dizi izle

Conservatives Split on Prop 8 Ruling

August 5th, 2010 at 8:16 am | 50 Comments |

| Print

Judge Vaughn Walker had not even handed down his decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger when the conservative backlash began. Hours before Judge Walker’s decision became public, FoxNews.com ran an editorial by Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard Bradley in which Bradley accuses Judge Walker of letting his personal life (credible sources have reported that Judge Walker is, himself, gay) cloud his judgment in the case.

In the editorial, Bradley writes: “I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trial began.” Specifically, Bradley points to reports that Judge Walker is involved in a stable relationship, and not so subtly wonders whether Judge Walker may himself want to be married.

The editorial, which Fox News displayed prominently on its website with all of its “news coverage” of the Prop 8 decision, rubbed some the wrong way. And not just liberals. When I spoke with Margaret Hoover, a frequent guest on Fox News herself, Hoover ripped into Professor Bradley’s pontifications:

Bradley’s notion that Judge Walker decided the case before the trial is cynical conjecture.  He offers no evidence for why Walker supposedly decided the case before trial, but alludes to rumors of his homosexuality, allowing his reader to infer that Walker couldn’t possibly decide the case fairly because he’s likely gay… For his certainty of Walker’s lack of integrity in deciding this case, Walker provides a rather long list of ‘buts’.

Hoover continued, observing that:

The facts are that Judge Walker has a spotless reputation as a federal judge.  He’s never made any comments, publicly or privately that have been reported or through hearsay, anywhere that suggest he might be unfit to rule in this case….for fun, readers should note that Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by Reagan, then reappointed by George H.W. Bush, because Ted Kennedy and liberals in the Senate blocked his nomination.  It took none other than Strom Thurmond, standing beside him through the nomination process, to force his vote through the Senate.

Ms. Hoover also raised the issue of timing. Why, she wonders, when the trial was argued way back in January, did Professor Bradley not raise his objections then:

Having put forth no evidence, and suggesting only disappointment that the media didn’t talk about Walker’s fitness to rule in this case sooner, I can’t help but wonder why Bradley failed to raise this grave concern before today. If this was a ‘conversation worth having’ why did Bradley himself not raise it sooner?

Hoover concluded by flat out questioning the professor’s motives:

It seems that Bradley’s postulating intends only to cultivate uncertainty with today’s ruling probably amongst religious communities like the one from which he hails, by flirting with some of the most cynical instincts in politics: to discredit upstanding individuals in positions of influence through hearsay and smearing, at any cost.

But while much of the conservative world is busy trying to calculate just how much outrage to feign, at least two groups, the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, seemed to be temporarily satisfied with the outcome. LCR’s Executive Director, R. Clarke Cooper, noted that “the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which secures the freedom to marry for all, speaks to the power of making a conservative case for equality.”

GOProud struck a different tone, but still expressed satisfaction with the decision. In an email, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia told FrumForum that:

As long as the government is in the marriage business it should treat gay couples as equal to their straight counter-parts.  Accordingly, we are pleased with the outcome of the Prop 8 case.

That said, LaSalvia qualified his satisfaction by noting that “As conservatives, however, we continue to have reservations about using the courts to achieve these ends.”

Whatever you take away from the decision, the legal challenge to gay marriage threatens to split the party in half, with its libertarian wing supporting the freedom to marry and social conservatives crying foul. As Margaret Hoover aptly predicted, the two groups will react to today’s decision in very different ways. “Libertarian conservatives who prize individual liberty and freedom will applaud it, social conservatives will resent it.”

Recent Posts by Jeb Golinkin



50 Comments so far ↓

  • HenryAdams

    Let there be no confusion about this: there is NOTHING conservative about supporting judicially-mandated gay marriage. It is a non-negotiable tenet of conservatism that judges should not be making law. If you support this decision on process grounds, there is virtually nothing left of the principled conservative case against judicial activism. Affection for gay marriage and impatience with deliberative democracy is no excuse. Any conservative who isnt’ appalled by this is simply not conservative on this issue. He’s an opportunist who doesn’t believe in the Constitution but in a bundle of policies, attained through whatever means available. Utterly shameful.

