Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bad_Daddy

Same-sex marriage ban backers cite judge's gay partner

5 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_trial

SAN FRANCISCO – The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned.

Lawyers for the ban's backers filed a motion in San Francisco's U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote.

They are now asking the judge who inherited the case when Walker retired at the end of February to vacate Walker's August 2010 decision. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already is reviewing the legal merits of Walker's ruling at the request of Proposition 8's proponents.

Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued for the right to marry in Walker's court were reviewing the motion and did not have immediate comment.

Walker, a 67-year-old Republican appointee, declared Proposition 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californian's civil rights last summer. He retired from the bench at the end of February.

Rumors that the judge was gay circulated during the 13-day trial that preceded his decision and after he handed down his ruling.

Lawyers for Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8, however, have not previously raised his sexual orientation as a legal issue.

Protect Marriage general counsel Andy Pugno said that changed when the judge this month told a group of courthouse reporters about his 10-year relationship. The issue is not that Walker is gay, but that his relationship status made him too similar to the same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, Pugno said.

"We deeply regret the necessity of this motion. But if the courts are to require others to follow the law, the courts themselves must do so as well," Pugno added.

Walker said at the time that he did not consider his sexual orientation to be any more a reason for recusal than another judge's race or gender normally would be.


sigbet.jpg

"I want to take this opportunity to mention how thankful I am for an Obama re-election. The choice was clear. We cannot live in a country that treats homosexuals and women as second class citizens. Homosexuals deserve all of the rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals receive. Women deserve to be treated with respect and their salaries should not depend on their gender, but their quality of work. I am also thankful that the great, progressive state of California once again voted for the correct President. America is moving forward, and the direction is a positive one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned.

I see. A gay judge can't be impartial when deciding matters of same sex marriages but a straight judge can be. That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a game. If a straight judge had presided over the case, he would have been biased based on his sexual orientation. Since a gay judge presided over the case, he had to be biased based on his sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation the judge is; all that matters is that they can use it as a reason to go to another round.

The same game is played on every legal front. A black judge is biased against any other race, plus he's biased against blacks. As we know, Obama hates blacks and whites. See where this is going?


There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all . . . . The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic . . . . There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

President Teddy Roosevelt on Columbus Day 1915

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a game. If a straight judge had presided over the case, he would have been biased based on his sexual orientation. Since a gay judge presided over the case, he had to be biased based on his sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation the judge is; all that matters is that they can use it as a reason to go to another round.

The same game is played on every legal front. A black judge is biased against any other race, plus he's biased against blacks. As we know, Obama hates blacks and whites. See where this is going?

Is that your son in your avatar?


India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×