^^One step further away I'd say, this only reinforces the consenting adult couples aspect, rather than anything like incestuous child rape.

For page 3:

On the 2 MA cases:
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3&id=107807

Quote :

"Two huge victories for marriage equality In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

On the CA case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling

Quote :

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Wikipedia on DOMA:

Quote :

"Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds: * DOMA exceeds congressional authority in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. * Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. * The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. * The law violates the fundamental right to marriage under the due process clause."

Timeline: Judge for the CA case issued a stay that I believe lasts until Tuesday at which point he will decide whether to issue a new one or not. But the defendant, Governor Schwarzenegger, as well as the attorney general of CA have asked him not to issue another a stay. In MA I don't think the 2 cases striking down DOMA has been appealed yet, although they have something like 45 or 60 days or something after the decision to appeal so they still very well could. One or all 3 of these cases are expected to make it to SCOTUS in the next 2 or 3 years. DOMA may not live to see its 20th birthday.

[Edited on August 8, 2010 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2010 10:12:23 AM

Quote :

"Lost in your inane babbling was there a legal precedent or a law indicating that it was against the rules for a gay judge to make a ruling in a marriage equality case? Nope, didn't think so."

there doesn't have to be one for it to be a conflict of interest. you are grasping, genius

^ btw, I find it funny that they are bitching about DOMA on the grounds of the 10th amendment. LOL. Funny how it's only important when it's convenient

[Edited on August 8, 2010 at 9:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2010 9:40:41 PM

Aaronburro pulls out the class ad hominem fallacy.

Instead of trying to argue why the judge was in error in this case he instead attacks the judge personally.

So aaron, would it be a conflict of interest if a judge presiding over the recent patent infringement case, i4i v Microsoft, if the judge were to be a user of Microsoft Office? After all the judge would benefit personally from Microsoft being able to use the infringing technology in its Office software.

No reasonable individual would claim such a conflict of interest exists. Just as no reasonable person should or would argue the judge's sexuality would have any baring on his ruling in this case.

In order for the judge to have a conflict of interest he would have to have a vested financial or direct personal stake in the outcome of the case, or have a prior or current personal or professional affiliation with one of the claimants.

So instead of attacking this judge's ethics, which is unfounded, why don't you address the ruling and how you disagree with it.

[Edited on August 8, 2010 at 11:50 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 9, 2010 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2010 11:49:46 PM

I'm not sure what the legal standards are for conflicts of interest, but it does seem the judge having something personally to gain by ruling in favor of equal rights might could fall under being a conflict of interest.

A straight judge wouldn't have anything to gain, and assuming they weren't a mouth-breathing conservative idiot, wouldn't see themselves as having something to lose by the gays marrying.

However, it seems pretty clear that a law banning a specific sexual orientation for no good reason wouldn't be constitutional, and this is more or less what the ruling says. The outcome would probably be the same.

8/8/2010 11:57:16 PM

You would be able make that argument if the judge had a marriage that was vacated by Prop 8, or was intending to become married prior to Prop 8 outlawing it. That is not the case.

His sexuality is not confirmed, rather it is a rumor speculated upon by the San Fran Chronicle. The judge has refused to answer questions concerning his sexuality and if he is or isn't gay, it doesn't change his jurisprudence on the case.

This attack against Judge Walker is nothing more than a red herring brought about by intellectually weak individuals who cannot or refuse to discuss the case on its merits.

[Edited on August 9, 2010 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

8/9/2010 12:05:52 AM

Quote :

"His sexuality is not confirmed, rather it is a rumor speculated upon by the San Fran Chronicle. The judge has refused to answer questions concerning his sexuality and if he is or isn't gay, it doesn't change his jurisprudence on the case. "

I didn't realize the accusations that he's gay was just speculation.

In that case, this is really an absurd discussion.

8/9/2010 12:07:50 AM

^^more specifically it was mentioned as an "open secret" so it's at about the same level of credibility as speculation that Justice Kagan is a lesbian

8/9/2010 12:35:24 AM

Quote :

"Instead of trying to argue why the judge was in error in this case he instead attacks the judge personally. "

I'm not attacking him at all. nice try...

Quote :

"So aaron, would it be a conflict of interest if a judge presiding over the recent patent infringement case, i4i v Microsoft, if the judge were to be a user of Microsoft Office?"

not at all similar. nice try...

