Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Ifreann]

I'm still trying to find out exactly when & where Vaughn Walker said he was gay.

Apparently it's common knowledge. Ironically, he was once accused of insensitivity towards gays.

Apparently it was common knowledge that back in her college days, Whitney Houston was a lesbian. I know this is true because a friend of one of my friends told me so.

I see how this works.

I wasn't trying to say it's true because lots of people think it, only that it seems to be something lots of people think, rather than some crackpot insisting he must be gay because of how he ruled.

[Drachmar]

I'm still trying to find out exactly when & where Vaughn Walker said he was gay.

Apparently it's common knowledge. Ironically, he was once accused of insensitivity towards gays.

Apparently it was common knowledge that back in her college days, Whitney Houston was a lesbian. I know this is true because a friend of one of my friends told me so.

I see how this works.

I wasn't trying to say it's true because lots of people think it, only that it seems to be something lots of people think, rather than some crackpot insisting he must be gay because of how he ruled.

No, I wasn't taking a dig at you. I'm simply saying that because someone writes a blog, writes an article, or updates a wiki page that says Vaughn Walker is gay, doesn't mean he is. Apparently that's what this boils down to.

Rumors have circulated for months that Walker is gay, fueled by the blogosphere and a San Francisco Chronicle column that stated his sexual orientation was an "open secret" in legal and gay activism circles.

Source: huffingtonpost.com

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/prop-8-judge-vaughn-walker-gay-does-it-even-matter-2648119.html

I'm not trying to be a douche.

[Lelouche]

The only thing that makes marriage a "right" is legal precedent. which is the judicial equivalent of "Because I said so"
Marriage rights are entirely arbitrary
that might be sufficient for you
but not for me.

Which is disingenuous, hypocritical, and/or untrue for you to say.

You've previously declared the U.S. Constitution an instrument of tyranny and said you didn't care what it said.

So where do rights come from that is "sufficient for you" that is not (1) arbitrary and/or (2) based on "might makes right" but is based on neither natural law nor social contract?

How do we know what these rights are and how do we protect/enforce them in civilized society?

the first sentence is pure opinion, and an untrue one at that.

Rights come for individual sovereignty, surrendering that sovereignty to the state voids ones right, because it gives the state ultimate authority to enforce them. and they are just as likely to take them as they are to enforce them.

You are under the false impression that society is civilized, when ultimately it is comprised of authoritarians, the whole concept of the states right to enforce, and their monopoly on force and violence, is based on (2) "Might Makes Right"

Society is uncivilized, the state is a brutal instrument of oppression that has tricked the masses into believing they need it to exist.

[The Rich Port]

the first sentence is pure opinion, and an untrue one at that.

Rights come for individual sovereignty, surrendering that sovereignty to the state voids ones right, because it gives the state ultimate authority to enforce them. and they are just as likely to take them as they are to enforce them.

You are under the false impression that society is civilized, when ultimately it is comprised of authoritarians, the whole concept of the states right to enforce, and their monopoly on force and violence, is based on (2) "Might Makes Right"

Society is uncivilized, the state is a brutal instrument of oppression that has tricked the masses into believing they need it to exist.

... Firstly, you countered an opinion with an opinion.

Secondly, true, rights come from individual sovereignty... Which is why I don't understand your dislike of the government, and your jumbling understanding of social contract. The government was created to stop people from being vicious to one another, according to Hobbes. The only thing is oppressing is uncivilized society... So you're either arguing against a good thing or you're supporting a bad thing.

If "Might Makes Right", then there would have to be a government either way. Some people have no protection whatsoever. In the end, it doesn't make sense to disband the government because then national unity disintegrates; by disintegrate, I mean becomes harder to coordinate, rather than "everyone starts hating everybody"...

You're contradicting yourself, Lelouche, seriously. My head spun just thinking about it.

[The Black Forrest]

The only thing that makes marriage a "right" is legal precedent. which is the judicial equivalent of "Because I said so"
Marriage rights are entirely arbitrary
that might be sufficient for you
but not for me.

