California Prop 8 Overturned By Openly Gay Judge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeusExMachina

I WISH that only gays could marry. Then women wouldn't bug me about it.

---

Is this a big problem for you, far too many women chasing you with marriage goggles on? :)

I'm not even going to get into the hate.
I'm only going to say that I Defend everyone's right to their opinion and their freedom of speech.

Regardless of how fucked up, narrow minded and ignorant it might be.


You folks have a great day!


Hitman6:
Since when is Golf Gay?
I'm Hurt :(

Yeah, I want to know why Roger thinks that jogging is girly (from another thread).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger

The bias IS that, yes, he is gay. And I see your point about if he were straight then that's a bias as well. However, you have to weigh this in with what is "average" (I was going to say normal but that would be mis-interpreted). On average marriage is between a man and a woman, but in this case they are trying to change the average, and he is on the "activist" side of the case.

The same would ring true if a Hispanic judge were to sit in ruling of a case where Hispanics gain some significant new right. If it were a black judge, there's no pony in the race. If it's a white judge then there is a high likelihood there is no pony in the race, but perhaps there might be.

I completely understand your point but I believe there is a difference in THIS case if a gay judge ruled on an appeal from the community that he is a part of. Who is to say that he wasn't for prop 8 to start with? Nobody, but any chance of impropriety has to be brought into question. In my experience, at least, it is more likely a gay person will be PRO gay than it is that a straight person will be ANTI gay.

All of this being said, he did the right thing by postponing his ruling pending the appeal. Perhaps he knew that there was possibility for bias in this case and by postponing the ruling he was appeasing both sides to some degree.

---

I've really been trying hard to stay out of this thread, but damn... Seriously, Ranger? By your premise, no judge should ever be allowed to make a ruling on anthing, ever. If I was a judge, I'm pretty sure I would have to recuse myself from any criminal case for sure, because I'm anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-robbery... If a gay judge can't rule against prop 8, then a straight judge can't rule for it. So, a judge can only rule against their actual perceived bias to appear non bias.

This is not a democracy. This is a federalist government. Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong. If we did everything the majority wanted, we would still have white schools and black schools and white bathrooms and black bathrooms. At one point, the 2nd ammendment could have been repealed with that kind of thinking.

He's postponing the ruling because both sides have voiced appeal desires. This is standard practice. Ever wonder why after CU lost their recent conceal carry case CU student's still couldn't carry. The process for CU to appeal hadn't been determined yet. Same thing.

Awww Jees...

Anyone want to buy my right handed, Pink, Calloways?
Matching Nike "Tiger's Bitch" Bag

FTF only ;)


/joke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

Seriously, Ranger?

---

Yes, seriously. You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine.

[quote=SA Friday;227845]Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong.
quote]

I'm having a tough time with this in this instance. The long lived definition of marriage was "wrong"?

Marriage has up until now meant a union between a man and woman. Nothing wrong with that right? Now this appointed judge wants to change the meaning of that word to include homosexual unions. Now, why does that meaning have to change? I really don't care what two dudes do, why they do it, what they call it, but why is it so important to call it marriage? Call it a Civil Union, call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the govenment feeling they need to redefine the meening of the word. It's a slippery slope.

As long as the state has control of marriage, then they will be involved in who's allowed to do it. As someone else said already, the state being involved in marriage is bullshit to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nogaroheli

call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want,

---

+5 for the musical reference.

My thoughts (go ahead and flame away, I can take it.)

IMO:
1. being homosexual is perverse, wrong, and unnatural

HOWEVER:
2. I will hate the sin but love the sinner. I have a gay friend and he knows how I feel about his lifestyle but also that I'll do anything I can to show him the mercy and grace of God.

THIS IS WHERE IT GETS GREY:
3. I believe the defiinition of marriage is between one man and one woman as laid out in my Bible, upon which I believe is the fundamental truth of everything.
3a. If they (gay people) want to get married, then let them. I personally won't recognize their marriage but if the government does, then let them be able to get teh same benefits and pay the same taxes.
4. I just think in 50 years when this is the norm, that marriage/monogomus relationships/etc will be on the verge of extinction as almost everyone succumbs to popular culture whether in thought or actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

the state being involved in marriage is bullshit to begin with.

---

THIS + stop state/fed fundings to shit like abortion, biased education programs, and any other private citizens' circumstances.

Fed needs to stick to foreign affair and nation security.