Quote :

"You would be able make that argument if the judge had a marriage that was vacated by Prop 8, or was intending to become married prior to Prop 8 outlawing it. That is not the case."

Not at all. He would still be giving himself a right that he did not have previously.

8/9/2010 9:41:56 PM

aaronburro, could you point me to where in the judges bias comes through in his ruling?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

page and line numbers would be fantastic, thanks

8/9/2010 11:10:48 PM

where did I say he was biased?

8/10/2010 8:23:49 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004621.html

Quote :

"All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital ... Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses' insurance policies."

I thought with this thread being about a court striking down DOMA, that it was an appropriate enough place to share this ruling by the Supreme Court in Mexico that happened today. Another Supreme Court also had an interesting ruling today:

http://www.nacion.com/2010-08-10/ElPais/UltimaHora/ElPais2479767.aspx

Quote :

"Sala IV dice no al referendo sobre uniones gais Para tal efecto, 6 magistrados estimaron que se trata de materia legislativa y no electoral -aquí se unió a la mayoría el magistrado Castillo que declaró sin lugar el recurso-, por cuanto, se trata del ejercicio material de tal función por el pueblo y que al TSE lo que se le encomendó fue, únicamente, la organización, dirección y fiscalización del proceso, circunstancia que la mayoría de 6 magistrados estimaron que no la convierte en una materia electoral."

Their point being equal rights for a minority should not be subject to a public vote of the masses, as it was going to be in a few months, and instead should be up to the judicial branch to figure out what the just thing to do is.

[Edited on August 10, 2010 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2010 8:27:50 PM

Quote :

"where did I say he was biased?"

oh i see the hole argument you had about him being biased for being gay was hypothetical

you really are an idiot

8/10/2010 9:07:55 PM

Quote :

"I'm not attacking him at all. nice try..."

If not to cast aspersions at the judge and his ruling without having to address the merits of the ruling, then why are you bringing up his alleged sexuality?

Quote :

"not at all similar. nice try..."

They are inherently the same. You cannot just say they are dissimilar and leave it at that.

Quote :

"Not at all. He would still be giving himself a right that he did not have previously."

Because you refuse to address any points and are doing nothing more than splitting hairs, let me bring about another case which is quite similar to this case.

In Gebhart v. Belton, Chancellor Collins J. Seitz ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered African American students be immediately admitted to whites-only schools in Delaware. Suppose Chancellor Seitz were an African American, would you argue that he had a conflict of interest in this case; because he would be confirming the right of his progeny to attend whites-only schools, or would you reject that line of reasoning?

[Edited on August 10, 2010 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2010 9:42:48 PM

NOM finally bussed into NC today. They spent a lot of time talking about how they want NC to amend our constitution and that any US law that wasn't a Christian law isn't a real law

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8110046/

Quote :

"A national group touring the country to show support for traditional marriage rallied outside the State Capitol on Tuesday, calling on North Carolina to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. A few dozen people gathered for the presentation by the National Organization for Marriage, which is holding more than 20 events across much of the country during a bus tour to oppose gay marriage. ... North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that hasn’t approved a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages."

I counted a little over 200 on our side. I counted about 43 on their side. While my count for our side is one I'm very confident in its accuracy, it was harder to gauge their side from a distance. I counted around 45ish, but Pam Spaulding who runs a local gay blog, who went over to their side for documentation said she counted 45 up close which made me more confident in that number. (it was hard to distinguish between the cops/reporters/passers-by from a distance). Pretty awesome that they bused into NC and found themselves in the minority with a protest 1/5th the size of the counter-demonstration.





A few NOM supporters:


A few on our side:


[Edited on August 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2010 11:07:59 PM

Quote :

"oh i see the hole argument you had about him being biased for being gay was hypothetical"

not at all. you need to reread what I have said and stop strawmanning me.

Quote :

"then why are you bringing up his alleged sexuality"

to point out a conflict of interest. durr. It is not unheard of for rulings to be vacated due to such things without even looking at the merits of the ruling.

Quote :

"They are inherently the same. You cannot just say they are dissimilar and leave it at that. "

Only they aren't. There is no reason to assume that a judge would have a potential conflict by simply being a user of a product. Now, if he held large amounts of stock in that company, sure. A simple user? Not really.