Which is disingenuous, hypocritical, and/or untrue for you to say.

You've previously declared the U.S. Constitution an instrument of tyranny and said you didn't care what it said.

So where do rights come from that is "sufficient for you" that is not (1) arbitrary and/or (2) based on "might makes right" but is based on neither natural law nor social contract?

How do we know what these rights are and how do we protect/enforce them in civilized society?

the first sentence is pure opinion, and an untrue one at that.

Rights come for individual sovereignty, surrendering that sovereignty to the state voids ones right, because it gives the state ultimate authority to enforce them. and they are just as likely to take them as they are to enforce them.

You are under the false impression that society is civilized, when ultimately it is comprised of authoritarians, the whole concept of the states right to enforce, and their monopoly on force and violence, is based on (2) "Might Makes Right"

Society is uncivilized, the state is a brutal instrument of oppression that has tricked the masses into believing they need it to exist.

So if we eliminate the police; we will have a civilized people?

[The Rich Port]

So if we eliminate the police; we will have a civilized people?

It was hard for me to realize, too. But he contradicts himself. First, he states:

You are under the false impression that society is civilized, when ultimately it is comprised of authoritarians

And then he says:

the state is a brutal instrument of oppression that has tricked the masses into believing they need it to exist

[Lelouche]

The only thing that makes marriage a "right" is legal precedent. which is the judicial equivalent of "Because I said so"
Marriage rights are entirely arbitrary
that might be sufficient for you
but not for me.

Which is disingenuous, hypocritical, and/or untrue for you to say.

You've previously declared the U.S. Constitution an instrument of tyranny and said you didn't care what it said.

So where do rights come from that is "sufficient for you" that is not (1) arbitrary and/or (2) based on "might makes right" but is based on neither natural law nor social contract?

How do we know what these rights are and how do we protect/enforce them in civilized society?

the first sentence is pure opinion, and an untrue one at that.

Rights come for individual sovereignty, surrendering that sovereignty to the state voids ones right, because it gives the state ultimate authority to enforce them. and they are just as likely to take them as they are to enforce them.

You are under the false impression that society is civilized, when ultimately it is comprised of authoritarians, the whole concept of the states right to enforce, and their monopoly on force and violence, is based on (2) "Might Makes Right"

Society is uncivilized, the state is a brutal instrument of oppression that has tricked the masses into believing they need it to exist.

So if we eliminate the police; we will have a civilized people?

No
But I won't support collective tyranny anymore then you would support individual tyranny
A single man robbing is a unfortunate
A state robbing you is a tragedy

[Lelouche]

Secondly, true, rights come from individual sovereignty... Which is why I don't understand your dislike of the government, and your jumbling understanding of social contract. The government was created to stop people from being vicious to one another, according to Hobbes. The only thing is oppressing is uncivilized society... So you're either arguing against a good thing or you're supporting a bad thing.

I never signed that contract, it was created before I was born, and was simply assumed that I would accept it like my parents before me
I do not accept it, yet I am held to it anyways regardless

I'm arguing that Government is a bad thing, on the grounds that is as oppressive, if not more oppressive then the uncivilized people who inhabit

Collective Tyranny is the single most dangerous force to the survival of humanity, So long as any single person is oppressed by any government anywhere, that government does not deserve to exist.

And I have yet to see a government that is not guilty

[DaWoad]

this isn't a thread about libertarianism or anarchy. Cease and desist with the threadjack.

[The Rich Port]

Secondly, true, rights come from individual sovereignty... Which is why I don't understand your dislike of the government, and your jumbling understanding of social contract. The government was created to stop people from being vicious to one another, according to Hobbes. The only thing is oppressing is uncivilized society... So you're either arguing against a good thing or you're supporting a bad thing.

I never signed that contract, it was created before I was born, and was simply assumed that I would accept it like my parents before me
I do not accept it, yet I am held to it anyways regardless

I'm arguing that Government is a bad thing, on the grounds that is as oppressive, if not more oppressive then the uncivilized people who inhabit

Collective Tyranny is the single most dangerous force to the survival of humanity, So long as any single person is oppressed by any government anywhere, that government does not deserve to exist.

