Prop 8 over turned in CA

[SparrowHawk]

Slavery was always against the law so to speak it just took a long time to get to the point where there was a court willing to do the right thing. My understanding is that there is still an uncertainty of how the court will rule. Scalia has said in not so uncertain terms that he does not see any constitutional support for prop 8 or laws like it how ever that is not to say he will vote that way. There are 3 definite votes against and 4 definite for equal rights. The question is about the swing vote (Kennedy) and how Scalia will vote. There is angst about going before the court due to the finality of their decision. The prop 8 case may or may not go before the SCOTUS depending upon how the CA supreme court rules on standing.

Well if you're so certain your position is true and correct going before the SCOTUS should be a no brainer. Nuff said.

Keep saying it. It still is not true. Gays ore not looking for special rights (a law saying they have the right to mary). They are seeking to have the laws that prohibit them from getting married struck down. No special rights are being sought. Equal rights under the 14th amendment are being sought. There are no gay marriage rights be sought. None. Nada. How ever there is a law(s) that prohibit gays from being married.

If this statement is true why is there fear (as stated above) If you're right how could you lose? Laws against gay marriage are NOT at the federal level. If gay right are affirmed at the Federal level, it would mean that it would be legal for a gay man to get a hummer in those 26 states but not for me as a hetero male. So you stick with your story. I'll go so far as to wager you have no earthly idea as to why those 26 states keep those laws on the books.

How is slavery and the abolition of it not equal rights?

Because it was only half the equation. The activities and case law of the 50's did demonstrate that there was more ground to cover in the march toward equality. IMO the Tuskegee Airmen was the beginning of Round two in the battle for equality. Real problem was the gap between 1865 to 1940

Given the reaction of the folks in Little Rock I believe the legislation was definitely required and long over due. And much for the better in my opinion.

I just don't know on this one.

 

[Ms Tree]

Plessy v Ferguson. Just because it violates the COTUS is no guarantee that the court will do the right thing.

They keep the laws on the books because there has been no federal case confirming the rights of all citizens to get married. If oral sex is illegal in a state it is illegal for all people married or not, not just gays or heteros so your argument falls flat. Those laws are a violation of the COTUS for the same reason the sodomy laws were.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex.

Perhaps this will address your question about where marriage is allowed in law.

Wiki link
it is a basic legal principle under the common and statutory laws that everything that is not forbidden by the common and statutory law is allowed

Since there are no laws prohibiting marriage (except for gays) then it is legal.

 

[SparrowHawk]

OK, I agree!!! Let's go back to English Common Law going forward from the Magna Carta. I like that idea.

I can own my wife as property!!!

Indentured Servants? No Problem

Debtors Prisons, My old boss owes me $22,000 in commission, now I can put the B*stard in jail.

Witch Hunts!

Absolute Authority of the Church over day to day living.

The interesting thing gays back then were likely to be executed under English Common Law.


All of the above is fine and dandy with you just so long as it's legal for two Rump Wranglers to be married? Oh let's not forget the Rug Munchers. We would want the Lesbians to feel left out.

You win! Let's turn back the clock. How far? 1260? 1492? You pick, I'm with you all the way.

Hey we sure have come a long way, We don't outlaw being gay but Jesus Christ on a Popsicle Stick let a pastor lead a prayer at a ceremony honoring war veterans. Then there will be Hell to pay. Wonder if it would be OK for the pastor to pray at the service if he were openly gay and his partner assisted in the prayer?

 

[Ms Tree]

What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about turning the clock back. If that's how you interpreted what I said I obviously was not clear and I apologize. I read what I posted and I do not see where your post came from.

I have argued for equal rights for all. Never have I argued for the loss of rights for others.

By the way, gay equality/rights encompasses both male and females. It's a universal thing from what I understand.

 

[delldude]

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last year throwing out the ballot measure should itself be overturned because the judge didn't reveal his relationship, attorney Charles Cooper said.

Walker's 10-year relationship, which he publicly confirmed only after leaving the bench, was "a fact critically relevant to his interest in the case," Cooper declared during a nearly three-hour hearing in San Francisco.

Before presiding over the Proposition 8 trial in January 2010, Walker should have revealed his relationship and declared whether he intended to marry his partner, said Cooper, who represents backers of the November 2008 initiative outlawing such marriages.

Recuse?

 

[Ms Tree]

What makes a straight judge more able to be impartial over gay marriage than a gay judge? Would a hero judge be less likely to want to protect the hero bastion of marriage? Should a female judge not be allowed to sit on a woman's right case such as sexual harassment or reproductive rights? Should a black judge not be allowed to sit on any cases regarding race?

