Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 9, 2010
Homo Straight Up
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:37 AM
So... it turns out that the federal judge overseeing the Prop 8 trial in San Francisco is... gay. The haters at NOM aren't happy because as everyone knows only straight people can be impartial when it comes to issues like gay marriage because straight people are scrupulously fair at all times, of course, and if we've learned anything from the Prop 8 trial so far, geez, it's that no straight person has ever harbored an irrational, anti-gay bias.
1
Yay! I hope he hands down a filthy perverted pro-homosexual verdict in favor of filthy perverted homosexual marriage, and destroys every heterosexual marriage in the state, as a prelude to destroying every heterosexual marriage in America and eventually the world. Because that's what we really want. And, um... the children.
2
If the christianoids had their way lesbian and gay citizens would be banned from holding public office. A case in point is that one christian minister is organizing a boycott of Houston because the people elected an openly lesbian mayor recently. Happily the U.S. Constitution trumps the bible and we remain a secular nation.
3
He should follow the example of Clarence Thomas who always recuses himself from affirmative action cases.
4
So the Supreme Court won't take the case due to existing bias, right? They're all pretty religious.
Also, remember how the Gay Games nearly got sued out of existence by the IOC and the Judge wouldn't give the co-founder any financial relief, even though the co-founder was gravely ill at that point? That was Walker.
Also, remember how the Gay Games nearly got sued out of existence by the IOC and the Judge wouldn't give the co-founder any financial relief, even though the co-founder was gravely ill at that point? That was Walker.
5
He should follow the shining example of Justice Alito who always recuses himself from cases involving religion.
7
Obviously, the only reasonable solution is to put this trial on hold until we can develop an artificial intelligence with the guaranteed ability to rule impartially. Until we have Skynet, justice cannot be served.
9
Can anyone say "appearance of impropriety."
I can. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Walker was chosen entirely at random. Are you suggesting that a judge who is gay is incapable of impartiality when hearing a case involving gay people?
I can. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Walker was chosen entirely at random. Are you suggesting that a judge who is gay is incapable of impartiality when hearing a case involving gay people?
10
As I understand it it's only a rumor that Walker is gay, but, if he is, so what? You're never going to completely eliminate bias from any judgment made by a person, and so far Walker's demonstrated some fairness--sometimes even leaning toward the Prop 8 side. He allowed Blankenhorn to be treated as an "expert" even though he's not.
Let's say Walker's orientation really is a problem, though. Then those opposed to Prop 8 could argue just as legitimately that a heterosexual judge is biased against their case. The only solution I can see is a bisexual judge.
Let's say Walker's orientation really is a problem, though. Then those opposed to Prop 8 could argue just as legitimately that a heterosexual judge is biased against their case. The only solution I can see is a bisexual judge.
11
Let's see: Judge was drawn randomly, both sides were given ample time to investigate the Judge, Walker's sexuality is well-known and he's handled numerous gay-related cases without incident, aside from having to look the co-founder of the Gay Games in the face after telling him he's basically going to die in debt.
It's clear that NOM feels its case is flimsy and is likely afraid to let this case get to the Supreme Court and is hoping the 9th District throws the case out and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
It's clear that NOM feels its case is flimsy and is likely afraid to let this case get to the Supreme Court and is hoping the 9th District throws the case out and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
13
Walker has handled the case with breathtaking incompetence regardless of his perversions and deviancies.
Look for a 6-3 overturn.
Look for a 6-3 overturn.
14
#1 I totally agree, you must be one of the few that have read "The Homosexual Agenda" On page 352 the exact issue of Gay Judges and Gay Judgettes (The Judge in Drag) is addressed. From that position of power they will destroy everything that is held sacred (marriage, puppies, apple pie) and install everything that is held perverted (sex, musicals, form fitting clothing).
15
@13: Yes, the Supreme Court will likely grant cert without having heard from the Ninth Circuit. (After all, cases like Brown v. Board of Education were mostly about the trial court's procedure.) Glad to see you so informed about our nation's judicial system.
16
I give NOM a little bit of credit on this one. Their press release in the linked article focused almost entirely on facts that point to impartiality of the judge, from entirely ruling in favor of our side to having his decisions overturned by higher courts.
I'm straight, but if I ruled as one sided as the judge has (which I would have), NOM would have the same legitimate arguments about impropriety.
I'm straight, but if I ruled as one sided as the judge has (which I would have), NOM would have the same legitimate arguments about impropriety.
17
I do not believe he should recuse himself. I think Clarence Thomas's position here is silly, particularly since he is no longer in a position in which affirmative action could either help or embarrass his fortunes.
However, I do believe that should the judge here return a verdict that goes against the plaintiffs, the plaintiff's supporters should not talk as if the judge's gayness obliged him to decide the case differently, or as if he's betrayed the tribe, or as if he had behaved hypocritically. He has no obligations to the tribe. He has obligations to the law.
However, I do believe that should the judge here return a verdict that goes against the plaintiffs, the plaintiff's supporters should not talk as if the judge's gayness obliged him to decide the case differently, or as if he's betrayed the tribe, or as if he had behaved hypocritically. He has no obligations to the tribe. He has obligations to the law.
