the exact same reasons.

are you a freaking idiot.....why do people like you crawl out from under the woodwork......

Obama inherited this mess!! He did not cause it and the republicans have been against him the whole way!!
You sir are an idiot! or as my friend Moonbeam would say -- I don't hate you because you are a bigot. You can't help but be. It's you who hates yourself because you are one and being told so just brings that hate to the surface. You hate bigots, not me, and that is why you don't want to cure yourself. You would first have to see how much you see yourself as an asshole. I see you as a person with a treatable mental condition who is in need of somebody like myself who can show you the truth of your condition.

 

[jonks]

The nebulous status of DOMA as it stands always confuses me. Especially since I thought I just saw that the law firm defending it had petitioned to remove itself, I wasn't sure where that left the whole situation.

brief summup:

- lawsuits are working their way up the fed judiciary over Doma sec 3 which basically says the fed govt doesn't recognize ss marriage even if a state does.

- Obama/DOJ said they'll no longer defend in court, BUT WILL ENFORCE UNTIL OVERTURNED, Doma sec 3

- House GOP voted to independently defend the law and contracted King & Spaulding law firm to do so

- For reasons not entirely clear, the firm decided to drop the case, but the retaining partner resigned to continue the representation

 

[Moonbeam]

You, sir, are now officially the single most clueless person I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with.

Well in that case I take everything I said about you back. You are just a logical thinker and student of the law with an unbiased interested in judicial integrity. The fact that the issue looms large in your mind has nothing to do with bigotry. You are just an honest logician interested in the truth.

 

[Craig234]

brief summup:

- lawsuits are working their way up the fed judiciary over Doma sec 3 which basically says the fed govt doesn't recognize ss marriage even if a state does.

- Obama/DOJ said they'll no longer defend in court, BUT WILL ENFORCE UNTIL OVERTURNED, Doma sec 3

- House GOP voted to independently defend the law and contracted King & Spaulding law firm to do so

- For reasons not entirely clear, the firm decided to drop the case, but the retaining partner resigned to continue the representation

The Republicans once again show they are the party of bigots, willing to discriminate to get votes to get power to pursue their agenda of wealth transfer to the top.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

"materially misleading thread title"??? or is it just misleading... or is it just allowed trolling?

 

[Craig234]

"materially misleading thread title"??? or is it just misleading... or is it just allowed trolling?

For a rare occasion, you're right, that the thread title is not accurate, it should say "Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he had same-sex partner".

The pro-discrimination lawyers, unlike many right-wing posters here, said it is NOT a problem that the judge was gay and presided over the trial.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

For a rare occasion, you're right, that the thread title is not accurate, it should say "Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he had same-sex partner".

The pro-discrimination lawyers, unlike many right-wing posters here, said it is NOT a problem that the judge was gay and presided over the trial.

The only issue is if he has a personal stake in the matter. I don't know that he did or does. However, don't flatter yourself - my comment in this thread was not because I was interested in the topic or the discussion there of.

 

[Joseph F]

I never say "f*ck you" to someone I'm not prepared to actually do that to... and it would be smart of you to do the same. Also, it's not about f*cking them cuz they'd enjoy it, but because I'd enjoy making them my b**ch.

Is there a point in your post or are you just babbling on?

 

[sportage]

This is how it works...
If the judge is gay, the fundies complain.
If the judge is straight, the fundies campaign to recall.
i.e. iOwa.
It is obvious what is going on here. ANY pro-gay ruling they will never accept. Period!

 

[classy]

This why I believe this ruling will be overturned. The fact is we have had now for decades established legal standards for discrimination. The people of that state in accordance with the law, followed the law to the T, and passed a legal measure. Regardless of how anyone feels, the only ruling that should have been rendered was whether or not the measure was properly obtained according to the law. This way the sexual appetities or desires of the judge would have never entered the discussion. But his ruling was based on his view of what the law should be, not what the law is.

There are many states who have similar changes to their state constitutions, so it is not without merit. I don't like every law, nor do I agree with every law. But until the law is changed, it is the law. I won't rally against gay rights, but I certainly won't rally in support of them either.

 

[zsdersw]

Is there a point in your post or are you just babbling on?

No more of a point than your original post in this thread.

 

[Craig234]

This why I believe this ruling will be overturned. The fact is we have had now for decades established legal standards for discrimination. The people of that state in accordance with the law, followed the law to the T, and passed a legal measure. Regardless of how anyone feels, the only ruling that should have been rendered was whether or not the measure was properly obtained according to the law. This way the sexual appetities or desires of the judge would have never entered the discussion. But his ruling was based on his view of what the law should be, not what the law is.

There are many states who have similar changes to their state constitutions, so it is not without merit. I don't like every law, nor do I agree with every law. But until the law is changed, it is the law. I won't rally against gay rights, but I certainly won't rally in support of them either.

You have shown yourself in previous threads to be a classLESS bigot against gays.

So, I was sorry to see you posted again here.

But let's answer your points, which are wrong but avoid - even if they are a result of your rationalizing - bigotry.

The fact we have 'had decades of law' on something is *irrelevant* if it's determined the constitution does not allow it. The constitution being cautious about such new interpretations does not mean they do not or should not happen. There's a long list of such very important and correct changes in our legal history. The question is whether this is one - and the answer is yes as the case showed, which you completely ignore as far as the legal arguments, and I doubt you have read.

You are projecting when you talk about 'liking' laws not being a reason for changing them - it's a straw man, not 'liking' the law isn't the basis for the ruling.

You say "But until the law is changed, it is the law."

That suggests you don't understand the law at all. The constitution in interpreted and it limits the laws put into effect.

If the courts determine constitutional protections, such as equal protection, are inconsistent with this unequal treatment of a group, the law is removed.

You then said "I won't rally against gay rights, but I certainly won't rally in support of them either".

I missed this when I said you did not include bigotry this time. It's unfortunate you are not for ending unjust and immoral discrimination against a group of people.

It's good for you as a black man that many non-blacks were better than that in the civil rights era.

 

[RightIsWrong]

sure anyone can remain objective. however i dont think you can deny there is a conflict of interest going on here. the outcome of this ruling directly affects this judge so it makes sense that a judge that is not affected would make the ruling to keep it "impartial"

Once again....why isn't the same logic applied to a straight judge? There is a direct conflict of interest in that scenario also.

Also, I guess any judge that owns a stock portfolio should recuse themselves from any case that includes a public company? After all, it is in their own personal interest that stock prices not be diminished and any ruling that they make in favor of a corporation could be argued that it is made out of impartiality to their own personal wealth.

 

[Craig234]

Once again....why isn't the same logic applied to a straight judge? There is a direct conflict of interest in that scenario also.

Also, I guess any judge that owns a stock portfolio should recuse themselves from any case that includes a public company? After all, it is in their own personal interest that stock prices not be diminished and any ruling that they make in favor of a corporation could be argued that it is made out of impartiality to their own personal wealth.

I think no judge who uses free speech should be allowed to rule on free speech cases.

He has a CLEAR self-interest in protecting his right to free speech.