  • Kevin B

    HenryAdams, you are confused. Judge Walker did not make a law. He ruled a law to be unconstitutional.

  • Alesandrial

    I somehow doubt he is confused. I suspect it is simply an inconvenient fact that he’d rather ignore because he disagrees with the decision.

    The whole ‘judicial activism’ battle cry has been overused and is almost always inaccurately applied to any decision with which a person disagrees. It is quickly losing its impact. The moment that phrase slips from the lips of a given speaker I begin to tune out and my bullsh*t meter kicks in.

  • JimBob

    There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage!! It is a state issue. Even Obama agrees with that. The people of California voiced their opinion when millions voted for traditional marriage. Now a Federal court has thrown out the will of the people. But why is a Federal court even looking at this case??

  • TAZ

    Any time I hear, or read, “judicial activism” bells and whistles go off in my head and I instinctively dismiss the poster.

    Both sides of the political spectrum have so overused that claim as to render it forever as one of the supreme conversation killers along with Hitler references.

  • Alesandrial

    When the will of the people or the law of any State in the Union is blatantly in violation of any clause of our Constitution, yes Jim, I would have the Federal Courts throw it out. In fact, I am quite under the impression it is what they were intentionally empowered to do by the Founders and I insist that they continue to do so regardless of whether I agree or disagree with any given decision.

  • LFC

    JimBob said… There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage!! It is a state issue. Even Obama agrees with that. The people of California voiced their opinion when millions voted for traditional marriage. Now a Federal court has thrown out the will of the people. But why is a Federal court even looking at this case??

    When “the will of the people” of a given state violates the Constitution, it is the Federal Government’s place to block them. If we don’t have that, then we have 50 nation states. The judge’s findings (VERY well document, BTW) showed that the law violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

    I’d love to hear your opinion of the Supremes ruling on the 2000 Bush/Gore election. The 14th Amendment, which is supposed to be applied to a class of people, was abused for the purposes of putting a single individual into office. In fact, the ruling was SO bad that even the justices who wrote the opinion said the ruling shouldn’t be used as precedence for anything else. Now that’s what I call judicial activism!

  • JimBob

    Where in the constitution does it discuss marriage?? For the life of me I can’t find it. Where the constitution is silent it is left to the states. The state of California decided. This gay judge should have thrown out the case from the very beginning. Once again elite opinion just doesn’t give a damn about the people. Judicial tyranny at its worst.

  • Alesandrial

    There is indeed tyranny involved in this situation, Jim, but it was perpetrated by the voters of California and not a judge.

  • CAPryde

    I continue to be amazed that “conservatives” think that the state should have the right to prohibit people from forming mutually-agreeable contracts based exclusively on the gender of the two parties involved. How can government be any more intrusive than that?

    Judge Walker should be hailed as a conservative hero for standing up against tyranny. I don’t care if it’s the tyranny of a majority. Tyranny is tyranny. This is America; that stuff doesn’t belong here.

  • JimBob

    What’s tyrannical about the people deciding an issue?? That’s American as Mom and Apple Pie.

  • JimBob

    The state of California has domestic partnerships. That is a a mutually agreeable contract.

  • Alesandrial

    So, Jim, if your State holds passes a referendum by a vote of the people that states that you, as a male, can no longer enter into a mutual contract with another person unless that person is also a male, you would not consider that tyrannical? Intrusive? A violation of your rights? I mean, contract law and rights are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, right? So I guess the will of the people in your State just invalidate all of your contractual business dealings with women. Isn’t it a damned shame the Founders didn’t foresee this injustice perpetrated by the majority? Oh wait a minute! They DID! It’s that third branch of the Federal Government called The Judiciary. What luck for you!