Quote :

"Suppose Chancellor Seitz were an African American, would you argue that he had a conflict of interest in this case;"

It would depend. I'll have to ruminate on it, but I'll get back to you.

8/11/2010 9:51:31 PM

Quote :

"to point out a conflict of interest. durr. It is not unheard of for rulings to be vacated due to such things without even looking at the merits of the ruling."

so then your point is that his ruling wasn't effected by any conflict of interest but could be, got it

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM. Reason : aff]

8/11/2010 9:56:47 PM

Quote :

"to point out a conflict of interest. durr."

If the point is to point out a potential conflict of interest, then demonstrate how said conflict of interest affected his adjudication on the matter. If you refuse to do so, then you are merely casting aspersion because you refuse to actually address the merit of the case.

Quote :

"It is not unheard of for rulings to be vacated due to such things without even looking at the merits of the ruling."

Patently untrue.

Quote :

"Only they aren't. There is no reason to assume that a judge would have a potential conflict by simply being a user of a product. Now, if he held large amounts of stock in that company, sure. A simple user? Not really."

LOL...find me a federal judge who doesn't have part of his pension invested in Microsoft. You walk right into them.

Quote :

" It would depend. I'll have to ruminate on it, but I'll get back to you."

At least be intellectually consistent and come out and say he would have a conflict of interest. I suspect you won't though.

Quote :

" not at all. you need to reread what I have said and stop strawmanning me."

learn what a straw man is. His post was not a straw man in the least.

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2010 10:01:52 PM

aaronburro, could you point me to where a conflict of interest has or could have influenced his decision?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

page and line numbers would be fantastic, thanks

8/11/2010 10:04:25 PM

Quote :

"If the point is to point out a potential conflict of interest, then demonstrate how said conflict of interest affected his adjudication on the matter. If you refuse to do so, then you are merely casting aspersion because you refuse to actually address the merit of the case."

Only the conflict of interest, itself, is the problem. That's why we ask judges to recuse themselves before a case if one exists. We don't wait until after the case to see if something untoward happened.

Quote :

"LOL...find me a federal judge who doesn't have part of his pension invested in Microsoft. You walk right into them. "

If he is directly investing in them, it is a problem. If he is invested in a fund which is invested in them, that's different. And you know this, dumbass.

Quote :

"At least be intellectually consistent and come out and say he would have a conflict of interest. I suspect you won't though."

Actually, no, this is an interesting case because the judge doesn't have the direct conflict, though there is the possibility of one.

Quote :

"learn what a straw man is. His post was not a straw man in the least."

he said that I was saying the ruling was biased. I said no such thing. Thus, it is a strawman, as he is building a case against an argument that I did not make. maybe YOU should learn what a strawman is.


^ could you point me to where I said the conflict did affect his ruling? links to posts would be nice.

8/11/2010 11:03:59 PM

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/11/Prop_8_Judge_to_Issue_Stay_Ruling_Thursday/

Quote :

"Will Marriages Resume Tomorrow? U.S. district judge Vaughn R. Walker will issue a Thursday morning ruling on whether to stay a decision in the Proposition 8 federal case pending appeal, according to a late Wednesday e-mail from the court. The ruling will be issued between 9 a.m. and noon Pacific time. If Walker rules against the stay, the state of California will presumably allow same-sex couples to wed once again. Such unions have been illegal since voters in the state passed Prop. 8 in November 2008. Last week Walker ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional but issued a temporary stay of the decision pending arguments from attorneys on both sides."

We should hear what happens next by 3 pm tomorrow.

8/11/2010 11:26:08 PM

Quote :

"^ could you point me to where I said the conflict did affect his ruling? links to posts would be nice."

ahem
aaronburro, could you point me to where a conflict of interest has or could have influenced his decision?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

page and line numbers would be fantastic, thanks

8/11/2010 11:36:35 PM

could you point me to where I said it did? I have no need to fucking defend something I never said, jackass. That's why it's called a "logical fallacy." Look it up. Learn something

8/12/2010 8:57:46 AM

Quote :

"Only the conflict of interest, itself, is the problem. That's why we ask judges to recuse themselves before a case if one exists. We don't wait until after the case to see if something untoward happened."

