US

Lawyers Fight to Reinstate Calif‘s Proposition 8 After Judge Admits He’s Gay

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A retired federal judge’s long-term relationship with another man will be the subject of an unusual and possibly unprecedented court hearing Monday involving California’s same-sex marriage ban.

Lawyers for the sponsors of the voter-approved ban are asking the chief federal judge in San Francisco to vacate the decision issued by his predecessor last year that declared Proposition 8 an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians’ civil rights. They maintain that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status before trial because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from Walker’s verdict.

Attorneys for the ban’s backers and for two same-sex couples who successfully sued to overturn the measure in Walker’s court are scheduled to present arguments on that question to Chief U.S. Judge James Ware, who could rule from the bench or at a later date.

Walker publicly revealed after he stepped down in February after 20 years on the federal bench that he is in a 10-year-old relationship with a same-sex partner, although rumors that he was gay had circulated both before and after he presided over the Proposition 8 trial in early 2010.

Ted Olson, one of the couples’ lawyers, said he is unaware of any other cases in which a ruling was challenged because of the issuing judge’s sexual orientation. He called the move to disqualify Walker “frivolous” and “demeaning” and said that expecting judges to reveal parts of their personal lives when hearing gay rights cases would set a dangerous precedent.

“What would a judge do who was Mormon knowing the Mormon Church took such an active role” in campaigning for Proposition 8, Olson asked. “What would a judge who had a nephew or niece or son or daughter who was gay or lesbian do? We have an unlimited number of permutations of what a judge might be asked to disclose.”

Many legal scholars have said they do not expect Ware to overturn Walker. They point out that while a having a judge’s impartiality be questioned because he is gay is new territory, efforts to get women judges thrown off gender discrimination cases or Hispanic judges removed from immigration cases have failed.

Nonetheless, in a fundraising appeal to Proposition 8′s supporters Friday, Ron Prentice, chairman of the religious coalition that qualified the gay marriage ban for the November 2008 ballot, said, “We are much more hopeful for success with a judge presiding over the case who has greater respect for legal precedent and the rule of law.”

Ware also is scheduled to hear arguments on whether he should unseal videotaped recordings of the trial. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, after Walker proposed having the proceedings uploaded on a YouTube channel, that the trial could not be broadcast beyond the federal courthouse in San Francisco. Lawyers for the gay couples that sued to overturn Proposition 8 and for the news media are asking Ware to now make those recordings public.

The fight to preserve the same-sex marriage ban also remains before a federal appeals court that is considering whether Walker properly applied the constitutional principles of due process and equal access when he overturned Proposition 8.

Comments (183)

1 2 3
  • slyswine
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:45am

    Is this country not a free society? Why are we asking the question “Why should we allow this?“ instead of ”What reason do we have to ban it?” I understand the religious side of the issue, but since the govt. is involved in some aspect, why are we against people of the same sex from entering into a legal commitment with each other that is recognized by the state? The churches don’t have to approve or allow the marriages or unions to take place in their eyes, just the govt. This to me is about the govt. extending privelages and benefits to citizens of one group and denying them to another group. It’s wrong and this is why popular vote is invalid in this case. This isn’t a country founded on mob rule or majority rule when it comes to the govt. and the legal rights of the citizens. Again, because the govt. does have involvement with marriage, it is wrong for them to deny any legal citizens the oppurtunity, no matter how much in the minority, or how disliked they are, from these rights. I’m an atheist, and was married in a somewhat religious ceremony. Is that not worse than a homosexual person getting married? Might does not make right. If I am missing some angle on this issue then please feel free to point it out.

    Report Post »  
    • Bhaub
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:58am

      The people here hate homosexuals more than they love freedom. That’s the line they draw. They aren‘t libertarians and they definitely aren’t loving Christians. They don’t want homosexuals married, and they want the government to mandate that.

      Report Post » Bhaub  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:04am

      bhaub: then why do haters like you want to take the freedom away from those who disagree with the gays? the gay marriage movement is a fascist movement that will restrict the freedom of speech and religion of those who disagree with gay marriage.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:12am

      slyswine: yeah why don’t we allow polygamy then? why limit it to just 2 people? anything goes, right?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • slyswine
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:21am

      @Joe1234- You will still be free to disagree and dislike homosexuals all you want. No one as far as I know is trying to make it illegal to voice your displeasure about any topic. Does the govt. have involvement with marriages in this country, yes or no? Is the govt. denying a minority group the ability to legally marry, yes or no? If this world were dominated by homosexuals (numbers wise) and they denyed you the opportunity to marry, simply because the govt. upheld a popular vote regarding the issue, is that not an infringement of your rights under the constitution? It’s wrong either way, the 14th amendment explicitly says :

      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      It seems plain as day to me where this Prop 8 BS is wrong. What say you from the opposing side regarding this?

