Gay judge's same-sex marriage ruling upheld

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110614/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

By Lisa Leff, Associated Press – 2 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a gay judge's ruling to strike down California's same-sex marriage ban.

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

[Liberté]

Good news. I am prepared for the inevitable anti-'elitist' backlash to come in this thread.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Has Vaughn Walker been outed or is the article based just on the rumor circulated by the plaintiffs?

[Dgov]

Well good.  The ruling itself wasn't bad, but there was probably a legitimate conflict of interests case here, so better to fix it up nicely.

[Smash255]

Well good.  The ruling itself wasn't bad, but there was probably a legitimate conflict of interests case here, so better to fix it up nicely.

The whole conflict of interest argument was absurd from the get go unless you believe that women shouldn't be able to rule on cases impacting women, minorities on minorities, and unless you believe the only impartial Judge in some cases could be a heterosexual white male....


Regardless, with this as well as what is going on in New York, this looks like a huge week for equality.

[Holmes]

No, no, man. The judge was gay, clearly there was bias. Only gay judges can be and are bias, throw out all their decisions.

Has Vaughn Walker been outed or is the article based just on the rumor circulated by the plaintiffs?

No, he hasn't been outed. He's openly gay now (that he's retired).

[Landslide Lyndon]

Has Vaughn Walker been outed or is the article based just on the rumor circulated by the plaintiffs?

No, he hasn't been outed. He's openly gay now (that he's retired).

FF.

[Liberté]

Regardless, with this as well as what is going on in New York, this looks like a huge week for equality.

Liberty. Not equality. Liberty.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't know if I trust straight people to be even-handed enough to rule on issues of gay marriage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Good news. I am prepared for the inevitable anti-'elitist' backlash to come in this thread.

no, pretty much everyone on this forum agreed that it was false grounds for appeal

[Dgov]

Well good.  The ruling itself wasn't bad, but there was probably a legitimate conflict of interests case here, so better to fix it up nicely.

The whole conflict of interest argument was absurd from the get go unless you believe that women shouldn't be able to rule on cases impacting women, minorities on minorities, and unless you believe the only impartial Judge in some cases could be a heterosexual white male....

No, i'm talking about the not being open about it.  Its something that he probably should have disclosed a bit sooner, even if it doesn't mean anything in the end.

[Smash255]

Well good.  The ruling itself wasn't bad, but there was probably a legitimate conflict of interests case here, so better to fix it up nicely.

The whole conflict of interest argument was absurd from the get go unless you believe that women shouldn't be able to rule on cases impacting women, minorities on minorities, and unless you believe the only impartial Judge in some cases could be a heterosexual white male....

No, i'm talking about the not being open about it.  Its something that he probably should have disclosed a bit sooner, even if it doesn't mean anything in the end.

No whether or not he was gay, or whether or not he was open or not has no barring on the case.  Only bigots who have no actual argument care about petty ish like that.

[Dgov]

No whether or not he was gay, or whether or not he was open or not has no barring on the case.  Only bigots who have no actual argument care about petty ish like that.

Well, take it to the other logical extreme.  Would you let a KKK member decide a lynching case in Mississippi?  Whether or not it affected his decision (and it almost certainly didn't, this is California after all), its still something that should have been made very clear immediately, and if the judge was smart he probably should have excused himself from the case, just to deny Prop 8's supporters that very argument.

It's not like the Pro-Prop 8 people would be silent if a straight judge ruled it unconstitutional.  It would have been easy to just pass it off to a less controversial judge who could give the same ruling without any hint of a conflict of interest.  Coulda/woulda/shoulda I Guess.  Now we get weeks of boring legal news stories dragging the issue out.

[Smash255]

No whether or not he was gay, or whether or not he was open or not has no barring on the case.  Only bigots who have no actual argument care about petty ish like that.

Well, take it to the other logical extreme.  Would you let a KKK member decide a lynching case in Mississippi?  Whether or not it affected his decision (and it almost certainly didn't, this is California after all), its still something that should have been made very clear immediately, and if the judge was smart he probably should have excused himself from the case, just to deny Prop 8's supporters that very argument.

It's not like the Pro-Prop 8 people would be silent if a straight judge ruled it unconstitutional.  It would have been easy to just pass it off to a less controversial judge who could give the same ruling without any hint of a conflict of interest.  Coulda/woulda/shoulda I Guess.  Now we get weeks of boring legal news stories dragging the issue out.

Are you actually making the asinine comparison between a gay person ruling on a gay rights case and comparing it to a KKK member??  Is this the asinine leap in logic the right has?? 

Only those who are straight can rule on gay rights cases??  Only men can rule on discrimination cases against women??  Only whites can rule on discrimination cases against blacks??  Is this the bizarre level you want us to go down??

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No whether or not he was gay, or whether or not he was open or not has no barring on the case.  Only bigots who have no actual argument care about petty ish like that.

Well, take it to the other logical extreme.  Would you let a KKK member decide a lynching case in Mississippi?  Whether or not it affected his decision (and it almost certainly didn't, this is California after all), its still something that should have been made very clear immediately, and if the judge was smart he probably should have excused himself from the case, just to deny Prop 8's supporters that very argument.

It's not like the Pro-Prop 8 people would be silent if a straight judge ruled it unconstitutional.  It would have been easy to just pass it off to a less controversial judge who could give the same ruling without any hint of a conflict of interest.  Coulda/woulda/shoulda I Guess.  Now we get weeks of boring legal news stories dragging the issue out.

Are you actually making the asinine comparison between a gay person ruling on a gay rights case and comparing it to a KKK member??  Is this the asinine leap in logic the right has?? 

Only those who are straight can rule on gay rights cases??  Only men can rule on discrimination cases against women??  Only whites can rule on discrimination cases against blacks??  Is this the bizarre level you want us to go down??

I wonder, do you think your argument is strengthed by using two question marks all the time?