You've yet to prove there is a conflict of interest. It is becoming clear however, that for you the standard for judgeships in civil rights cases should be white male protestants. Any derivation from that standard and it is a conflict of interest.

You are bringing up the same arguments that were used against African American judges in the 1970s and 1980s who presided over civil rights cases. At the end of the day, it has been determined and is held that "judicial bias cannot be assumed based on the racial, gender or other status of the judge." Homosexuality fits into the status of a judge.

I guarangoddamntee you the judge's supposed sexuality will never be brought up on appeal because all parties realize there is no inherent conflict of interest in the case.
Let's look at what the 2nd Court of Appeals has said on this subject:

The 2nd Court of Appeals in hearing a case over whether or not a Judge Chin should have recused himself in the case of MacDraw, Inc. v. The CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc on the grounds that the attorneys in the case: "were involved in a case against the Commerce Department and the Clinton Administration in which they had been accused of being biased against the Asian-American community; and (3) I was a recent appointee of the Clinton Administration and had been actively involved, prior to taking the bench, with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Asian American Bar Association of New York."

The judge roundly rejected the notion that he should have to recuse himself on the grounds his race and the 2nd Court of Appeals affirmed his ruling stating:

Quote :

"Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge's impartiality. See United States v. El-Gabrowny, 844 F.Supp. 955, 961-62 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (refusing to answer questions posed regarding judge's religious affiliation and connection, if any, to Israel); Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 418 F.Supp. 1, 4 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (sex or race is improper basis for recusal); see also Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 388 F.Supp. 155, 163 (E.D.Pa.1974). A suggestion that a judge cannot administer the law fairly because of the judge's racial and ethnic heritage is extremely serious and should not be made without a factual foundation going well beyond the judge's membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Such an accusation is a charge that the judge is racially or ethnically biased and is violating the judge's oath of office."

Quote :

"If he is directly investing in them, it is a problem. If he is invested in a fund which is invested in them, that's different. And you know this, dumbass. "

Temper, temper. He still has a real financial interest in one of the interested parties and therefore by your standard the judge should have to recuse him or herself.

Quote :

"Actually, no, this is an interesting case because the judge doesn't have the direct conflict, though there is the possibility of one."

You are walking in circles. to you it isn't a direct conflict of interest if the end result of the case means the judges children will be able to go to better schools, but it is a direct conflict of interest if a judge, who might potentially be gay and may potentially want to get married at some future time, rules on this case. A) We don't know the judges sexuality and B) we do not know the judges intentions of getting married.

The point that you cannot seem to grasp is that it is impossible to remove any and all conflict-of-interest in cases. Except for in cases of gross conflict-of-interest judges need not recuse themselves.

If it is in fact shown that Judge Walker is a homosexuality, it would not rise to the level of a gross conflict-of-interest. It would have to be demonstrated that the judge allowed his personal situation affect his ruling in a way that is out of the norm. Simply being homosexual on cases involving homosexuals is not a conflict-of-interest.

Please be consistent in your ramblings.

Quote :

"he said that I was saying the ruling was biased. I said no such thing. Thus, it is a strawman, as he is building a case against an argument that I did not make. maybe YOU should learn what a strawman is."

You don't have to say something directly for it to be implied. Again, this isn't a straw man. I encourage you to never utter the phrases straw man, ad hominem, or logical fallacy again; because it is evident throughout the years that you have absolutely no idea what these phrases mean.

Quote :

"^ could you point me to where I said the conflict did affect his ruling? links to posts would be nice"

Then again, what is the point of bringing up the judges sexuality? Unless you can actually point to the judges sexuality tainting his opinion and actions in this case it is a moot point. You are accusing the judge of an ethical lapse that would either merit judicial censure or impeachment, yet you provide no evidence to support that.

8/12/2010 10:03:08 AM

Quote :

"could you point me to where I said it did? I have no need to fucking defend something I never said, jackass. That's why it's called a "logical fallacy." Look it up. Learn something"

so then what was the point of bringing up the judges sexuality and arguing about conflict of interests and new rights? its like trying to have a conversation with a two year old.

