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

[Atreus21]

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.

So, following this line of reasoning...

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage among polygamous groups adjudicated by a judge in a polygamous relationship.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between cousins adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with his or her cousin.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between an adult and a minor adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with a minor.

Is that correct?

 

[Craig234]

So, following this line of reasoning...

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage among polygamous groups adjudicated by a judge in a polygamous relationship.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between cousins adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with his or her cousin.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between an adult and a minor adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with a minor.

Is that correct?

Uh, examples of illegal behavior don't fit, but otherwise, ya.

The types of 'conflicts of interest' that are the basis for the 'appearance of impropriety' are more material or direct.

Like Thomas ruling on the Gore/Bush election while his wife was working to recruit staff for a Bush administration.

The more normal ones are things like relationships or financial interests with one side.

 

[actuarial]

LOLWUT?!

Being a judge is a pretty kick-ass job, and I have NEVER heard of a judge having a hard time seeking employment. LMAO@YOUR ANALOGY! SEE IT BURN!

1) The fact that you picked out one of the analogies implies that you feel the other two are accurate. This one was the weakest of them though. It is more likely to have a woman rule on abortion and possibly want one in the future or a gun owner ruling on a second amendment case. Would you suggest that no gun owners ever be allowed to rule on the second amendment?

2) Is being a judge a better job than being an NFL head coach? You can find AA in a lot of high places.

 

[DCal430]

So, following this line of reasoning...

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage among polygamous groups adjudicated by a judge in a polygamous relationship.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between cousins adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with his or her cousin.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between an adult and a minor adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with a minor.

Is that correct?

Sick how you equate pedophilia with homosexuality.

 

[classy]

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.

You missed the whole point of what I said, but I am not surprised. First let me make it clear, no I do not believe in homosexual relationships. But this is not my opinion or yours for that matter. The law states that through a voter approved amendment, the state constitution would define marriage between a man and woman. That was the law, is the law. The voters took all the proper steps afforded to them by the constitution of that state to overturn the judicial ruling allowing gay marriage.

Did the voters violate the law? No. Was the voter initiative illegal? No. The ability of the people to overturn judicial rulings via the ballot is there for a very good reason. If you take that away, then people have no recourse but to abide by the ruling of a single judge. Even the Supreme Court can be over ruled by Congress if it sees fit.

As for blacks, blacks never wanted new laws. They wanted to be allowed to take part of the same laws. There is no action in being black, yellow, or brown. But homosexuality is an action and thus judged as an action. Homosexuality struggle is a far cry from Civil Rights.

And on the bigot stuff. There are a lot of people's lively hoods that I don't agree with for one reason or another. I love all people and will always respect all people. But I won't lay aside my personal belief to appease you or no one else. Thats why in America its great. Now if you rally and win your rights as you see fit, then more power to you. You won't do it with my support. But I don't attend Black Panther meetings either. I don't have any friends apart of the Nation Of Islam, nor will I either. I don't hangout in bars or do drugs. Do I hate these people? No. Do I wish these people harm? No. Am I a bigot against all these folks too?

But I disagree with how they live, so I seperate my personal life from theirs. If they shutdown every liquor store in America, I wouldn't give a damn. And I wouldn't waste my time supporting the reopening of any of them either. You like so many throw out the word bigot as way to criticize someone who doesn't support what you believe. That's not bigotry and quite frankly you really have no clue what bigotry really means.

 

[zsdersw]

no I do not believe in homosexual relationships.

... lively hoods that I don't agree with ...

I'm curious... what do you believe homosexuals should do? How is a personal relationship a "livelihood"? "Livelihood" is defined as a means of supporting one's existence; a career.

 

[Linflas]

You missed the whole point of what I said, but I am not surprised. First let me make it clear, no I do not believe in homosexual relationships. But this is not my opinion or yours for that matter. The law states that through a voter approved amendment, the state constitution would define marriage between a man and woman. That was the law, is the law. The voters took all the proper steps afforded to them by the constitution of that state to overturn the judicial ruling allowing gay marriage.

Did the voters violate the law? No. Was the voter initiative illegal? No. The ability of the people to overturn judicial rulings via the ballot is there for a very good reason. If you take that away, then people have no recourse but to abide by the ruling of a single judge. Even the Supreme Court can be over ruled by Congress if it sees fit.

As for blacks, blacks never wanted new laws. They wanted to be allowed to take part of the same laws. There is no action in being black, yellow, or brown. But homosexuality is an action and thus judged as an action. Homosexuality struggle is a far cry from Civil Rights.