      Report Post »  
    • slyswine
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:25am

      Polygamy is a good question. I don’t see why the govt. should ban any consenting adult(s)(18+) from entering into these legal agreements, if they love each other and follow the laws. These are issues this country needs to debate and talk about. We get no where by simply pandering to popular opinion in matters such as this.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:29am

      really slyswine? what about the catholic charities in MA who can no longer practice their freedom of religion in regards to adoptions because they refuse to give children to gays to adopt? Or the doctor in CA who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian and the supreme court of CA specifically said he doesn’t NOT have freedom of religion and speech when it comes to the gays?

      the government denies the rights of pedophiles and polygamists to ‘marry’ too…no surprise you avoid this issue. do you think these groups should have the right to marry too? after all pedophilia is just another sexual orientation…are you for giving pedophiles the same special rights you want for gays?

      there is no right to marry…you want a special right that has never existed in the history of the world…all to satisfy the greed of the gays…and eliminat the liberty of those who disagree.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:32am

      slyswine: oh no surprise you would approve of polygamy….to people like you anything goes…and why stop at 18? why not 17, or 16…or even younger… when you make marriage mean anything, then marriage is meaningless…and as we have seen in the netherlands….real marriage breaks down…and the children suffer for it. Just as we have seen in this country with the breakdown of families…crime, drugs, gangs, etc.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 2:44pm

      @Joe: religious freedom does not trump civil rights. Your religious freedom does not give you the right to discriminate against others. You can frame it as a religous freedom issue all you want but really it’s just bigotry. You may have the right to a biggoted ideology, but you do NOT have the right to institutionally practice it.

      As for equivocating homosexuality with pedophilia, the important distinction is that in a gay marriage, it is a contract between two consenting adults. In our society, we regonize that over a certain age, a citizen is mentally mature enough to sign into contractual agreements. Age does matter in our society and has very real legal repercussions, so your slippery slope argument fails as well. So long as two people are legally old enough and enough to sign a marriage contract, I could care less who they are.

      As for your final statement, it’s completely bogus. In virtually every category, the United States far outpaces the Netherlands in crime. Even if we assumed that your observation was correct, and it isn’t, you would still have to demonstrate that gay marriage has a causal relationship to an increase in “crimes, drugs, gangs, etc.”

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 3:12pm

      maprog, so freedom of speech and religion are not civil rights? really? thanks for proving, yet again, that the gay ‘rights’ movement is a fascist movement. Where do you find these ‘civil rights’ at in the constitution? not that the constitution matters to peoplel ike you. So in other words you have no problem snuffing out the liberty of those who disagree with you.

      pedophilia is a sexual orientation…as is homosexuality, and heterosexuality for that matter. so the same arguments to give special rights to homosexuals can be made for pedophiles. Hasn’t the age of consent been lower than 18 in the past? surely some judge will declare age of consent laws ‘discriminatory’ in the not too distant future. The slippery slope argument works pretty well….since the argument for gay marriage is now expanding to polygamy, as slyswine proves.

      as far as your last paragraph….http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp
      rending marriage meaningless has resulted in more out-of-wedlock births…and we all know what has happened in this country with the break down of REAL marriage…and its those very things…crime, drugs, gangs, etc.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 3:59pm

      @Joe: so wait, it’s not “fascist” if you want to legislate away the rights of a minority group, but it is if you want to ensure that said minority can’t be systematically oppressed by a majority? That’s an interesting definition of “fascist.” See, I would think that telling an group of people that they can’t have rights because they are designated as “undesirables” would be a bit more fascist.

      You‘re also building yet another straw man because no one said that you can’t speek your mind (freedom of speech). Saying you don’t like gay people is a whole lot different than making laws that institutionally oppress them. No, I don’t see the language “civil right” in the constitution, but I do see language about how everyone has equal rights that are inherent in their birth.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 4:12pm

      maprog: yeah it is fascist to take away the freedom of speech and religion from someone just because they disagree with you…..and thats exactly what people like you want to do. You have no problems systematically oppressing that majority of christians do you now?

      so then according to you, pedophiles and polygamists should have that same right, since they just have a sexual orientation…right?

      The CA supreme court has stated that a christian doctor doesn’t have freedom of speech and religion when it comes to the gays.

      Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

      http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4941377&page=1

      so to fascists like you, there is no freedom since it would be ‘discriminatory’

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 4:34pm

      @Joe: no, actually “fascists like [me]” want equal freedoms for everyone. That’s what that whole “all men are created equal” thing the Founders were so fond of was about. I’m not taking away your freedom of speech. If anything, you’re exercising it more when you interact with me, because we’re)allegedly) having a discussion. You can find no place in our dialogue where I said that your right to say what you want should be revoked, along with your right to pray to your god and practive your religion. What you are failing to understand is that you do not have the right to deny someone their equal rights under the law. Yes, if you define a right as the ability to deny someone else thier rights, your “right” gets trumped. For all this talk of fascism, you fail to see the irony in that your position is defined by denying an entire subset of the population equal access to rights shared by everyone else.

      As for your point about pedophiles: look, if you can’t have a debate without injecting red herrings, then it’s on you, not on me. Pedophilia has zero to do with this debate and you‘reonly invoking it because you’re falsely equivocating pedophilia with homosexuality. If you bothered to read my post above, you would know that I used very specific language, that being “between two consenting adults…who can legally sign an marriage contract.” Pedophilia lies outside thar realm on those two counts, so no, pedophiles shouldn’t have “equal rights.”

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 4:44pm

      maprog: yeah you are taking away my freedom of speech…and religion…how hard is this? the gay marriage proponents in CA showed what a fascist movemetn it is. what you don‘t understand is that you don’t get to create rights out of thin air. even the NY times acknowledges the loss of religious liberty under the gay marriage regime…http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/us/10beliefs.html

      in other words you want your special rights to take precedence over my rights, becasue you disagree with my view. how very fascist of you…no surprise though.

      pedophilia is no red herring…its a sexual preference just like homosexuality…..homosexuality used to be illegal too….and whats to stop a judge from declaring age of consent laws ‘discriminatory’ nothing…especially since the age of consent has varied through our history.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 5:09pm

      @Joe: I can see that this is turning into a battle of endurance rather than a debate based on logical principles.