The judges private life is not relevant to the case.

 

[delldude]

What makes a straight judge more able to be impartial over gay marriage than a gay judge? Would a hero judge be less likely to want to protect the hero bastion of marriage? Should a female judge not be allowed to sit on a woman's right case such as sexual harassment or reproductive rights? Should a black judge not be allowed to sit on any cases regarding race?

The judges private life is not relevant to the case.

Happens everyday, judges recusing themselves so there isn't any hint of an unbiased opinion to be exploited in appeal.

Dude, you're so off the mark it isn't even funny.

The dude ' just forgot to mention it' and look where its going.....LOL

 

[Ms Tree]

You are avoiding the question. What makes a straight judge who might be motivated to save marriage less biased han judge who is vaya whonwouldwant to legalize marriage? How does that apply to the other examples I gave?

Who has the right to sit on a abortion case? Women's right case? Just because a person is part of the case does not mean they need to recuse.

The only folks who are bringing up their sexuality are those who hate guys. The appeal of his decision does not say anything about his sexuality unless they amended the appeal as of late. The only thing the supreme court is deciding is standing.

 

[delldude]

You are avoiding the question. What makes a straight judge who might be motivated to save marriage less biased han judge who is vaya whonwouldwant to legalize marriage? How does that apply to the other examples I gave?

Who has the right to sit on a abortion case? Women's right case? Just because a person is part of the case does not mean they need to recuse.

The only folks who are bringing up their sexuality are those who hate guys. The appeal of his decision does not say anything about his sexuality unless they amended the appeal as of late. The only thing the supreme court is deciding is standing.

Just happened to "Oh, by the way, I got a male lover" after he retired....WTF wrong with admitting it then?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Ron Paul had a VERY interesting comment on this last night on the debates regarding the whole Gay Marriage "thing"

I'm paraphrasing but here's how it went.

"Groups don't have rights, individuals have rights! Look up the definition of marriage, it should be handled by the churches, I don't know why you have to pay a government for a marriage license?"

Statements like this just warm my heart frankly. He also got a pretty good round of applause

 

[delldude]

You are avoiding the question. What makes a straight judge who might be motivated to save marriage less biased han judge who is vaya whonwouldwant to legalize marriage? How does that apply to the other examples I gave?

Who has the right to sit on a abortion case? Women's right case? Just because a person is part of the case does not mean they need to recuse.

The only folks who are bringing up their sexuality are those who hate guys. The appeal of his decision does not say anything about his sexuality unless they amended the appeal as of late. The only thing the supreme court is deciding is standing.

A Solid Answer

 

[Ms Tree]

No answer so you post that piece garbage?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Allow me to answer.

I have posts on various threads on various topics that the only thing worse than impropriety is the APPEARANCE of Impropriety.

I think an openly gay judge is capable of rendering a fair verdict according to the law. Just as an Black Judge can be impartial when deciding the fate of Black defendants.

Where this particular judge is on at best shaky ground is a failure to disclose his relationship. It makes what may well be a fair, impartial and correct verdict suspect. It frankly IMO does the entire gay community a disservice and now a certain group of people majority or otherwise who will always be critical of the decision no matter the fairness.

Should there be a re-trial? I think it would be in the best interests of justice if there were, not because another judge may rule differently, rather the hope would be that the verdict would be the same.

Judges are human, they allow all manner of personal beliefs influence their decisions, gay/straight is but one. The guidelines for a Judge to Recuse him/herself need to be clarified across the board.

 

[delldude]

No answer so you post that piece garbage?

My Muslim friends point to the finer aspects of Sharia law......

 

[Ms Tree]

Allow me to answer.

I have posts on various threads on various topics that the only thing worse than impropriety is the APPEARANCE of Impropriety.

I think an openly gay judge is capable of rendering a fair verdict according to the law. Just as an Black Judge can be impartial when deciding the fate of Black defendants.

Where this particular judge is on at best shaky ground is a failure to disclose his relationship. It makes what may well be a fair, impartial and correct verdict suspect. It frankly IMO does the entire gay community a disservice and now a certain group of people majority or otherwise who will always be critical of the decision no matter the fairness.

Should there be a re-trial? I think it would be in the best interests of justice if there were, not because another judge may rule differently, rather the hope would be that the verdict would be the same.

Judges are human, they allow all manner of personal beliefs influence their decisions, gay/straight is but one. The guidelines for a Judge to Recuse him/herself need to be clarified across the board.

I guess the judge did not agree with you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0614/Prop.-8-ruling-gay-judge-didn-t-need-to-recuse-himself