And on the bigot stuff. There are a lot of people's lively hoods that I don't agree with for one reason or another. I love all people and will always respect all people. But I won't lay aside my personal belief to appease you or no one else. Thats why in America its great. Now if you rally and win your rights as you see fit, then more power to you. You won't do it with my support. But I don't attend Black Panther meetings either. I don't have any friends apart of the Nation Of Islam, nor will I either. I don't hangout in bars or do drugs. Do I hate these people? No. Do I wish these people harm? No. Am I bigot against all these folks too?

But I disagree with how they live, so I seperate my personal life from theirs. If they shutdown every liquor store in America, I wouldn't give a damn. And I wouldn't waste my time supporting the reopening of any of them either. You like so many throw out the word bigot as way to criticize someone who doesn't support what you believe. That's not bigotry and quite frankly you really have no clue what bigotry really means.

The only way that can be done is to either change a law they passed to bring it in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling or to amend the Constitution. There is no notwithstanding clause in the United States.

 

[zsdersw]

But homosexuality is an action and thus judged as an action.

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. That is not an action.

 

[classy]

I'm curious... what do you believe homosexuals should do? How is a personal relationship a "livelihood"? "Livelihood" is defined as a means of supporting one's existence; a career.

MY use of livelihood may not be correct. But to make it short, I don't support how a lot of people live. Thats their choice. Dude I would honest with you, if this was just about marriage, I would vote yes tomorrow. But its not. This is going way beyond. They are wanting to teach 1st and 2nd grade students about homosexuality. I don't agree with all that. Many gays will admit they are gay because they liked it better than a hetero relationship. There are those who say that have all always been gay. Hell you are either born black and brown with no matter how you feel, lol.

Honestly, I have said this before I don't see homosexuality ever being accepted fully. I just don't. Sometimes I feel a little bad because I got a couple of work buddies who are gay. I liked them a lot, but man I just ain't buying the whole man on man love thing. There are some things I so support though. If a person has a full sex change, then they should be treated completely as such. Unfortunately that isn't happening either.

 

[classy]

The only way that can be done is to either change a law they passed to bring it in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling or to amend the Constitution. There is no notwithstanding clause in the United States.

That is correct, but they the point is there are checks and balances in place to even overcome a decison by the highest court in the land. What happened in Cali was an excercise of those same checks and balances.

 

[zsdersw]

MY use of livelihood may not be correct. But to make it short, I don't support how a lot of people live. Thats their choice. Dude I would honest with you, if this was just about marriage, I would vote yes tomorrow. But its not. This is going way beyond. They are wanting to teach 1st and 2nd grade students about homosexuality. I don't agree with all that.

No, I don't think you're being honest with me.. because Prop 8 and this ruling is just about marriage.

If you really are telling the truth, you'd vote to support gay marriage and vote to oppose anything you oppose.

Many gays will admit they are gay because they liked it better than a hetero relationship. There are those who say that have all always been gay. Hell you are either born black and brown with no matter how you feel, lol.

It's pretty clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to homosexuals. Those who say they like "gay relationships" better than heterosexual ones are, more often than not, thinking with their penis instead of their mind and heart; and the penis is notoriously not a very discriminating organ. Human sexual attraction is also not a binary condition; there are many degrees of in-between.

Honestly, I have said this before I don't see homosexuality ever being accepted fully. I just don't. Sometimes I feel a little bad because I got a couple of work buddies who are gay. I liked them a lot, but man I just ain't buying the whole man on man love thing. There are some things I so support though. If a person has a full sex change, then they should be treated completely as such. Unfortunately that isn't happening either.

The "acceptance" of homosexuality is a generational shift. There will come a time, soon, in which being gay is treated and thought of with no more enmity than being left-handed. Without knowing what you mean, exactly, by "accepted fully".. there's no basis for asserting anything beyond what I've said.

 

[Atreus21]

Sick how you equate pedophilia with homosexuality.

There is no equivalence between them other than the fact that, for the moment, marriages of such a kind are not allowed.

 

[Craig234]

Honestly, I have said this before I don't see homosexuality ever being accepted fully. I just don't. Sometimes I feel a little bad because I got a couple of work buddies who are gay. I liked them a lot, but man I just ain't buying the whole man on man love thing.

You are a bigot. Don't take that wrong, it's not an attack, it's not saying you're a jerk.

Rather, I feel sorry for you and would like to see you improve that.