      I am not creating rights out of this air. The concept of equal rights is fundamental to the American model and is the basis on which all other rights are derived. By observing that gay people are included in that model is not “creating rights out of thin air.”

      Your freedoms cease when they start to encroach in the freedoms of others. You can not use your religion to justify institutional oppression of a group. Not sure how many times we’re going to go in circles here about it. You’re religous freedom ceases when you use that freedom to deny other people their freedoms. You can turn it around and say that by not allowing religous people to be institutional biggots, you are denying them their rights, but that argument doesn’t hold water. Religious freedom means that the government cannot oppress you for your faith, nor make it subservent to any other faith. It doesn’t mean you can use that faith to oppress whatever group your faith deems undesirable and then hide behind an arbitrarily defined “right” that YOU pulled out of thin air. Religious freedom does NOT mean your religion can be used to deny others their rights.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 5:23pm

      @Joe: it doesn’t matter if the age of consent was different in the past because we are talking about today, not 100 years ago (or even 20 years ago). That is a poor argument. Age of majority laws are based on the concept that when a person reaches a given age, that they are mentally and emotionally mature enough to make certain decisions, such as signing into a contractual agreement. Since they enjoy those privileges, they also enjoy new rights and bear more responsibilities. What you are saying is that age of majority laws are arbitrary, but they are not. It’s based on biology, neuro-anatomy, and psychology. A 4-year-old, does not have the same capacity as an 18-year-old in any of those areas. The same applies to a ten-year-old or a fourteen-year-old. This stuff isn’t just made up.

      When we discuss the act of sexual relations between an adult and a child, there is a very real difference in those capacities. This is why it’s illegal, because the two members of the party are comletely different in those respects and it amounts to one person preying on another because of that.

      Homosexuality is not like pedophilia because the psychological processes behind it are completely different. Most homosexuals experience emotions and love the same way you or I do. They aren’t preying on people, or taking advantage of someone naivete. They are interacting with an adult who has generally the same emotional and neuro-anatomical development as they do

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 5:27pm

      maprog: you don’t have any logic…you can’t just create rights…and no right takes away rights from someone else. what you want is to impose your FASCIST agenda and silence christians. show me the RIGHT to marriage in the constitution…you cannot. there is no right to marriage…and especially to gay marriage which has never existed in the history of the world.

      freedoms don’t cease for another right…your own words show that you have no problems denying REAL RIGHTS to others as long as they disagree with your fascist gay agenda.

      you don’t even see your own blatant hypocrisy…you complain about christians denying others rights, but you have no problem with denying the rights of christians….pathetic. you truly are a fascist.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 5:42pm

      (accidentally posted this on the next page)
      maprog; you do know the age of consent has varied throughout our history right? teenagers used to be able to get married in this country under the age of 18.

      its a very good argument…you want special rights for gays based upon their sexual orientation…pedophilia is a sexual orientation just as homosexuality is. so why shouldn’t they have the same special rights as gays do? other than braying about the ‘age of consent’ you have no logical reason to deny pedophiles the same rights.

      you can say they are different…but you have no proof….from wikipedia:

      Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to males, females, both, or neither. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring[1] and also refers to a person’s sense of “personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them

      explain to me why pedophilia does NOT meet that definition. you cannot…as all of your arguments, they have no basis in fact or logic.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 5:59pm

      @Joe: if you are going to refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, then you‘re going to have to also say that it’s an orientation just like heterosexuality. All of your points can be turned right back around toward heterosexuality, but you disingenuously compare it only to homosexuality, clearly trying to draw a comparission between them, The problem is, in order to draw that comparisson, it must logically follow that the comparision can be made with heterosexuality as well.

      If we’re going to draw the comparisons, then it would also be fair to look at the differences. Pedophilia is an act that harms and exploits another human being, namely one who is biologically, psychologically, and neuro-anatomically substantially less developed than the pedophile. In general, heterosexuality and homosexuality between adults (as most cases are) lack this characteristic. Most homosexual and heterosexual relationships are between people who are developed in all of those areas: and therefore, both parties have the capacity to fully understand the consequences of their relationship.

      So sure, I’ll give you the point that pedophilia is a sexual orientation in that it is a long-term attraction, but that doesn’t make it the same as other sexual orientations. You are drawing a false equivalence, because if you’re going to compare pedophilia to homosexuality, you must compare also it to heterosexuality. That nuance seems to fail on you. You define illegal based on the harm is causes.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:06pm

      maprog: reading is fundamental
      joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 3:12pm

      pedophilia is a sexual orientation…as is homosexuality, and heterosexuality for that matter.

      but then you can’t deal with my arguments, all you can do is throw up straw men. again your supposed ‘point’ is shown to be false. So explain to me organizations like NAMBLA…and there is no hetero equivalent…the ‘safe schools czar’ of obama’s apparently has no problem with pedophilic relationships…and then of course there are the catholic bishops.