And I have yet to see a government that is not guilty

Um... You do realize social contract isn't an actual contract, right?

It's a sociological construct, a part of human social and psychological reflex.

And DaWoad is right. Once again: I'd like to thank you for steering me down the good path of accepting and approving of Prop. 8.

[Grave_n_idle]

The right to fair and impartial resolutions.

Your own wording: "When the people do get a chance to vote on something and their voice is ignored by a biased judge...rights have been stripped."

What was the relevance of people voting?

There is no 'right' that says you can choose to vote out someone else's constitutional rights.

I care that a judge who was homosexual was allowed to rule on a case that he had a definite and clear personal bias towards. Would a gay judge ban gay marriage? Maybe. Probably not.

Wait... your evidence that there was no fair and impartial resolution... was that the judge might be gay, and - as such - YOU'VE decided the resolution couldn't be fair?

What about all the Christians in the country that are discussing religious issues? Are they all incapable of being fair and impartial?

Or is it just homosexuals that can't be trusted?

[Ryadn]

I would really love to know if Ashas Favor has read the ruling...

Yes...

Once again...

My problem is not with the ruling, it is with the course used to get to it.

But does the ruling show any evidence of bias? If so, where? If not, why is this an issue?

*sigh*

Once again...the ruling can and has been viewed as "partial" (Sorry about the impartial mixup, we are all human) and can potentially harm the reputation of a reputable Judge. This can be seen as being very close to corruption due to the nature of the individuals involved in the final decision making process. This is dangerous because it can lead to further decisions being made like this that put the personal character of judges in this nation in question...therefore creating a feeling of mass corruption in our Government. Just not a road we need to tread down.

You don't follow Supreme Court Nominations very closely, do you?

The opposing side will ALWAYS try to draw someone's character into question, no matter who the opposing side on a given issue happens to be. That's just a given in our society. That you choose to buy into it is your problem. If something like Roe v. Wade comes before SCOTUS again, I don't expect the female Justices to recuse themselves because their girlie bits might bias them toward thinking that individuals have the right to control their own bodies. Sorry. Straight old white men do not have a monopoly on the Constitution just because other straight old white men wrote it.

[The Rich Port]

You don't follow Supreme Court Nominations very closely, do you?

The opposing side will ALWAYS try to draw someone's character into question, no matter who the opposing side on a given issue happens to be. That's just a given in our society. That you choose to buy into it is your problem. If something like Roe v. Wade comes before SCOTUS again, I don't expect the female Justices to recuse themselves because their girlie bits might bias them toward thinking that individuals have the right to control their own bodies. Sorry. Straight old white men do not have a monopoly on the Constitution just because other straight old white men wrote it.

I get the feeling the straight old white men who wrote it would disagree with the straight old white men who think it should remain unchanged except to stop gays from marrying.

[DrVenkman]

The right to fair and impartial resolutions.

Your own wording: "When the people do get a chance to vote on something and their voice is ignored by a biased judge...rights have been stripped."

What was the relevance of people voting?

There is no 'right' that says you can choose to vote out someone else's constitutional rights.

Just wanted to throw in that rights can be voted out through a constitutional amendment. States, whether by legislature or by voting populace, can't vote down constitutionally protected rights, just as you said.

[Muravyets]

Its incredible how worked up people get over something that doesn't affect them in the least. lol. I happen to have a gay cousin (I know, who doesn't right?) who is now married 'officially' again. Whether Prop 8 was or was not in effect, it didn't affect me in the slightest. Though I have to admit all the bigotry being expressed here does make me a bit ashamed to think that we share the same species. C'est la vie, someday all people will be enlightened. Just not this one.

Its not that it doesnt effect them. Christians beleive this country belongs to them. Which really is not the case. Even as a practicing Christian myself, I understand the secular nature of this country.

