Having followed this with interest, the first time this was mentioned on ATS, the question remained as to who all had read the judges ruling and opinion in the matter of this case. Not many people had, or cared to, rather looking at the fact that the judge had over turned a law that was the will of the people. But sometimes governing the people wisely means that you have to go against them to uphold the very principles that govern the entire land. He had to weigh the arguments and the evidence of the case, along with giving justifications for his decision. All while keeping his own personal life separate from the trial for which he did. Ultimately those who were charged with defending and fighting for this law dropped the ball, the majority of their witnesses and experts failed to show up in court.
Put yourself in that judges shoes, keep in mind you have to be fair, partial and blind to everything, including the will of the people and judge the case on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented. What would you think if one side did not present any evidence or witnesses to support its claim? Even the Judge was disturbed and thought that it was odd that the witnesses presented to support this law did not show up in court and that the evidence was weak at best. He stated such in his opinion to explain his decision. Questions were asked, but no answers, so he could only rule as any would in favor of those who wanted this law removed. But he put a hold on the law itself, to give the other side time to regroup and fight it out at a higher court, even ignoring all pressure to remove that hold. Funny how that was failed to be mentioned, and if he was to benefit from this law, would he not have foregone putting the hold on the removal of the law, to allow for such to happen? No, he looked to the wise choice of conferring to a higher court to make the final decision. And in this case, another court has confirmed with his original decision and findings in his opinion and thus his ruling will stand.
Now some would say the judge should remove himself from this case cause he is gay, but would that be like telling a Judge of Hispanic descent to remove himself for any immigration case, a female judge to remove herself for sexual harassment cases, and so on. It is not right as long as the judge gives rulings based on the evidence and merits of the arguments, and with the precedent of prior rulings, then it is a fair and balanced ruling.
Many people fail to understand how the court system works, as many judges will go off of similar cases where the issues are either the same or have been ruled on by a higher court to determine what the verdict is. They use precedence to justify their ruling, and then have to record it down for all to read. In short the Justice branch of the federal government can not just do what the other branches do, they have to record and justify the way they rule. No other branch is required to do such.

Originally posted by Annee
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.

You brought it up earlier, but I guess the refuesal to answer speaks volumes. Not that I expected anything else, just like those you oppose, you don't actually believe in equal rigjhts, just for the people you know affected by a cause you are behind.

Originally posted by Homedawg
Why do you say"at this time between two persons"?..Does this imply another further agenda in the works of "more than two people"?

Simply.

To prevent derailing the thread - - beyond its explicit focus.