      The pedophiles don’t think it harms the other person…why are you imposing your values upon the pedophiles when you don’t want christians to impose their values upon others? hmmmm? apparently your beliefs are so important that others should lose their freedom just because they disagree with you.

      as far as illegal, homosexuality used to be illegal too…and the health problems associated with it are quite serious…but you have no problem with the harm homosexuality causes. no surprise there.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:06pm

      @Joe: as for the gay marriage issue, you are really just rehashing the same points you have made before, and that I have already rebutted. At this point, you’re just trying to outlast me, in hopes that if you keep repeating yourself, that somehow you will win the argument. The problem is that each point you bring up, I’ve already addressed.

      Beyond that, you are arbitrarily defining what are “real” rights, I assume to be contrasted with “not-real” rights, like “all people are inherently equal and should have equal rights under the law.” Lastly, you drop the term “fascist” around as if it carries any logical weight in a debate. That’s called an argument ad hominem. Calling me whatever you want has no bearing on the legitimecy of my argument. On top of that, I believe it’s also a reductio ad hilterum, because, of course, anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs must be a fascist. This allows you to take all sorts of intellectual short-cuts.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:21pm

      maprog: you haven‘t ’rebutted’ anything. you truly are a legend in your own mind…and thats about it. your arguments are sophmoric…and your ‘logic’ is truly laughable. You don’t realize that you are doing what you decry in others. you whine about ‘rights’ and complain about not having them…but you have no problems taking away the rights of others to advance your fascist agenda.

      You have proven you are a fascist by trying to take away the rights of others that you disagree with. thats the kind of thing fascists do. Next you’ll want christians to wear some kind of identifying symbol no doubt. I do not want to take the rights away from anyone…nor do I wish to have my rights taken away to grant people special privileges that have never existed in the history of the world…and you cannot justify those special ‘rights’ by the constitutuion, logic, or history.

      Truth hurts.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:41pm

      @Joe: I will give you credit. You certainly have a tenacity, but unfortunately in the world of debate, you don’t win arguments by outlasting the other. You do it by countering their points with substantiated points of your own, or by demonstrating their faulty logic.

      You can call my agruments sophmoric, but you have to do more than just say it. You have to demonstrate it. As for straw men, there’s only one here who I can see is committing such a fallacy. in your last paragraph, you mention that I would want Christians to wear identifying marks. Clearly you are the one committing such fallacies, and are not a person who can be reasoned with. You claim victory by rehashing the same points over and over again, even after they have been rebutted. You then proceed to put multiple red herrings into the argument. When that doesn’t work, you just revert to insults. It’s like a knocking all the pieces on a chess board over and then claiming it won the match.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • MAProg
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:55pm

      : what does NAMBLA have to do with anything? This is a text book example of a red herring, as we initially were discussing gay marriage. You are shifting the argument to avoid addressing my initial points.

      So what that NAMBLA doesn’t have a heterosexual equivalent? All it proves is that those people get more publicity. It hardly proves the rule. You cannot deny that there aren’t pedophiles who abuse little girls. Just because they didn‘t go out and make an organization celebrating it doesn’t mean they don’t exist in equal numbers.

      It’s irrelevant want harm pedophiles “think” they’re causing. There are objective ways to measure the harm they commit. Therefore; to answer your question, yes, I’m fine with taking away their abolity to act on their desires because those desires do irreperable harm to other people. People who often can‘t defend themselves or don’t fully understand the consequences of what is happening to them. In our society, we have laws that are designed to take away the freedoms of those to cause harm to others, especially the most helpless among us. That doesn’t make me fascist.

      Homosexuality used to be illegal, but unjustifiably so. Any risks, whether real or imagined can be understood by those parties partaking in such behavior because those parties are consenting adults. They have the mental and emotional capacity to understand the nature of what they are doing. A child does not.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 8:42am

      maprog: I did demonstrate your faulty logic repeatedly. all you can do is drone on about ‘rights’ for some…while of course relishing taking away the rights of others you disagree with. thats why you’re a fascist…if the jack-boot fits….and with you it does.

      you haven’t rebutted anything…nor have you explained why gays should be given this special right which has not existed in the history of the world…and why the rights of other should be taken away to acccomodate them. so try answering the question…why should the my freedom of speech and religion be taken away to accomodate the gays?

      its PAINFULLY obvious you cannot.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 8:48am

      maprog: as far as NAMBLA….it shows there is an organization, a gay organization, that is pushing pedophilia…ever hear of the slippery slope argument? it fits very well…and you are unable to refute it. gay marriage will lead to polygamy, and will lead to more ‘rights’ for pedophiies….and there are elements int the gay movement that support it. Just as Kevin Jennings, Obama‘s ’safe schools czar’ founder of GLSEN, saw nothing wrong with a pedophilic relationship.

      there are straight pedophiles…but there are no hetero equivalents of NAMBLA…which even the ACLU defends…no surprise.

      you say homosexuality used to be illegal, but unjustifiably so…but give no reason…the same can be said about polygamy and pedophilia..and if people like you get your way, in a few years people like you will be saying those things. as far as the age of consent…its 13 in spain…and its varied in the US over time and in different states.

      Report Post » joe1234  
  • nomercy63
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:34am

    Time for him to resign! You were a liar presiding over a case and you damn well know that you were lying!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 3:13pm

      He already retired. You pick up on little details like that when you read the whole story before commenting, instead of just the headline.

