Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California, page 4


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:04 PM by Homedawg
reply to post by Adamanteus


You're welcome...sometimes an argument,or "point" is put forth that is so absurd that onlt a baseline,radian answer will suffice....


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:04 PM by centurion1211
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by centurion1211

Ah but that argument fails, as many people tend to forget the other part of that ruling that was made by that judge. He put a hold on the law, preventing it from taking effect, thus he could not benefit from the law, even if he was so inclined. And another judge upheld that judges ruling, agreeing with the opinion. So where is the judge having any benefit from such? He does not get any of such.


Unless, of course, the two judges had it all worked it out ahead of time. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

Quite clever of them if they did ...


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:10 PM by Avenginggecko
reply to post by centurion1211


Let's say interracial marriage was illegal in Texas and a lawsuit challenging it went to a Federal Court. Do you believe that if an African American judge who was in an interracial relationship was on the panel that they should recuse themselves because they could benefit from ruling in one way?

Here's another example:

A female judge in California is married to a famous celebrity without a pre-nup. Should she recuse herself if she is ruling on marriage rights within California just because the possibility exists that she could greatly profit from their divorce if she rules one way in the case?

What about a single judge? Should they recuse themselves because they could possibly benefit by entering into a marriage contract with their neighbor of the same sex?

Should judges that are elected to office on the state level recuse themselves from state finance cases because they could materially benefit?

Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds? Judges would never be able to rule on cases because someone, somewhere could find a way to say the judge is prejudicial in some form or fashion.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:11 PM by sdcigarpig
reply to post by centurion1211

But did you even read any of the opinions on such? And they are very interesting reads right now. Do you know that the ruling today, what it was about? It was about the very rules that both sides agreed on, and now the side that lost is upset and wants to change the rules. That is what it was about, and they included the part about the Judge being gay as part of the complaint filed. The other judge looked and said no, you agreed to these rules and the ruling will remain, until all is said and done. That means that until this clears all points in the courts and a final decision, the rules have to remain in place. Well now it looks like the losing side is upset for having to abide by the very rules it agreed to. How is that judicial misconduct?


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:15 PM by Adamanteus
Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Adamanteus


You're welcome...sometimes an argument,or "point" is put forth that is so absurd that onlt a baseline,radian answer will suffice....


The point that someone can love more than one person is absurd? Well I guess I can only love one of my parents or one of my children at a time then.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:17 PM by centurion1211
Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by centurion1211


Let's say interracial marriage was illegal in Texas and a lawsuit challenging it went to a Federal Court. Do you believe that if an African American judge who was in an interracial relationship was on the panel that they should recuse themselves because they could benefit from ruling in one way?


Yes.

Here's another example:

A female judge in California is married to a famous celebrity without a pre-nup. Should she recuse herself if she is ruling on marriage rights within California just because the possibility exists that she could greatly profit from their divorce if she rules one way in the case?


Yes.

I picked those examples to respond to because they are closest to the gay marriage iissue.

Simply ask yourself these questions. What if you were on the "other side" in any of those cases, would you be concerned about the judges impartiality then? If yes, then why not now?

What if the judge in the gay marriage case was a "born again Christian" and ruled against, would you still be saying there was no impartiality issue?

You have to admit that it wold have been much better if the judge HAD been a born again Christian, or at least a straight person. This judge HAD to know they would be a lightning rod for controversy, so HAD to know they should step back. But WHY didn't he? Could it be that it was too important a decision personally to risk letting another judge possibly make the opposite decision?

Again, try not to let your own personal bias influence your thinking on legal issues.
edit on 6/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 07:39 PM by arbitrarygeneraiist
Originally posted by leo123
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee


Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!



The argument is not about being gay or straight.

It is about equal rights.


What about my right not to have the institution of marriage cheapened?

Because that is exactly what allowing gays to marry does to the institution of marriage.
edit on 14-6-2011 by leo123 because: (no reason given)


Tell that to the drunk man and the hooker who get married by Elvis after a wild night in Vegas. Then you can come back and tell me that marriage isn't already cheapened.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 08:14 PM by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Annee


My post was just in response to the poster who said that gay marriage would cheapen the institution of marriage in general. I sought to disprove that claim by making an example about how marriage was already cheap.

The only excuse that people can use to justify a stance against gay marriage is to make the claim that it opens the doors to such things as incestuous marriages and polygamy. Which it would.
edit on 14-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 08:31 PM by Adamanteus
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist




The only excuse that people can use to justify a stance against gay marriage is to make the claim that it opens the doors to such things as incestuous marriages and polygamy. Which it would.


25 states allow 1st cousins to marry (5 times more than allow gay marriage) and ALL states allow 2nd cousins to marry. Seems like the Door is WIDE open on incestuous marriage already.
www.cousincouples.com...

Who cares if more than two people (polygamists) enter into a legally binding contract together?
edit on 14-6-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 08:37 PM by sdcigarpig
Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Annee


My post was just in response to the poster who said that gay marriage would cheapen the institution of marriage in general. I sought to disprove that claim by making an example about how marriage was already cheap.

The only excuse that people can use to justify a stance against gay marriage is to make the claim that it opens the doors to such things as incestuous marriages and polygamy. Which it would.
edit on 14-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

Can we get some proof on that? After all if the claim is that gay marriage would open the doors to incestuous marriages and polygamy, then there has to be actual precident that states such that can be examined before all.
Ultimately the issue here is not about gay marriage rather it is about social change in the dynamic of society where one groups feels threatened and is wanting to prohibit another group from exercising the same rights. It is like a an ox being called a bull. He is grateful for the term, but would rather have restored what is rightfully his in the first place.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 09:08 PM by Bhadhidar
This whole matter is NOT about whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong".

Nor is it about whether a "Gay" marriage is somehow detrimental to a millenia's woth of "straight marriages".


Opposition to Proposition 8, At Its Heart raised the issue of whether ALL CITIZENS do, and should, enjoy EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.


We must remember, especially those of us who rail against real and perceived government intrusion upon and (increasing) limitation of, our rights, that we are ALL, potentially at the mercy of those who would seek the means to curtail our freedom to live OUR lives as we wish.


You don't have to be gay to be horrified at the prospect that, one day, in maybe the not too distant future, it may be decided that "Patriots" are dangers to society and need to be denied access to firearms. Or that those who believe that Man is not alone in the universe are somehow psychotic and therefore must be treated with psycho-active drugs, forcibly if need be, to render them "safe".

How many of you, who are against "gay marriage", would be in favor of Christianity being defined as a "threat to the State, and its practice punishable by imprisonment" simply because 51% of the (voting) population deemed it should be so?

Majority rule? Really? (Remember, God knows what's in your True heart. You cannot lie to Him!)


When a mere "majority vote" can deny the basic right of any minority group to live within the protection and benefit of the laws of the land, then the rights, and yes, the very Lives of All the citizens of that land are at dire risk.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^