8/12/2010 12:19:55 PM

The stay is now officially set to expire on August 18 at 8pm. So couples can get married again starting next Thursday the 19th.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/mormon-church-on-prop-8-w_b_140804.html

Quote :

"President-Prophet Thomas Monson, the leader of the Mormon Church, clearly does not read history. If he did, he'd know that he and his apostles could not stand behind the stone walls and parapets of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, shoveling cash and lies into California without consequences. The Mormon Church's members have contributed some $22 million into Prop 8"

What a waste of money. Too bad they couldn't think of anything better to do with their religious donations (much of it coming from Utah to try to influence CA) than being a primary funder of the Yes on 8 effort.

The next step is the possible appeal to the 9th Court of Appeals. The defendant, Governor Schwarzenegger (along w/ CA's attorney general), has indicated he does not wish to appeal so it may actually stop there... unless Yes on 8 can convince the 9th circuit that they have legal standing to appeal the decision on behalf on CA that does not want to appeal. The Yes on 8 group will likely be trying very hard to convince the 9th circuit that they have standing over this next week to urge them to issue a stay of their own. Now its just a count down to next week.

8/12/2010 3:55:31 PM

Quote :

"You've yet to prove there is a conflict of interest. It is becoming clear however, that for you the standard for judgeships in civil rights cases should be white male protestants. Any derivation from that standard and it is a conflict of interest. "

Do I detect a race card being thrown out? good work!

Quote :

"He still has a real financial interest in one of the interested parties and therefore by your standard the judge should have to recuse him or herself."

Not a direct one. You are obfuscating at this point...

BTW, the judge's race or ethnicity have not been called in to question. They are not similar. One is a choice, the other is not.

Quote :

"We don't know the judges sexuality"

I am going on the original assumption, that a gay judge would have a conflict of interest. Now, I will say that simply accusing the judge of being gay without proof would not warrant recusal, as that would be absurd.

Quote :

"we do not know the judges intentions of getting married."

Again, irrelevant. If he is granting himself a right, he is granting himself a right.

Quote :

"The point that you cannot seem to grasp is that it is impossible to remove any and all conflict-of-interest in cases. Except for in cases of gross conflict-of-interest judges need not recuse themselves. "

Actually, I'm well aware of this. That's why sometimes COIs are ignored, because every judge would fit that COI. In this case, though, it's easy to see that not every judge would fit the COI.

Quote :

"You don't have to say something directly for it to be implied."

And someone other than I is the one saying what was implied. Thus, strawman.

Quote :

"so then what was the point of bringing up the judges sexuality and arguing about conflict of interests and new rights?"

ummm, maybe pointing it out? I dunno. Call me crazy, but I do like pointing things out from time to time. You can draw from that what you want.

8/12/2010 7:38:47 PM

oh man it almost makes my head hurt

8/12/2010 7:49:20 PM

i know. logic is hard to figure out for dolts like you

8/12/2010 7:52:15 PM

A heterosexual judge would be granting himself the right to marry a man also.

8/12/2010 8:09:14 PM

Quote :

"ummm, maybe pointing it out? I dunno. Call me crazy, but I do like pointing things out from time to time. You can draw from that what you want."

ah gotcha.

so then you can admit that his sexuality is not an issue and has no bearing on the case?

8/12/2010 8:24:12 PM

^ does not follow. nice try

8/12/2010 8:35:05 PM

ok, so i will ask you a very simple question because i don't want to infer anything or put words in your mouth:

do you believe that the judges sexuality is not an issue and has no bearing on his ruling, yes or no? you may feel free to explain your answer but please start your response with an answer.

8/12/2010 8:41:15 PM

wait, wait, wait...did aaronburro just claim sexuality is a choice?

LOL

I'm just glad aaronburro knows more about conflicts-of-interest then the 2nd Court of Appeals.

Even if he still wants to take the sexuality is a choice route, then he need look no further than United States v. El-Gabrowny. In this instance it was the judges religious affiliation that was argued to create the conflict-of-interest. And it was held that an individuals religious identification is not grounds for creating a conflict-of-interest. Religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, etc. cannot be claimed as a conflict-of-interest, lest ye accuse the judge of violating his or her oath of office.

Are you accusing the judge of violating his oath of office?


It should really be a hint to you that neither party in this case has brought anything involving the judge's possible sexual orientation up. That should let you know how much of a snipe hunt you are on with this bullshit.

Quote :

"ummm, maybe pointing it out? I dunno. Call me crazy, but I do like pointing things out from time to time. You can draw from that what you want."