  • JimBob

    That’s just a canard. Marriage between one man and one woman has thousands of years of tradition behind it. Elites, the governing class don’t care what the people want.

  • busboy33

    @JimBob:

    “What’s tyrannical about the people deciding an issue?? That’s American as Mom and Apple Pie.”

    From the decision . . .
    “The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce ‘profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles’ through the criminal code. … The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to ‘mandate [its] own moral code.’ ”

    “The state of California has domestic partnerships. That is a a mutually agreeable contract.”

    Since it does not, and cannot, confer the same rights and privilidges as marriage, it is not equivilant, and therefore cannot serve as an acceptable substitute for marriage. Seperate is inherently unequal.
    I’m not sure what “mutually agreeable” means in your comment. Given that Perry et al sued over the issue, I’d suggest that it wasn’t “mutually agreeable” to them.

    I’m not asking this to be a smartass: have you read the decision? Your questions were all addressed by the Judge, in very non-legalistic language (well, as non-legalese as the topic and setting allow). Its fairly clear, and explains the rationale behind the ruling. You certainly are free to disagree with the Judge, but knowing what he said and why he said it might clarify the issues for you.
    http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55367172.pdf

  • Alesandrial

    It is only a canard because it shines unwanted light on the weakness of your reasoning, Jim, but by any legitimate definition of the word the comparison is not such.

    Traditions are a sweet notion and we are often wont to cling to them, but they are hardly grounds for legitimizing the segregation of a class of people into a lower status. If a given tradition can be used to such ends I would argue that it is time to start a new tradition. Traditionally we used to force African peoples into our fields to work our crops. Traditionally we used to prevent a black man from marrying the white women with whom he has fallen in love because we thought our holy books forbade it. Traditions are great, huh?

  • LFC

    JimBob asked… Where in the constitution does it discuss marriage?? For the life of me I can’t find it.

    This is a perfect illustration of Tea Party ignorance. It’s amazing that a citizen of this country does not grasp that the Constitution was never meant to be the only law of the land. And it’s amazing that a citizen can’t grasp that when a specific law violates a general part of the Constitution (in this case the ruling was that it violated the 14th Amendment), then that law is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL! The ignorance is staggering.

    Hey, JimBob, the Constitution also doesn’t specifically discuss legal limits on Bluefin Tuna. Does that mean that any federal limitations on this fish can be ignored as un-Constitutional?

  • LFC

    Hey, JimBob! I also found that the Constitution has no mention of hexachlorocyclohexane, a known carcinogen. Per your “logic”, that means it’s OK to dump that stuff wherever I wish, right?

  • JimBob

    LFC, are you looking in the mirror when talking about ignorance. The Constitution is a framework of what the Federal Government can do. Very little. That’s why marriage is left to the states.

  • JimBob

    Austin Bramwell a sometime contributor at Frum Forum says it best

    You Call This Equality?

    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/08/05/you-call-this-equality/

  • mpolito

    I don’t exactly think conservatives are split on this ruling, Jeb. Pointing out that some people, like LCR and GOProud, support it does not establish that conservatives are split, because these people do not constitute half of the conservative movement. Even some pro-same-sex marriage conservatives (such as Jon Rauch and Dale Carpenter) have problems with the decision. Most conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, but those who support it (like Moe Lane over at RedState, for example) usually want it enacted legislatively rather than judicially. This is a much fairer, more federalist, more constitutionalist, and more prudent approach.

    Prof. Bradley is right: from the first day of this trial, Judge Walker acted in a way that made it pretty clear how he would rule; his most ludicrous stunt was trying to get the whole thing put on YouTube. The Supreme Court had to step in to stop these antics. The fact that Walker is supposedly gay is probably something that should he revealed to the parties; if a judge has an interest in the result of a case, he should recuse himself. Either way, regardless of how he or any other district judge ruled, we all knew it was headed to higher court.