      Report Post »  
  • Bhaub
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:30am

    So… if the lawyer is straight, don‘t we claim there’s yet another bias? Obviously every straight person has to hate gays, and every gay person has to lie to support their eeeevil agenda. It’s not like the law is clear and the judge made a good decision.

    You guys are amazing in your intolerance. Jesus would be very disappointed in you all.

    Report Post » Bhaub  
    • Biff Marupis
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:50am

      Truth be told, the whole “what if the judge were straight” scenario went through my mind as well. As far as you knowing who Jesus would and would not be ashamed of, you give yourself way too much credit. If you want to play THAT game, then homosexuality is not only condemned in The Bible, it is singled out! Still…it’s not my place to judge anybody, but that doesn’t mean I have to condone it with my silence either. Just sayin……

      Report Post » Biff Marupis  
    • Bhaub
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:57am

      Did Jesus say that homosexuality is a sin? You can’t go off of the Old Testament, after all, otherwise you’d be promoting stoning people for working on the Sabbath.

      So, in the new Testament- and ONLY the parts which Jesus allegedly was involved with- where does it claim that homosexuals were evil? I never saw Jesus once condemn them. In fact, he taught to love everyone.

      Report Post » Bhaub  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:06am

      bhaub: hate to tell you, but Jesus is involved with the entire bible…front to back…He is the I AM in the burning bush…and since the bible is inspired by God, and Jesus is God.

      ps: He doesn’t appreciate people twisting His words….

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • bullcrapbuster
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 11:20am

      Yes Jesus wants us all to love one another but although we love all people we eschew evil. Homosexual behavior is evil (wrong) because it destroys happiness. Gay’s for the most part are angry,unhappy and self centred.

      Report Post » bullcrapbuster  
  • welovetheUSA
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:24am

    The people voted “No”……………..go to cable channel LOGO and watch what gays are………Want these sexed unstable idoits around children? Fighting along side our soldiers?

    Report Post » welovetheUSA  
  • turkey13
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:17am

    We the people do not exist anymore. Here in Oklahoma we voted no Sharia Law but the Justice Dept.knows better than us, so they canceled us out.

    Report Post »  
  • GodsDotr
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:36am

    I worked on the Prop. 8 campaign and know firsthand how intolerant the other side is of other people’s views. The trial has been stacked from the beginning and we heard the news early in the case that the judge was gay. The governor refused to protect/uphold this law and almost every politician in CA has learned to play ball with the gay community including Republicans because of their money, influence and power. LET’S PRAY THAT TRUTH AND LIGHT PREVAIL!

    Report Post »  
  • elphi43
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:39am

    If the people get to vote on “Prop 8,” California might lose it’s title as a Gay- Communist State.

    Report Post » elphi43  
  • dadsrootbeer
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:32am

    SANFREEKO. California is the turd bowl of society.

    Report Post » dadsrootbeer  
  • psst
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:05am

    Surprise–Surprise–Surprise!!!
    A kal-y-4-nya judge admits he’s a homosexual.
    As for being gay. What does that have to do w/ this story. There are happy peoples all over the US and the World for that matter.

    Report Post »  
  • RIGHTHOOK
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:49am

    Why is it that we vote anyway?? Let’s see, when we vote and those that don‘t have it ’their way‘ make a big issue to overturn then the system caves in under pressure to be ’politically correct’ if the subject matter is a lightening rod and then this kind of absurd nonsense takes place. So let’s assume they won their gay marriage legality and those that opposed cried foul. Yup, it would be gay bashing at its finest and all kinds of unsavory lunacy from these whinny liberals. Get a life……

    Report Post » RIGHTHOOK  
  • chazman
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:46am

    To have a majority vote struck down in the first place should have caused a riot, but it didn’t. And now to find out that the presiding judge is GAY should have Californians up in ARMS, but they aren’t, Damn, I hate California … nothing but sheep.

    Report Post »  
    • RIGHTHOOK
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:55am

      It’s not just California, it’s the entire country with a very few exceptions. California just happens to have the largest population of every walk of life. Vermont, Maine, Mass., NY. There are plenty of other states that would roll over for this foolishness.

      Report Post » RIGHTHOOK  
  • viewthis
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:43am

    The voters have spoken, and that used to men something. But now we are a “civilized” country falling in step with the European models. Keep on electing these Facist Progressives and it will get worse.

    Report Post »  
  • BehindBlueEyes
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:22am

    You mean to tell me no one knew this judge was gay?
    The judge didn’t have to disclose anything. All he had to do was right thing and recuse himself from the case. This weasel judge knew he was going to retire so he figured he would do what was in his best interest and then live happily ever after.

    Report Post » BehindBlueEyes  
    • mickie4
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:40am

      I was furious when I heard this judge was queer. So glad the people in CA are fighting his decision and not just letting it go.

      Report Post »  
  • LadyIzShy
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:17am

    what a shock a gat Judge who at best left out important information.. in CA.. gee wiz golly who would have guessed

    Report Post » LadyIzShy  
  • teddrunk
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:08am

    I thought everyone in SF was gay. You mean there a few straights? Why would a straight person live in New Sodom?

    Report Post »  
  • LiberalMarine
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:59am

    I really don’t understand how two gay people getting married weakens your marriage at all. Their love is no different than yours.

    Report Post » LiberalMarine  
    • kickagrandma
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:08am

      @LIBERALMARINE ~~ If “their love” is two people of the same sex having sexual relations with one another, then YES it IS different from our heterosexual relationship of love. Ours is ordained by GOD; theirs, ordained by satan.