You did not bring the claims about the judge's sexual orientation to light for any sort of Socratic reason. Quit trying to pretend you developed a great koan. Just admit that you brought up his sexual orientation as a means of discrediting the ruling because you lack the intellectual gravitas to address the points of the ruling.

It's a cheap trick and one who actually went to college should be above it.

[Edited on August 12, 2010 at 8:50 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 12, 2010 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2010 8:46:42 PM

Oh come on, the entire soapbox is full of cheap tricks.

Chit chat is full of cheap tricks too... (the real kind)

8/13/2010 1:17:58 PM

I'm sorry to upset you Hemogoblin.

No wait, I'm not.

8/13/2010 4:12:07 PM

Quote :

"wait, wait, wait...did aaronburro just claim sexuality is a choice?"

of course I did. because it is, duh.

Quote :

"Even if he still wants to take the sexuality is a choice route, then he need look no further than United States v. El-Gabrowny. In this instance it was the judges religious affiliation that was argued to create the conflict-of-interest"

Race and religion are protected classes, numnutsmacker. sexuality is not.

8/15/2010 7:46:51 PM

Quote :

"because it is"

Wow. Just, wow.
I knew TWW had some backwards idiots, but damn...

8/15/2010 8:05:41 PM

aaronburro, please don't ignore my post

from above:

ok, so i will ask you a very simple question because i don't want to infer anything or put words in your mouth:

do you believe that the judges sexuality is not an issue and has no bearing on his ruling, yes or no? you may feel free to explain your answer but please start your response with an answer.

8/15/2010 8:52:28 PM

yes. having a stand on something makes you an idiot

8/15/2010 9:09:50 PM

so basically nutsmackr's call out was right

8/15/2010 9:12:36 PM

I tell you what... answer this:

do you think someone being in a position to grant himself legal and financial rights has a potential conflict of interest? Yes or no?

8/15/2010 9:21:43 PM

if that were the case then every judge would suffer from the same conflict of interest

[Edited on August 15, 2010 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2010 9:30:45 PM

how do you figure?

8/15/2010 9:33:10 PM

well his decision was based on it being unconstitutional because it violated due process and equal protection rights (i posted his decision multiple times, you should read it), but in your purposefully obtuse way of looking at it as granting himself new rights any judge would have those new rights

in fact with your reasoning essentially any decision that overturns something that limits rights would have a conflict of interest.

[Edited on August 15, 2010 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .,]

8/15/2010 9:44:16 PM

you are assuming that every judge is in the class of "gay people."

8/15/2010 10:03:08 PM

nope absolutely not, he overturned something that limited a right. by your argument any judge that decides that something is unconstitutional and overturns something that has been limiting a right has a conflict of interest because they are granting themselves new rights. of course its all ridiculous, but that is the end point of your reasoning.

now, could you show me where in his decision any kind of conflict of interest could possibly come through? i'm assuming by now that you've read and bookmarked the full decision i posted so it should be pretty easy for you. page/line references would be great too.

8/15/2010 10:07:01 PM

Quote :

"Race and religion are protected classes, numnutsmacker. sexuality is not."

Entirely inconsequential and has nothing to do with what the 2nd Circuit stated.

But you can duck, dodge, and be obtuse all you want.

8/15/2010 10:36:54 PM

Quote :

"do you think someone being in a position to grant himself legal and financial rights has a potential conflict of interest? Yes or no?"

You do realize that a straight judge would be in the same potential conflict of interest because a straight judge would be expanding his rights to marry someone of the same-sex as well.

And rights are never granted. They can only be taken or given away, which is why people need to stay vigilant to prevent the loss of their rights. Very rarely are rights restored.

8/15/2010 10:39:04 PM

^

8/15/2010 11:25:01 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that a straight judge would be in the same potential conflict of interest because a straight judge would be expanding his rights to marry someone of the same-sex as well. "

if you want to play that game, then it is clear that homosexuals already have the right to marry, so this case was pointless. This case is framed and has always been framed as "giving homosexuals the right to marry." Thus it is absurd to say that a hetero judge would be granting himself the right to marry a man.

Quote :

"Entirely inconsequential and has nothing to do with what the 2nd Circuit stated."

not at all inconsequential. Their chief concern was not discriminating against protected classes in a ruling.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2010 6:50:02 PM