Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Praxeas]

BTW do we know for a fact the judge was gay? Is so can't that be construed as a conflict of interest?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW do we know for a fact the judge was gay? Is so can't that be construed as a conflict of interest?

Would it be a conflict if he was straight? What about if he was Catholic? Or a member of the Christian Coalition?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Would it be a conflict if he was straight? What about if he was Catholic? Or a member of the Christian Coalition?

I see your point but doesn't a homosexual have more to gain? Obviously many heterosexuals voted against this bill. Wouldn't the judge, being gay, be more likely to be biased?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not understanding what you're saying.

When a nation makes laws that the people have no choice in determining, it is no longer democracy in the fullest sense. When people do not WANT a law in place, and the nation puts it through anyway, it is not actual democracy. We have enough of that trash in Canada. But where is the BY THE PEOPLE in the USA? Maybe I am missing the US's intended thought in BY THE PEOPLE. I'm no political guru.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I say make a constitional amendment to permantly ban gay marriage.

Several states (Ohio is one of them) define marriage as one man and one woman.

An amendment to the U.S. constitution has been proposed with similar wording. It did not pass our federal legislature based on the premise that individual states should define marriage, not the federal government.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see your point but doesn't a homosexual have more to gain? Obviously many heterosexuals voted against this bill. Wouldn't the judge, being gay, be more likely to be biased?

Judge Vaughn Walker doesn't appear to have ever "waved a flag" declaring himself to be "gay," but the news reports all openly report his "orientation" as fact. I get the idea that it's not something he has promoted as a part of his public image but something that he hasn't tried to hide either.

When he was first brought up for a Federal judgeship the Dems all lined up against him because he had sided with the US Olympic Committee's copyright suit against the "Gay Olympics." This wasn't really a "sexual orientation" type of a case, but a dispute over the use of the word "Olympics" and just what protections the USOC had with its trademark, but the Dems deemed him "insensitive" to gays. This must have been before he was widely known to be gay himself.

And, he may have been biased in today's ruling. It seems to me that he ignored some key points in his ruling. Yet again, it may be that he simply has an honest disagreement with my own opinions on the matter. It's hard to say.

[Bowas]

Gay. So says the S.F. Gate.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-0...n-judge-walker

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Homosexuals cannot adequately interpret the constitution for Christians.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

John Adams also served as President under the U.S. Constitution, which contains, in Article VI, Section 3, the following language:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I'm going to take the words of the Constitution as the law of the land over a letter that John Adams wrote in 1798 to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.

I think we head down a very slippery slope when we say we disagree with court decisions because a gay person can't rule for a Christian. Why, someone might say that a woman can't legislate for them, or an African American or a Jew, or a Mormon, or a member of the Assemblies of God...

(It should be noted that Adams was not a signatory to the Constitution.)

[geekette]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Technically, the goats don't have the same standing before the court as two human beings. A better analogy perhaps might be two first cousins or a brother and sister couple seeking a marriage license. Perhaps bigamists as well.

States have historically made exclusions to marriage licenses. There have been examples of such statutes that were wrong - inter-racial marriage prohibitions for example.

States also didn't permit "chattel property" (aka "slaves") to marry because they could not legally consent--as property.

But "gay marriage" doesn't equate nor is it exemplary of inter-racial marriage. Inter-racial marriages were banned because of racist notions about the children of such unions. "Gay marriage" produces no children so the "racial" and discriminatory complaints don't even apply.

States have the right to control how children are "bred." It's an uncomfortable topic - but it is important. As a society we have stated that no marriage unions can exist between brother and sister and other closely related individuals because of the dangers of inbreeding. That is the basis of all marriage laws.

Gays do not represent anything even remotely related to "inbreeding" as they are not even breeding at all. Therefore, they have no standing (IMHO) in the marriage debate.

If a couple of bachelor gentlemen want to share housing to save expenses then it's probably not a whole lot of my business as long as they keep their lawns up. From my experience, these types tend to have fantastic lawns and gardens. So, hook up as you please, just don't come before the county clerk unless you have an issue involving human breeding.

Marriage is not strictly for procreation. We don't require prospective heterosexual couples undergo fertility tests prior to marriage. We let heterosexual couples marry who have absolutely no intention of having children. (Like elderly folks getting married for companionship.) Additionally, the judge talks in the opinion at length about the testimony he received on the impact of same-sex marriage on children and found the testimony that there was no difference between children from straight and gay marriages to be persuasive.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Not the goats, the man. If a man wants to marry two goats, how do you argue against it under this ruling? Equal protection, what right do you have defining marriage as between two people?

Uh, the goats can't consent?