However, if I am asked to vote, and expected to go agaisnt my moral conscience, I got news for you..

How is it your moral conscience? I recall Jesus saying "Judge not lest ye be judged." This means, from my interpretation, that you have absolutely no right to tell anyone how to live, and if you're doing the right thing you will get your rewards and they will get theirs when the lord judges them. It is not, and never will be, your place to make moral judgments and impair peoples' free will, unless you want to rewrite the bible you hold so dear.

It is also said "hate the sin, Love the sinner." I do not hate them as people in the slightest. Nor do I however condone their lifestyle. And if I'm asked to vote on the issue, whether I support gay marriage or not, it will have to be no. Because my moral code tells me its wrong. But if I am outvoted then hey to the victor go the spoils.

Why do you think it is your place to force other people to behave in a way that pleases you?

Again, read where its says, If I'm asked to vote on this issue. Are you implying that I should vote against what I believe in because it might offend somepeople? I mean really?

Fortunately, you don't have to vote on this because the rights of people under the law are not and should never be put to a vote of other people. The judge in this case knew that, so you should be glad he relieved you of any burden of having to choose between following you morals and not being a dick toward fellow citizens.

That being said I want to rephrase my arguement cause I'm Giving you the wrong impression. I don't believe gays should be able to marry, in the religious sence, because thats a clear violation of my religion. However I would be in favor that of a law that defines mariage under secular law, but allows for people to get married in a church or a court house. Such a law doesnt violate my religion but infact supports it. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars, give to God what is God's."

Then Rejoice!! Because what you describe is a thing known as The Status Quo, meaning that is exactly what marriage law is right this very minute all over the US. The only question is, do some people get to single out a specific minority whom they don't like for personal reasons to be stripped of the right to marry and gain the legal benefits and protections of marriage under the secular laws of the secularly governed states in which they live, a matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion?

[Muravyets]

Kind of like when a juror for a court case is asked not to watch the news or read the newspaper because it may create an impartial judgement or a clouded view that they would not have originally had. Maybe they were swayed by the newspaper.

Better yet, when jurors are selected for a child molestation case; if the defense determines that a juror was molested as a child and may rule without taking evidence into consideration due to a clouded view or some sort of retribution, they will remove that juror. This is because the decision needs to be impartial.

When a homosexual judge is allowed to rule on a homosexual resolution; whether the judge is biased or not (following the constitution) he should not be allowed to rule to be sure that his integrity could not be questioned on the basis of his ruling.

1. Until you at least try to answer your substantive critics--let alone my post--your babbling amounts to little more than an annoying buzz.

2. There is a procedure for removing a judge who may be impartial in much the same way one would remove a juror who may be impartial. Not only did the defenders of Prop. 8 not challenge Chief Judge Walker's impartiality, they affirmatively said his sexual orientation was not an issue. Any bitching now is sour grapes.

3. Why is Prop. 8 a "homosexual resolution" about which a homosexual is biased? Given that it was funded and voted for overwhelmingly by Christians, why isn't it a "Christian resolution"? Why isn't it a "marriage resolution" of concern to everyone regardless of sexual orientation? Better yet, why isn't it about liberty, equal protection under the law, and the freakin' U.S. Constitution?

I have repeatedly stated my case, and I will let you know that I am right.

I'm sorry, but no, merely repeating a thoroughly ignorant and debunked claim over and over and informing others that you are right about it, does not make you right. About anything.

The impression of being impartial is just as dangerous as being impartial. I am not saying he was impartial. I am saying it is easily viewed as impartial and hence that is a problem. I should not have to answer your tired rhetorical questions and I will not waste my time doing so either. Your rhetoric is old and tired. If you do not see that this ruling creates a precedent that could damage the integrity of a very respectful judge, that is your failure.

Um...you do realize that "impartial" is what we DO want in our judges, right?