It's like someone saying they just don't buy blacks living in white neighborhoods - you don't need to attack them, but they are bigots.

You are ignorant about homosexuality. I don't know how to help with that, since you have had all kinds of info posted here. You could listen to your gay coworkers.

You seem to suspect that gays, nearly all of whom have 'always been gay', aren't honest about that, based on nothing except maybe you prefer it weren't the case.

 

[Craig234]

You missed the whole point of what I said

No, I didn't.

, but I am not surprised. First let me make it clear, no I do not believe in homosexual relationships.

You don't think they exist, the millions of gay couples are paid actors?

But this is not my opinion or yours for that matter. The law states that through a voter approved amendment, the state constitution would define marriage between a man and woman. That was the law, is the law. The voters took all the proper steps afforded to them by the constitution of that state to overturn the judicial ruling allowing gay marriage.

Sadly, they did pass the law. There is definitely some controversy about whether it was legally how they did it - a complicated topic because the CA constitution has two levels of amendment -but let's not get into that. The thing is, it's in conflict with the US constitution.

Did the voters violate the law? No. Was the voter initiative illegal? No. The ability of the people to overturn judicial rulings via the ballot is there for a very good reason. If you take that away, then people have no recourse but to abide by the ruling of a single judge. Even the Supreme Court can be over ruled by Congress if it sees fit.

You seem confused on the constitution being above legislation. Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court; they can only vote to amend the constitution.

As for blacks, blacks never wanted new laws.

That's ridiculous. Of course they wanted new laws. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?

They wanted to be allowed to take part of the same laws. There is no action in being black, yellow, or brown. But homosexuality is an action and thus judged as an action. Homosexuality struggle is a far cry from Civil Rights.

Wrong. That's a 'distinction without a difference'. It's like when gay bigots yell that marriage is ALL about having children - but when asked why they aren't opposing marriage for infertile hetero couples, they are faced that they are just using it as an excuse to justify bigotry.

What's relevant isn't that homosexuality involves sex/romance and race involves race. It's that both are groups of people who majorities like to treat unequally.

'We don't want those blacks swimming with out kids in the park pool!'
'We don't want those gays marrying like it was acceptable to be gay!'

And that this discrimination isn't justified - but bigotry. That it denies equal rights to these groups to satisfy the bigots.

And on the bigot stuff. There are a lot of people's lively hoods that I don't agree with for one reason or another. I love all people and will always respect all people. But I won't lay aside my personal belief to appease you or no one else. Thats why in America its great. Now if you rally and win your rights as you see fit, then more power to you. You won't do it with my support. But I don't attend Black Panther meetings either. I don't have any friends apart of the Nation Of Islam, nor will I either. I don't hangout in bars or do drugs. Do I hate these people? No. Do I wish these people harm? No. Am I a bigot against all these folks too?

You're arguing like someone who wants to not let you live in their neighborhood because you're black, saying they aren't changing their mind.

And if they could, they'd vote in discrimination against you just as you want to.

You can't really compare drugs and nation of Islam, but not having friends in those groups is not necessarily bigotry.

You seem to be confusing having friends and legally denying them rights.

But I disagree with how they live, so I seperate my personal life from theirs.

It's your right to be a bigot against whites, or women, or blondes, or gays.

But voting to deny them rights because you are a bigot is immoral.

If they shutdown every liquor store in America, I wouldn't give a damn. And I wouldn't waste my time supporting the reopening of any of them either. You like so many throw out the word bigot as way to criticize someone who doesn't support what you believe. That's not bigotry and quite frankly you really have no clue what bigotry really means.

Gays and drinkers are not the same thing. Gays are not going anywhere.

You ignorantly seem to think gays are making a bad 'choice' you can punish them for by not giving them equal rights. You're just being as immoral as racist voters.

Actually, you're the one who doesn't know what bigotry is. Common among bigots.

 

[classy]

No, I didn't.

Yeah whatever.
I didn't even read your whole post because you are just nauseating. I posted solely on the legality on what was done in California. That's it. On a personal note I don't support nor do I believe two men or women should be involved in a sexual intimate way. I am not going to go all flim flam because you support taking it anywhere.

So take your bigot, turn it sideways, and stick right up your candy #$#$#

 

[jonks]

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.

Man someone needs some history lessons. And civics lessons.

 

[shira]

As for blacks, blacks never wanted new laws. They wanted to be allowed to take part of the same laws. There is no action in being black, yellow, or brown. But homosexuality is an action and thus judged as an action. Homosexuality struggle is a far cry from Civil Rights.

