Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

www.foxnews.com

A federal judge on Tuesday dealt a blow to opponents of same-sex marriage by upholding an earlier ruling in favor of such unions -- despite the revelation that the judge behind the earlier ruling is gay and in a relationship.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Lawyers for backers of the ban argued at a hearing Monday that Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

edit on 14-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

My first thread. It is Breaking News - but also Social Issue - - so I know it may be moved.

I chose the Fox News link - just to be ironic.

I fully support Equality. I have tried to stay focused on LEGAL MARRIAGE - in discussing this issue.

LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.

This is not about being homosexual. It is about Equal Rights.





www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?

I dont understand how a judge can overturn the will of the people

Just like a king i guess

Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Couple A and Couple B are standing in a line. Couple A can get married Couple B cannot. How is it anything other than equality to say A and B can get married? How did B get special rights by being given equal right to marry like A has?

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I dont understand how a judge can overturn a vote of the people

Just like a king i guess

edit on 14-6-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Clearly you need to brush up on the very, very, very very basics of American government and how the three branches work.

Just like "Checks and Balances" I guess.

Good on this judge for making the right decision. It was a ridiculous argument anyway.

Good... Very good. Glad to see that EQUAL rights is being enforced.

Honestly though, it should not be up to the government at all... I think it should be up to the individual. If a man wants to marry a man, that should be his choice. If a woman wants to marry a woman, that should be her choice....

But then again, I am just a young liberal hippie. What do I know?

I think I'll go back and re-visit the ignorance thread.

All citizens shall be afforded the same equal rights.

Personal belief - - is not relevant in who shall and who shall not be afforded equal rights.

Your personal views on homosexuality - - is not relevant to equal rights.

Equal rights is not special rights.

Same gender attraction is biological - - the same as opposite gender attraction. There is no legitimate precedence to exclude a naturally born minority - because you don't like it.

reply to post by Annee


Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

That's a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't it be the same level of conflict if the ruling judge was straight and married? Does that mean divorced judges can't rule in divorce cases? Women judges can't rule in gender bias cases? Black judges can't rule in crimes involving black people?

This is such a joke, man marries man, Thousands of years of procreation by their ancestors gone to waste because being gay is promoted as normal and equal. What about all the ancestors that fought tooth and nail to survive then one branch of the family tree just stops because being gay is acceptable. It's kinda like abortions, life killer. :/

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

That's a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't it be the same level of conflict if the ruling judge was straight and married? Does that mean divorced judges can't rule in divorce cases? Women judges can't rule in gender bias cases? Black judges can't rule in crimes involving black people?

A judge should always recuse themselves where they can personally benefit from their own ruling.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Honestly though, it should not be up to the government at all...

I agree - but that's where we are at. As the lawyers and supporters said: we move forward from here.

As religious belief is the main opposition and we are a secular government - - - there is no real basis or argument against equal rights for homosexuals.

And as the case continues in court - - the proponents of Prop 8 - - are being shown not to have legitimate argument beyond religious belief.

Its only a matter of time. It is my personal belief - - the judicial system chose to do it this way - - so when the final verdict is read - - there will be no question - - or chance of reversal.

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

The argument is not about being gay or straight.

It is about equal rights.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

The argument is not about being gay or straight.

It is about equal rights.

What about my right not to have the institution of marriage cheapened?

Because that is exactly what allowing gays to marry does to the institution of marriage.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by leo123
A judge should always recuse themselves where they can personally benefit from their own ruling.

Did you bother to read the article?

“In our society, a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right,” Ware wrote.

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee

 

This is Gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We voted for this two - 2 - times. Fail, Fail, Fail........

You voted against a minority group because of your personal belief.

How is that OK?

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*

Adam, Eve and Steve's daily lives are none of your business.. can I come to your house and tell you who I think you should get naked with?..

Marriage these days is a farce, a relic from days of ignorance & intolerance.. not to mention un-necessary intrusion from strangers who need to mind their own business.

When is that last time 2 people met and said "Our love is so special.. lets get the government and all the small minded party clowns involved!.. we really need input from strangers who believe in invisible men, vote for DC Mafia puppets and flock to hear child molesters in funky hats belch on about an old book"

No thanks.. if I scribble "we be maried" with a turd on toilet paper.. it's good enough for me to marry a spirit animal or whatever I choose to marry.. I could care less what ANYONE thinks.. govt clowns, bible thumpers, registered party people, MSM lackeys et al are all mostly delusional and/or otherwise unworthy of having their tainted opinion considered... AAMOF clowned & shunned works better for me.

This is why I love Santa Cruz Ca, hippy epicenter of the world.. our motto: "Keep it weird".. not giving a rats puke what anyone says or thinks, while laughing at the predictable moral outrage of strangers, is most enjoyable.