And I've been reading your posts all along, and if not being able to buy into your hysterical fantasies about wholesale bias ruining our courts, while you pointedly ignore the actual facts of the matter, including the fact that this ruling is not the last word in the matter, is a failure on my part, then I guess I'll just have to live with that failure to be gullible.

[Muravyets]

Kind of like when a juror for a court case is asked not to watch the news or read the newspaper because it may create an impartial judgement or a clouded view that they would not have originally had. Maybe they were swayed by the newspaper.

Better yet, when jurors are selected for a child molestation case; if the defense determines that a juror was molested as a child and may rule without taking evidence into consideration due to a clouded view or some sort of retribution, they will remove that juror. This is because the decision needs to be impartial.

When a homosexual judge is allowed to rule on a homosexual resolution; whether the judge is biased or not (following the constitution) he should not be allowed to rule to be sure that his integrity could not be questioned on the basis of his ruling.

1. Until you at least try to answer your substantive critics--let alone my post--your babbling amounts to little more than an annoying buzz.

2. There is a procedure for removing a judge who may be impartial in much the same way one would remove a juror who may be impartial. Not only did the defenders of Prop. 8 not challenge Chief Judge Walker's impartiality, they affirmatively said his sexual orientation was not an issue. Any bitching now is sour grapes.

3. Why is Prop. 8 a "homosexual resolution" about which a homosexual is biased? Given that it was funded and voted for overwhelmingly by Christians, why isn't it a "Christian resolution"? Why isn't it a "marriage resolution" of concern to everyone regardless of sexual orientation? Better yet, why isn't it about liberty, equal protection under the law, and the freakin' U.S. Constitution?

I have repeatedly stated my case, and I will let you know that I am right. The impression of being impartial is just as dangerous as being impartial. I am not saying he was impartial. I am saying it is easily viewed as impartial and hence that is a problem. I should not have to answer your tired rhetorical questions and I will not waste my time doing so either. Your rhetoric is old and tired. If you do not see that this ruling creates a precedent that could damage the integrity of a very respectful judge, that is your failure.

Old and tired is code for not having a tenable answer?

My statements are a good enough answer...

I can play the question game too, see how tiring and annoying this is for you.

1. What right has been taken from the GLBT community?

The right to marry. Were you not aware that's what we've been talking about?

2. The GLBT community...are they a race? Since clearly every single time something is brought up about "homosexual rights", the civil rights movement is brought up, that is laughable.

They are a segment of the population, just like the races are segments of the population. All citizens have civil rights, and the law does not permit said rights to be stripped from any citizen for any arbitrary reason, whether that arbitrary reason is the person's race, or their gender, or their age, or their sexual orientation, etc.

3. Since when does the GLBT community get minority rights, as a minority myself...that is a bit peculiar.

Because they are a minority.

4. I say we make people with blue eyes a minority, simply because apparently I can...who is with me?

No one who thinks about what you say.

See how silly those questions are? They all pertain to the subject, but they are just downright silly.

lol

They are the silliest nonsense I've ever seen, and I resent that you took up our time with them.

[Siorafrica]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

LOGIC AND REASON DIDN'T WIN, HOMOSEXUALS WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

[Muravyets]

I would really love to know if Ashas Favor has read the ruling...

Yes...

Once again...

My problem is not with the ruling, it is with the course used to get to it.

And what terrible course was this?

They let a gay guy be a judge.

[Muravyets]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

[North Suran]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

LOGIC AND REASON DIDN'T WIN, HOMOSEXUALS WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

I love it how your font is pink-purple.

[Unchecked Expansion]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

LOGIC AND REASON DIDN'T WIN, HOMOSEXUALS WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

I love it how your font is pink-purple.

My roller skates are pink and purple...

More to the point, I read part of the decision. The plaintiffs had logical evidence, the proponents were not even capable of presenting their own evidence correctly. Logic and reason prevailed

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

LOGIC AND REASON DIDN'T WIN, HOMOSEXUALS WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

Cut the smiley spam, and the colored text - not to mention the allcaps hage, thanks.

[Ifreann]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

[Ashas Favor]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog in the fight unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.