  • LFC

    Judge JimBob (not to be confused with Judge Judy) has just said that a good percentage of our federal laws are un-Constitutional because they aren’t spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. On top of that, states can write marriage rules that violate the Constitution because marriage wasn’t mentioned specifically in the Constitution, so all of the rest of the Constitutional provisions are meaningless. In fact, the 14th Amendment is meaningless for every single thing that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly cover, actually making it … UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

    Wow! What a legal powerhouse. I’m convinced. [/snark]

  • PracticalGirl

    Henry Adams:

    Where, in Judge Walker’s decision, is gay marriage mandated?

    And what do you mean, exactly, about judicial acitivsm? If you are referring to judges who conform to the idea that a certain ideological viewpoint be supported, then ok. But you would then have to say that most Conservatives are FOR activism (and most Conservative judges are judicial activists) , simply because of their strong advocacy of one point of view. And please don’t come back with some argument that would suggest that you have intimate knowledge of the Founding Father’s thinking. Mere mortals with superior intellect and actual expertise on the Constitution have struggled with that for years. Unless you are a god or a freak, you “know” nothing and can do nothing but take an interpretive stab. Sternly asserting is not the same thing as knowing.

    I’m with TAZ. “Judicial activism” is code for “any ruling that goes against what I think”. It’s the most abused term in modern politics/government.

  • PracticalGirl

    JimBob is under the influence of ignorance and propaganda. He is to pitied and slowly backed away from. Try not to flinch or make any sudden movements.

  • Republican

    [...] pushes issue closer to Supreme CourtGlobe and MailWashington Post (blog) -TIME (blog) -FrumForumall 3,749 news [...]

  • Nanotek

    I don’t get some conservatives’ fetish to control other people’s personal lives — am convinced the people fixated on homosexuality in others see internal demons

    one of the unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment is the right to the pursuit of happiness enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — let people be free and get to the business of living their lives

  • LFC

    If you aren’t following it, the ongoing thread under the post by Alex Kepper is excellent.

    This comment lays out the judicial reasoning and how the 14th Amendment was applied.

    I commented with a list of the facts found by the judge.

    Finally, this comment provides the judges use of case law to show that marriage has been ruled as a fundamental right for at least 45 years.

  • Rabiner

    mpolito:

    “Prof. Bradley is right: from the first day of this trial, Judge Walker acted in a way that made it pretty clear how he would rule; his most ludicrous stunt was trying to get the whole thing put on YouTube. The Supreme Court had to step in to stop these antics. The fact that Walker is supposedly gay is probably something that should he revealed to the parties; if a judge has an interest in the result of a case, he should recuse himself. Either way, regardless of how he or any other district judge ruled, we all knew it was headed to higher court.”

    Why do you think that the judge’s sexual orientation should be a reason for recusal? Should female judges recuse themselves if there is a case on abortion rights?

    I don’t want my rights voted on as was the case in California and rights should never be put to a vote.

  • Rillion

    JimBob, the Constitution does more then just say what the Federal Government can do, it also lists what it can’t do. The 14th Amendment also limits what the States can do. While the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage it doesn’t have to. The Constitution says that governments (be they the Federal, State, or Local) can not deprive us of our rights without Due Process and the governments must treat people equally. Prop 8 deprived gay people of their right to legally marry the person of their choice and do so for no legally justifiable reason, so it was in violation of the 14th amendment.

  • GEValle

    Ummm, sorry, but Conservatives are NOT split on Prop. 8.

    The opinions of RINOs don’t count -they’re NOT Conservatives. Neither are the “Log Cabin” Republicans (who aside from being RINOs persist in the idiotic and unprovable assertion that Lincoln was gay), or “GOProud” (whoever the hell they are).

    And David, you’re not a Conservative, either.

  • jerseyboy

    How is opposition to same-sex marriage a “fetish to control other people’s personal lives”? This is not a case of criminalizing or controling private conduct. Supporters of same-sex marriage are demanding that the state give full recognition to same-sex marriage. That is a demand for PUBLIC recognition, and it is therefore entirely appropriate that the public be allowed to weigh in on whether or not they wish to confer such recognition. The opposite view — that majority opposition to same-sex marriage should be entirely irrelevant in deciding whether to confer public recognition on such relationships — is merely an attempt to make an end run around the very public support that you seek.