      Report Post »  
    • SCHEXbp
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:15am

      Sure it’s different. Love between a man & a woman is a natural attraction, the end result of which is procreation (barring some rare physiological problem). Gay men have an unnatural lust for each other & their sex is oral & anal sodomy. This is not the basis for procreation. If you think it is, tell your wife that you will only practice oral & anal sodomy with her from now on (in sympathy with gay men) & see how long she agrees to that.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:22am

      That’s begging the question. The love between a man and a woman is fundamentally different fromhomosexual attraction. To believe otherwise is akin to believing that the men are no different from animals. It becomes a foundational premise that affects many other moral principals.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:44am

      when you make marriage meaningless then anything goes. As we have seen in the netherlands, when gay marriage is approved it makes marriage meaningless…and when that happens we see more broken homes, more children without fathers….and we all know what that leads to…crime, drugs, gangs.

      Report Post » joe1234  
  • let us prey
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:51am

    This is all meant to weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. Traditional family values are being squashed with the pushing of this agenda. When the government redefines the marriage laws, being equal and having equal rights will not be good enough for the movement. They will force society to approve them with the help of the govt. The word marriage will be gone and replaced by civil union. More agenda pushing is not the answer.

    Report Post » let us prey  
  • maryjanesuncle
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:50am

    Wow I love the smell of self serving hate in the morning…this is as sorry as Dems. on money issues

    Report Post » maryjanesuncle  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:43am

      the only self-serving hate I see is from the gays.

      Report Post » joe1234  
  • Eric Von Zipper
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:41am

    My friends… Always remember to think kindly of the poor unfortunate Gay folk. After all, it’s not their fault that they were born with a Genetic Defect which makes them have to live their lives with pointed heads, angry hearts and perverted souls…

    Report Post » Eric Von Zipper  
    • Pilgrim Bill
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:06am

      @Eric Von Zipper
      you were funnier in the beach party movies, now give yourself “the finger”

      Report Post »  
  • Joseph28
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:29am

    Yeah your personal life counts….. when it has a DIRECT impact on the case you are ruling on!

    I see this probably hitting the Supreme court, but I’m afraid that it will be overturned again in the supreme court :/

    Still fight to the bitter end, because the left absolutely will, we can do no less.

    Report Post » Joseph28  
  • trooper
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:27am

    He should have “kept it in the closet” where it belongs.

    Report Post »  
  • Nemo13
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:25am

    This is all quite simple: Gheys, find your own ceremony for your ‘ghey grouping’ m’kay? Marriage, it’s meaning and ceremony, is RELIGIOUS, not LEGAL. The legal part you can do whatever you want, have some ghey freakofest and get a voodoo scien-tology priest or something, but STAY OUT OF THINGS THAT DO NOT ACCEPT YOU. Really, the only reason I see gheys pushing this thing, trying to force their way into this RELIGIOUS ceremony is really just another attack on religion itself. There is no other reason for it. Once again, the greying of things is what they want; to force others to accept them as normal. But guess what? IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN! EVER! Ok gheys? You will NEVER be a part of true marriage. Period.

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:17am

      Er,

      Can ATHIESTS get married under your ideals?

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Eblaze44
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 5:48pm

      This is the WHOLE deal – marriage is a legality and it carries benefits. Religion usually had so very little to do with marriage, it was a cultural and legal binding. It mostly deals with things like inheritance and in the US the tax code.

      http://www.essortment.com/history-marriage-21303.html

      Report Post » Eblaze44  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:57pm

      Nempo – please quote us any evidence you might have which indicates that the California law would have forced disapproving religious institutions to preform or have any hand in gay marriage?

      In point of fact, it was the LEGAL(“civil”) marriage they asked for, and you just said they could have that as long as they stayed out of the religious end.

      So you should be in support of the judge’s decision.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • trooper
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:23am

    Forget the lawyers, they should get the doctors looking into why so many people out there are stricken with this disease, maybe there is something in the water.

    Report Post »  
    • Whirled Peas
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:00am

      trooper
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:23am

      Forget the lawyers, they should get the doctors looking into why so many people out there are stricken with this disease, maybe there is something in the water.
      *****************************
      Nothing a full frontal lobotomy and drool cup wouldn’t fix…. wait… isn’t that already a prerequisite for being a liberal?

      Report Post » Whirled Peas  
  • let us prey
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:15am

    He looked a little light in the loafers to me [rumors had circulated he was gay] the only thing missing here are pics with him in leather and a ball gag.

    Report Post » let us prey  
  • dpselfe
    Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:03am

    Who’s surprised? Seriously….corruption in the federal court system? Liberal Progressive Activists on the bench ignoring the will of the People? Gay rights activists trying to mainstream deviant sexual behavior under the guise of “equality”?

    Anthony Weiner called. He has an extra seat for the judge………in rehab!

    Report Post » dpselfe  
    • veruca salt
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:15am

      He was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, but was not confirmed due to opposition from Democrats. He was nominated again by George Bush, Sr. and his nomination was confirmed the second time.

      Shame on those liberal progressives Reagan and Bush, Sr.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:19am

      If he had come out before the ruling … but to do it after shows that he was trying to hide the fact .. even if there were “rumors” . He should have been honest in the first place and either took the heat or recused himself. His ruling is tained.