You're so confused - so intent on rationalizing your bigotry - that you're logic is completely tangled.

The groups trying to change the law are by and large those OPPOSED to same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was intended to be a change in the law to outlaw same-sex marriage. The federal DOMA act was a NEW law opposed to same-sex marriage. Various states are changing their laws to add words such as "one man and one women" to their definition of marriage.

Those of us who support same-sex marriage thought the existing laws - which didn't make distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples - were just fine. Only the bigots want to exclude same-sex couples from the same marital benefits that the bigots enjoy.

As to what blacks wanted, you've conveniently overlooked the most significant piece of NEW legislation outlawing discrimination against blacks, The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Blacks DEARLY wanted this law, both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X - not exactly on friendly terms with each other - were very much in favor of this legislation.

So don't make up stuff to justify your bigotry.

 

[Turin39789]

Stay Classy, classy

 

[JSt0rm]

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. That is not an action.

What classy is saying is that he is attracted to the same sex but doesnt act on it. You know where these people come from man. It's no secret.

 

[Wreckem]

That is correct, but they the point is there are checks and balances in place to even overcome a decison by the highest court in the land. What happened in Cali was an excercise of those same checks and balances.

Your entire line of reasoning in this thread, is the same god damn line of reasoning used by bigoted people to keep blacks down and to keep separate but equal.

Do you want to go back to separate but equal?

I don't know why there is a high percentage of blacks that are homophobic and bigoted towards gays. They insist gay rights shouldn't happen and gay rights isn't a civil rights issue. It is completely bullshit.

Gay rights IS a civil rights issue. Under the US constitution they should be afforded the same benefits and protections as straight people. Currently they are not because they are not allowed to get married. Same sex partners are not legal heirs unless specifically stated in a will and even then Often times those wills get challenged by the gay person's family and their partner loses. In most states that are not allowed to have health coverage under a partners insurance policy. Some states have tried to ban them from being able to adopt. Etc etc etc.

And no Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court. Nor can states. They can bring their laws into conformance with Supreme Court rulings, but that is it. They cannot defy the Supreme Court.

 

[Zen0]

As for blacks, blacks never wanted new laws. They wanted to be allowed to take part of the same laws. There is no action in being black, yellow, or brown. But homosexuality is an action and thus judged as an action. Homosexuality struggle is a far cry from Civil Rights.

Being black is not an action? It clearly is, your skin color is God's punishment on you as a sin, therefore your existence is clearly an unconscionable act against God and you don't deserve any human rights. Now you want laws changed to recognize you as people? Equals? Preposterous.

This should have been obvious to you, slave.

/17th century rhetoric

 

[Wreckem]

So, following this line of reasoning...

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage among polygamous groups adjudicated by a judge in a polygamous relationship.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between cousins adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with his or her cousin.

There is no conflict of interest in a court case governing marriage between an adult and a minor adjudicated by a judge in a relationship with a minor.

Is that correct?

You remember the sesame street song, "one of these doesn't belong". You fail at making analogies.

Being gay isn't illegal. Polygamy, marriage to direct relatives up to 1st cousins, and pedophila are illegal.

 

[Zen0]

Your entire line of reasoning in this thread, is the same god damn line of reasoning used by bigoted people to keep blacks down and to keep separate but equal.

Do you want to go back to separate but equal?

I don't know why there is a high percentage of blacks that are homophobic and bigoted towards gays. They insist gay rights shouldn't happen and gay rights isn't a civil rights issue. It is completely bullshit.

Gay rights IS a civil rights issue. Under the US constitution they should be afforded the same benefits and protections as straight people. Currently they are not because they are not allowed to get married. Same sex partners are not legal heirs unless specifically stated in a will and even then Often times those wills get challenged by the gay person's family and their partner loses. In most states that are not allowed to have health coverage under a partners insurance policy. Some states have tried to ban them from being able to adopt. Etc etc etc.

And no Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court. Nor can states. They can bring their laws into conformance with Supreme Court rulings, but that is it. They cannot defy the Supreme Court.

Blacks tend to be gospel singing Christians (ultimate irony fist tournament), so they tend to be bigots.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

And a heterosexual Judge would have to abstain from the case for their bias too? That just leaves those who swing both ways.

 

[JSt0rm]

And a heterosexual Judge would have to abstain from the case for their bias too? That just leaves those who swing both ways.

Well what BIGNATE is saying is that gay marriage affects gay people but it doesnt affect straight people. So straight people should be the ones to judge if gay marriage hurts straight people. Wait what?