  • mifarmer

    I think people should leave JimBob to himself. I feel as if he is incredibly ignorant able how the constitution is actually set to work, incredibly closed mind (50-60 years ago this is the same rhetoric used against civil rights for racial issues), and/or a troll, don’t cave to him trying to stir up trouble and he will fade into the background of this thread (even if he is just ignorant this approach will work too.)

  • DFL

    Nanotek, would it surprise you that the chief writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, favored castrating and then executing homosexuals?

  • abk1985

    Frankly, I think categorizing human sexuality into “straight” and “gay” categories is complete BS. The proof is that the vast majority of lesbians I have known have had straight relationships at one time or another, however, they didn’t find them satisfying, even if children resulted. Thus, most lesbians are bi. While many gay men have never had sex with a woman, there are plenty of men who have had sex with women but also like to trip the light fantastic in men’s rooms, etc., Breastplate of Righteousness and all that. Such men are clearly bi. The greatest homosexuals in history — Plato, Socrates — were also clearly bi. So was my favorite president, Abraham Lincoln.

    There is also the fact that many men, who normally would be having sex with women, will, under circumstances, e.g., on board ship or in prison, will have sex with same sex individuals.

    It follows therefore that the “normal” characterization of human sexuality is just – SEXUAL and all this other stuff is just taking personal preferences and making a fetish out of it.

    I suppose there are implications from all of this but the only reason I posted this note is because putting our 16th president into a “gay” or “straight” or “bi” pigeonhole is just stupid.

  • Telly Davidson

    GEValle opines: “Ummm, sorry, but Conservatives are NOT split on Prop. 8. The opinions of RINOs don’t count -they’re NOT Conservatives.”

    Barry Goldwater: “It’s time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”

    Margaret Thatcher: Openly pro-choice and pro-feminist, and so pro-gay she appointed openly gay cabinet ministers

    Gerald Ford: “Gay people should have the same rights straight people do — PERIOD!”

    In all respect — in what world are these people not REAL conservatives?

  • rbottoms

    Gawd this is fun.

  • cotton

    I love it. It is only a matter of time until us Goldwater Conservatives prevail over the aging and dying off Jerry Falwell conservatives.

    A pro-gay Republican party is inevitable.

  • Rabiner

    Cotton:

    If that ever happens in my lifetime I may start voting Republican. That and if they stop with the mantra that all taxes are bad.

  • Nanotek

    “Nanotek, would it surprise you that the chief writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, favored castrating and then executing homosexuals?”

    DFL — Not at all — he also favored buying, selling and sexing with his slaves; I’m fairly familiar with the private lives of key players in our founding generation. Ben Franklin, however, is my favorite by far. lol

    what Jefferson believed is meaningless to me when it comes to my rights — my right to the pursuit of happiness — as yours — does not depend on what a dead slave owner believed 250 years ago.

  • busboy33

    @Telly Davidson:

    “In all respect — in what world are these people not REAL conservatives?”

    Easy — they don’t agree with GEValle.

  • Nanotek

    Jerseyboy

    “How is opposition to same-sex marriage a “fetish to control other people’s personal lives”?” The question seems to answer itself. Where does your power to deprive gay couples of their right to marry derive, in your mind?

    “Supporters of same-sex marriage are demanding that the state give full recognition to same-sex marriage.” Just as you demand the state give full recognition to opposite sex marriage. What they are demanding is the same 2,000+ economic and personal benefits that government gives married people as opposite sex married couples have. Many states used to insist on same-race marriages and forbid opposite-race marriages — there is no difference. Its called equal rights, due process and freedom of religion. I know gay couples whose religious convictions require them to wed. Marriage is a fundamental right and human right.