      Report Post »  
    • biohazard23
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:26am

      Wow, a liberal judge with an agenda. Who woulda thunk it?

      Report Post » biohazard23  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:33am

      So millions of CA voters vote TWO TIMES,
      IN CLEAR MAJORITY, on an issue,
      AND JUST ONE GAY JUDGE gets to overturn ALL the voters because HE IS GAY ……
      I’m sure that is what democracy looks like

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • LiberalMarine
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:02am

      @Cheeze

      Actually, it was only one vote that made same-sex marriage invalid, not two.

      Report Post » LiberalMarine  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:20am

      @ LiberalMarine
      We voted for Prop 22 in 2000.
      The court overturned the voters.
      Then voters voted again for Prop 8 in 2008.
      Which was overturned () again by a judge

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • grandmaof5
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 7:34am

      VERUCA, just because he was appointed by Reagin and reappointed by Bush has no bearing. If he was, at the time of his appointments, following the Constitution that is what mattered. Apparently he decided to let his ‘feelings’ overthrow his judgement and went against the will of the people as his parting hurrah. The law needs to be reversed.

      Report Post »  
    • jackbauer2012
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:05am

      I don’t think that it is much of a stretch to compare this situation with a Judge is a slave in 1860 to make a decision for the State of Georgia that slavery is Unconstitutional.

      Truly these are two different issues but socially similar in the passion both sides hold on this issue.

      Report Post »  
    • Young_Millionaire
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:11am

      Cheez – just admiring your effortless shift from race baiting to gay bashing in the same morning! Go Girl!

      Are you trying for a redneck hat trick?

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:20am

      Salt it doesn’t matter who nominated him. He as a Federal Judge should have recused himself because he stood to benefit from the hearing. You wouldn’t let a judge set in judgment of someone who killed a mamber of his family because his judgement would be clouded by personal feeling. SAME HERE

      Report Post »  
    • jackbauer2012
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:25am

      @Young_Millionaire, No race baiting here. I’m just trying my best to give a simple comparison why everything is wrong with this story of a Gay judge voting for Gay benefits against the popular vote of the people. In an effect to undo what the majority of people in a state desire. I clearly stated it was not the same thing. But the passion of both sides are equal IMHO to the constitutionality of their position. I think it is easy to make that comparison. But I also expect a person with an honest agenda to understand the context of the comment and not to jump to an incorrect conclusion of a simple post.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:28am

      I’d say “the ruling won‘t be overturned based on a judge’s orientation” but then again, this is CA, one of the most messed up states. It‘s anyone’s guess, really.

      It would be stupid to overturn it though. I completely agree with the assessment “Where will it stop?” Will we no longer have Christian judges rule on religious issues? Tea Party judges on issues with a fiscal impact? Too many people take the knee-jerk reaction of “This is what I want, so who cares about the fallout,” but that’s dangerous and incredibly short-sighted.

      Report Post »  
    • jackbauer2012
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:29am

      @Young_Millionaire, sorry. I read Cheez, but saw Geez. My fault. lol

      Report Post »  
    • dpselfe
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 8:43am

      @verulka salt: Goof for you for doing your homework. Are you blaming Reagan and Bush 41? Seems to me that in the 20 or so years since he was put on the bench, his opinions might have changed. I’m sure no one put a gun to his head and told him he had to be gay. Maybe it was his intent all along to hide his Liberalism….even from his closest (and closet) friends.
      There are Liberal Progressives masquerading as TEA Party candidates……why not a closet homosexual pretending to be a Conservative?

      Report Post » dpselfe  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:02am

      “Ted Olson, one of the couples’ lawyers, said he is unaware of any other cases in which a ruling was challenged because of the issuing judge’s sexual orientation. He called the move to disqualify Walker “frivolous” and “demeaning” and said that expecting judges to reveal parts of their personal lives when hearing gay rights cases would set a dangerous precedent.”

      As disgusting as homosexuality is, and as damaging and demeaning as it is to the very identities of those who choose to live this way, telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property or bodies is unConstitutional.

      This applies to marriage itself, as well – government just shouldn’t be involved. And this way, marriage only gets “redefined” by confused individuals.

      Of course, the flip side is that trying to prohibit others from choosing to speak out against homosexuality is also unConstitutional.

      Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:16am

      1)TEN YEAR relationship – hardly secretive – he may have told the media after the case, but it was no secret here in CALI.
      2)to say he is incapable of handing down an unbiased ruling is like saying NOBODY can judge a rape case – they are all biased – men or women. This is just a false assumption.
      3)Gay marriage was LEGAL in California, prior to Prop 8. The California constitution prohibits passing laws that take away rights from select groups of people, which would make Prop 8 invalid.

      IF IT NEITHER BREAKS MY LEG, NOR PICKS MY POCKET, WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF MINE?
      -Thomas Jefferson

      ‘My wife and I didn’t want gay marriage… So we didn’t get one!’

      The government has no business being in the marriage business. We need to stop social engineering via taxation – that means a fair/flat tax (which would end all deductions – including those related to marriage or children)

      The Bible teaches that marriage is an institution of God, and that marriages are made in Heaven. As such, the government has no business getting involved.

      Government sees marriage as a simple contract entered into by 2 individuals. As such, it is, in fact, discriminatory to restrict the genders of the people who can enter into a contract. Say you want to buy a car – but you are only allowed to buy cars from men. That would be discriminatory. This is another reason we need government out of the marriage business.

