Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld

[Gerald]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a gay judge's ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage ban, noting that his fellow jurist could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he was in a long-term relationship with another man.

In a 19-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker had no obligation to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Ware called it the first case in which a judge's same-sex relationship had led to calls for disqualification. He said there probably were similar struggles when race and gender were the issues.

The ruling does not settle the legal fight over Proposition 8. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether Walker properly concluded that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violates their rights to due process and equal protection.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011...l.html?_r=1&hp


Note: Published: June 14, 2011 at 5:04 PM

[gimpy117]

why was this a big deal anyways? why can't we just stay out of other people's business?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

why can't we just stay out of other people's business?

[vienna]

why was this a big deal anyways? why can't we just stay out of other people's business?

Just another effort by those who beileve that all should believe what they believe. In other places, they would be called ayatollahs, etc. The group fighting to overturn the decision against the constituionality of Propositon 8 [or The Marrige Protection Act, as they like to call it] filed an appeal because the judge who overturned the act was revealed to be gay and in a long term [10 years] relationship. They contended the judge, since he was gay nad in a relationship, stood to gain by overturn of the act, should he decide to marry his partner in the future. They also contend he should have recused himself from the case to begin with. (The judge, by the way, is now retired from the bench, a action he was going to take long before he overturned the act.)

When Prop. 8 was ruled unconstitional, the Attorney-General could have filed an appeal, but deemed it was a waste of time and effort. The Governor could have ordered the Attorney-General to file an appeal anyway, but he, too, saw no point in doing so. According to California law, they are the only two who can, legally, file an appeal on behalf of the state. That's when the fundmentalist christian group jumped in, filing an appeal "on behalf of California citizens" claiming the Governor and Attorney-General failed in their sworn duty to uphold the law, even though the Governor and Attorney-General have the discretion, under law, to decide whether to to appeal a ruling or not. The fundamentalists' appeal was turned down in state courts and then they appealed to the Federal Court. The Federal appeals court turned the matter back to the state court and noted that there was a real doubt the fundamentalists had any standing to file the appeal in the first place. So now the state court must determine if there is any real validity to the appeal and the fundamentalist right or statnding to file an appeal; then it might get back to the Federal Court. What the fundametalists are trying to do now, having lost at every turn thus far, is to void any prior decision by making wild claims of bias. What they have succeeded at is wasting time, effort and tax money on a case they cannot win.

What the world needs is less of people who care about what goes on in peoples bedrooms and more of those who care about what goes on in the boardrooms. If the gays want to get married, let them share the tribulations the rest of us share. If the fundamentalists are so concerned about the "preservation" of marriage, let the states cease to issue "marriage" licenses and only certify "civil unions" as a form of legal social contract between two people. If, afterward, the couple wish to stage a marriage, then let them in their on way. IIRC, England had, or maybe still has, the custom of registering a civil union [official in the eyes of the government] but does not, technically, marry or endorse the marriage. Couples, after registering, can then have whatever religious or otherwise ceremony they wish. This seems to me to be a fair, non-religious method of action.

[Platapus]

If a gay judge needs to recuse him or herself from a case that involves gay marriage, than heterosexual judges would need to recuse themselves from cases involving heterosexual marriage.

But, of course that does not make sense. The sexuality of a judge should not have any effect on their ability to judge cases.

If a heterosexual judge can be presumed to be able to judge a case involving heterosexuals, why would not a homosexual judge be presumed to be able to judge a case involving homosexuals?

[Buddahaid]

Don't confuse the issue with logic and sense.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Platapus

If a heterosexual judge can be presumed to be able to judge a case involving heterosexuals, why would not a homosexual judge be presumed to be able to judge a case involving homosexuals?

Because the gay ones have an AGENDA, duh.


Believe me, I know it exists. I've been trying to get "Take Frau Kaleun to the Tony Awards" added to it for years.