    Live your own life and let others live theirs — let’s see who does better.

  • ChallegingFrum

    I am appalled that the author of this article did NOT mention the continued discrimination against people who happen to love multiple people from getting married. Its clear that this author is motivated by FEAR and HATE. He has isolated people who happened to be born with an attraction to multiple partners and set them up for EXCLUSION and RIDICULE.

    btw we aren’t even allowed to consider that maybe this guy’s sexual orientation colored his thinking?? thats liberalism for you. The more liberal the politics; the less liberal the sentiments. Everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot, stupid or greedy. I guess all of those 5-4 decisions by expertly trained lawyers really are differences on reading the law. …yutz.

  • mpolito

    Rabiner- Walker lives in CA. He is in a same-sex relationship. He therefore has a direct interest in the outcome of the case. If there is a female judge who is personally actively seeking an abortion in the jurisdiction that she has authority over while ruling about the legality of that abortion she wants, she absolutely should recuse herself. At the very least, this should have been revealed to the parties as potentially problematic, even if it did not result in recusal.

    Rillion- Bisexuals have a constitutional right to marry three people, right? That is, after all, what their sexual appetite dictates…why should you impose your private moral view that marriage be limited to two people?

    Cotton- As a “Goldwater conservative,” you do realize that Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, right? Are you aware that David Frum thinks the conservative idolization of Goldwater is no good?

  • SFTor1

    I read the judgment. The one thing that stood out above anything else were the extremely thin rationales, or interests, presented by the defendants.

    For example: Purported Interest #4—Protecting the Freedoms Of Those Opposed To Same-Sex Couples.
    Seriously. Proponents raised the issue that gay people marrying would make bigots less free.

    Bigots should be less free to be bigots.

  • Rabiner

    mpolito:

    “Rabiner- Walker lives in CA. He is in a same-sex relationship. He therefore has a direct interest in the outcome of the case. If there is a female judge who is personally actively seeking an abortion in the jurisdiction that she has authority over while ruling about the legality of that abortion she wants, she absolutely should recuse herself. At the very least, this should have been revealed to the parties as potentially problematic, even if it did not result in recusal. ”

    So the problem you have is that the Judge is in a relationship? Because if he wasn’t in a relationship he wouldn’t have an interest in this case. Going by your analogy of a woman only being biased in an abortion case if she is currently trying to seek an abortion at that time. That’s pretty thin logic.

    “As a “Goldwater conservative,” you do realize that Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, right? Are you aware that David Frum thinks the conservative idolization of Goldwater is no good?”

    And you realize Goldwater, while having faults, was far more interested in civil liberties than social conservative Republicans ever have been. While I disagree with him on the Civil Rights Act, he was on the right side of gay rights, abortion rights, and so forth while consistently being against religious morality being codified in our laws.

    “Bisexuals have a constitutional right to marry three people, right? That is, after all, what their sexual appetite dictates…why should you impose your private moral view that marriage be limited to two people? ”

    The slippery slope argument is quite a weak argument to be made and means there really isn’t much argument at all.

  • CentristNYer

    mpolito // Aug 5, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    “Walker lives in CA. He is in a same-sex relationship. He therefore has a direct interest in the outcome of the case. ”

    So conversely, a straight judge would have no interest, right? Thank you for making the point that heterosexuals have nothing invested in whether gays are permitted to marry. You’ve just sunk the core argument of opponents like Maggie Gallagher who claim that heterosexual marriages are at risk if same sex marriages are legalized.

  • Frogmorton

    I’m not sure how the law works in the States but in Canada (the Gay White North) same sex couples have long been able to enter into Civil Unions which afford them the same rights as Heterosexual couples, both married and common law. The battle here was never over legal rights but the term used to define the union. I was neither for or against the use of the word marriage to describe gay relationships and the day after it happened the sun did indeed come up but those who pushed so hard for the change should understand how something as petty as wanting to use the word ”Marriage“ in place of “Civil Union” could be upsetting to some people.