      Govt can’t tell Churches what to teach or how to practice.
      LESS GOVT = MORE PO

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Whirled Peas
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:41am

      dpselfe
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:03am

      Who’s surprised? Seriously….corruption in the federal court system? Liberal Progressive Activists on the bench ignoring the will of the People? Gay rights activists trying to mainstream deviant sexual behavior under the guise of “equality”?

      Anthony Weiner called. He has an extra seat for the judge………in rehab!
      ***********************
      Nope… on his lap with no undies on….

      Report Post » Whirled Peas  
    • fastfacts
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:42am

      Talk about a bias opinion, how can a judge be unbias when it effects his way of life.

      FYI – The IMF Chief allegedly raped a girl, the first things his friends try to do is buy her off. Next they try to slander her, now she won’t testify of help convict him…

      SOUNDS LIKE OUR GREAT COURT SYSTEM AT WORK.

      Report Post »  
    • fastfacts
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:42am

      Talk about a bias opinion, how can a judge be unbias when it effects his way of life.

      FYI – The IMF Chief allegedly raped a girl, the first things his friends try to do is buy her off. Next they try to slander her, now she won’t testify of help convict him… ( http://tiny.cc/ltc35 )

      SOUNDS LIKE OUR GREAT COURT SYSTEM AT WORK.

      Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:04am

      How can he be unbiased?

      Seriously??

      Are YOU so incapable of objective thought that you cannot even see how somebody else can be biased?

      If he had been straight, the gays could have complained he ruled against them because he was straight.

      Using your own arguments…
      1)If it affects your way of life, you CANNOT be impartial.
      2)You claim gays are ruining our way of life by wanting to get married too.
      Since you claim gay marriage would ruin our way of life, then a ruling by a straight judge could not be impartial because it would affect his way of life.

      Which leads us back to my original statement – If impartiality is impossible, then no judge could be impartial in a m/f rape case – the judge is either male or female.

      The judge was a Regan appointee. He had a long career of impartial judgements. He was/is not one of the shills that oh,bummer has stacked the SCOTUS with.

      Just because you do not agree with him does not mean he was wrong or biased.

      Regardless, this will likely get challenged further.

      We just need to return marriage to the Churches and get government out of the business ENTIRELY.

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • turkey13
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 10:27am

      It looks like this is tie between the constitutional rights of queers and non queers. The tie breaker is how the people voted – very simple for all those educated smart people.

      Report Post »  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 12:46pm

      @ Young_Millionaire
      So do you have any facts to offer to make an intelligent argument
      or you just come here to spit out your juvenile insults ?

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • Legion
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 2:31pm

      @Cheez – hey, baby I ain’t denying yer facts, just righteously pointing out your vituperative slash & bash style – you’re really good at it. I award you today’s “Blaze Hate Trick” for three extremely offensive posts before lunch!

      Go, go, go girly! You rock the rednexus! You shud Bee on the Blow Collies Tour.

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 2:51pm

      @ Legion
      True or false :
      The ( gay) judge has ruled on a case which concerns him personally
      and he has ruled in a way that will benefit him financially ?

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • Disnylv
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 3:04pm

      Wait he has been in this for 10 years? No way Reagan or bush sr. Knew

      Report Post »  
    • Armed Patriot
      Posted on June 13, 2011 at 4:39pm

      @TomFerrari…3)Gay marriage was LEGAL in California, prior to Prop 8. The California constitution prohibits passing laws that take away rights from select groups of people, which would make Prop 8 invalid.

      Sorry to correct you but gay (sodomite) marriage was never legal in The Peoplez Republic of Kalifornia. These proposition were brought up and voted on in response to SF Mayor Gavin (any twosome) Newsom violating the law and marrying gays “whether you like it or not”. Since it was never legal in the first place no rights were taken away. In The Peoplez Republic of Kalifornia gays were already afforded the same rights under a legal civil union process. We demand the morals of Judeo/Christian beliefs be upheld… After all, that is what this country was founded on, GOD.

      Now this politician who defiantly led the charge to break this law and federal laws (sanctuary city) is our Lieutenant Governor. The law only matter when it is liberal and anti-American.

      Report Post » Armed Patriot  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 7:06am

      @ArmedPatriot – sorry to correct YOU, but, THOUSANDS of gay marriages in Cali. Would be impossible had it not been legal at 1 point. They married LEGALLY during a period in which it was determined that Cali’s laws did allow it.
      “The period of granting such licenses began on June 16, 2008, due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of California based on an equal protection argument and ended November 5, 2008, due to the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that limited marriages to those between one man and one woman. Before the passage of Proposition 8, California was only the second state to allow same-sex marriage. Marriages granted by any civil entity, foreign or otherwise, anytime before the passage of Proposition 8 remain legally recognized and retain full state-level marriage rights.”

      The facts are the facts – please research them – it is too easy for us to fall into the trap of repeating what we hear in our conservative circles, accepting what we hear as fact, often because we tend to trust our conservative sources.
      Social Engineering IS WRONG whether left or right.
      Constitution sets forth our GOD-GIVEN rights, declares them INALIENABLE, & charges the US govt w/ PROTECTING those rights.
      Marriage is a HOLY institution, NOT the job of govt, but of Churches!
      Get govt OUT of marriage.
      IF IT NEITHER BREAKS MY LEG NOR PICKS MY POCKET WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF MINE?

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love