  • busboy33

    @mpolito:

    “If there is a female judge who is personally actively seeking an abortion in the jurisdiction that she has authority over while ruling about the legality of that abortion she wants, she absolutely should recuse herself.”

    a) The Judge has gone to Bar functions with another man. There has been no proof that I know of indicating that they are a couple (i.e. — the Judge introduces the man as “my domestic partner” or eyewitnesses seeing them kiss). It’s a rumor, and given the rumor only started flying once the Prop 8 proponents lost it demonstrates that saddest and most pathetic aspects of a childish temper tantrum.
    b) The above isn’t a new development, and the Defendants could easily have asked Walker to recuse himself if they had the slightest concern. They had no problem, as demonstrated by them not asking for a recusal.
    c) You changed the facts with your “analogy” — a woman who is ACTIVELY seeking an abortion”. That means “of course just a woman is fine to rule on abortion legality, but not if she’s sitting on the steps of planned parenthood.”
    Even assuming Walker is Gay, there is absolutely no reason to think he is actively seeking to get married. If he is gay, he was gay when the 1st Ct. case occured, he was gay under prop 8., and he’d still be gay now.
    “Being gay” isn’t anything close to “actively seeking out a marriage license”, and you know it. The reason you had to throw the “actively seeking” into your analogy was becasue even you recognized how insane and bigoted you’d sound if you said “women cant rule on abortion”, so you had to change the facts to something less laughable. But you can’t change the facts of the Walker situation . . . so trying to apply the situation of an abortion-seeking doctor to a wildly conservative judge, one wo might be gay but who’s nomination was blocked becasue he was considered a bit of a dick to gays, is just laughable:

    “Walker has ruled in at least two other cases involving gay rights issues during his two decades as a judge. In 1999, he rejected arguments from the parents of a San Leandro boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son’s teacher had made in the classroom.
    In the other case, he dismissed a free speech claim by two Oakland city employees whose managers had confiscated a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted “natural family, marriage and family values.” The city had “significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals,” Walker wrote in his 2005 ruling.
    Until this week, though, Walker had come under more criticism for representing the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit against a gay ex-Olympian who had created the so-called Gay Olympics. Walker won, forcing the Gay Olympics to become the Gay Games. He also aggressively pursued legal fees by attaching a $97,000 lien to the home of the organization’s founder while he was dying of AIDS.
    Gay activists cried foul, and his appointment to a federal judgeship was delayed for two years in the waning days of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/vaughn-walker-prop-8-judg_n_673015.html

    d) You haven’t indicated anything in his ruling that you disagree with rationally. I understand you hate the result . . . but where did he logically go astray? Where did he say something that he didn’t support with reams of facts and case precedents? If your only complaint is “I don’t like the result but the judge did a fair job” . . . well, not to be rude but who gives a damn what you think?

  • Telly Davidson

    My fellow Canadian (I’m a half-breed) Frogmorton sez: “The battle here was never over legal rights but the term used to define the union. I was neither for or against the use of the word marriage to describe gay relationships and the day after it happened the sun did indeed come up but those who pushed so hard for the change should understand how something as petty as wanting to use the word ”Marriage“ in place of “Civil Union” could be upsetting to some people.”

    I would have no problem with “Civil Union” vs. “Marriage” — so long as the federal tax, immigration/marriage/citizenship, pension/SS/Medicare, death-tax exemptions, et cetera for proven, long-term gay/L couples were the same as for straights. But remember — back in the 1990s, when “Civil Unions” were the password in CA and NY and elsewhere, the John Hagees and Jerry Falwells fulminated and fist-pounded just as much then to try and stop the “normalization” of this “perversion” as they now do at the word “marriage”. It’s all speaking in code.

  • Traditional marriage conservatives: Moderate, reasonable and right | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

    [...] you know that “conservatives [are] split on [the] Proposition 8 ruling”? No? Neither did I. Silly me. I thought most conservatives were outraged that a district court [...]