18
Of course a gay judge can be impartial. But what I fear is the general public's reaction and perception. If the judge rules in in favor of the gay couples, the ruling will always be held suspect. In the court of public opinion it won't be seen as a legitimate ruling.
19
@16: The point of the press release is to inject a totally irrelevant fact - Walker is gay - into the national conversation about the case. Of course the release was dressed up to seem as legitimate as possible. The takeaway remains the same.
We're dealing with the same movement that thinks it wise and good politics to make half the country think that President Obama is a foreign arab muslim terrorist.
We're dealing with the same movement that thinks it wise and good politics to make half the country think that President Obama is a foreign arab muslim terrorist.
20
@18 pretty much sums up my feelings. That's why I said appearance of impropriety; I didn't mean to imply there was any actual impropriety. Nevertheless, in the long run, it can amount to the same thing.
21
Intolerance... Intolerance was the case that they gave me
Bigotry... Bigotry was the case that they gave me
I'm fresh up out my coma
I got my daddy and my daddy and my homies in my corner
It's gonna take a miracle they say
Bigotry... Bigotry was the case that they gave me
I'm fresh up out my coma
I got my daddy and my daddy and my homies in my corner
It's gonna take a miracle they say
22
Of course, it doesn't matter which way he rules; in either case the ruling will be appealed. The question is only how far: there are 2 possible intermediate steps before it reaches the US Supreme Court, and depending on how THOSE courts rule it may never even get there.
24
Even if Walker had run a spotless proceeding it is likely the Supremes would have upheld the gay marriage ban.
Factor in Walker's baffonery and it is as close to a sure bet as they come.
Factor in Walker's baffonery and it is as close to a sure bet as they come.
25
That's why I said appearance of impropriety; I didn't mean to imply there was any actual impropriety. Nevertheless, in the long run, it can amount to the same thing.
It's unfortunate but true, and many people are going to interpret Walker's ruling based on their own personal biases. That fact alone, though, should serve a reminder that everybody's biased. It could be argued that there's an appearance of impropriety in every single case ever taken to court simply because every judge has, to some degree, been influenced one way or the other by personal biases. Some are just more obvious about it than others.
26
Since it has been now uncovered that this judge has an obvious bias and the reason behind his insistence is now obvious, the court needs to dismiss this 'trial' cause they cannot longer keep up this charade. If it was weak and shady to start with it's not been completely exposed for what it is. Judicial activism.
28
The pro-prop-8ers did the right thing by not challenging him--tactically. If he rules in their favour and says no gay marriage, they can say "look, even a GAY judge doesn't think there's a right to gay marriage." But if they lose, they can stay silent while the entire right-wing-o-sphere talks about gay activist judges imposing their will on the people.
Moreover, although his legal rulings can be reversed on appeal, his factual findings can't. So if he finds that gays have been historically the target of discrimination and that we are politically powerless, that finding can't be disturbed by the court of appeal or the supreme court. And of COURSE the wingnuts will cry foul, and say he allowed his personal beliefs to influence his ruling.
No matter what, it's a win for the pro-prop 8 people.
Moreover, although his legal rulings can be reversed on appeal, his factual findings can't. So if he finds that gays have been historically the target of discrimination and that we are politically powerless, that finding can't be disturbed by the court of appeal or the supreme court. And of COURSE the wingnuts will cry foul, and say he allowed his personal beliefs to influence his ruling.
No matter what, it's a win for the pro-prop 8 people.
29
Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1967, the first African American ever appointed, where he served for 24 years. This was after a distinguished career as a civil rights attorney, including arguing the successful Brown v. Board of Ed case before the Supreme Court.
During his 24 year tenure, SCOTUS heard quite a number of civil rights cases, including (I've bolded the ones that specifically relate to African Americans):
* Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968): The Court held in this case that federal law bars all racial discrimination (private or public), in sale or rental of property.
* Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) In this case, the Court decided that certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African-American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited.
* Lau v. Nichols (1973): The Court found that a city school system's failure to provide English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry amounted to unlawful discrimination.
* Roe v. Wade (1973): In this landmark case, the Court decided that a woman's right to abortion is part of the constitutional right to privacy.
* Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974): Found that Ohio public school mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant teachers violate constitutional guarantees of due process.
* Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977): In this case, the Court declared that proof of a racially discriminatory intent is required in claim that race was a motivating factor in a land zoning decision.
* University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) : The Court decides that a public university may take race into account as a factor in admissions decisions.
* Batson v. Kentucky (1986): This decision holds that a state denies an African-American defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.
* Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): The Court holds that a Georgia statute criminalizing same-sex sodomy is constitutional.
* Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986): Found that a claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
* Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987): The Court decides that a county transportation agency appropriately took into account an employee's sex as one factor in determining whether she should be promoted.
* Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1987): In this case, the Court held that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment can form the basis for a valid claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
* Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992): The Court decided that an award of money damages is possible in a case brought to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, alleging sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher.
Can anyone refresh my memory? Did Justice Marshall recuse himself in any of the civil rights cases that affected African Americans? Did Sandra Day O'Connor recuse herself in any of the post-1981 cases that directly affected women?
More...
During his 24 year tenure, SCOTUS heard quite a number of civil rights cases, including (I've bolded the ones that specifically relate to African Americans):
* Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968): The Court held in this case that federal law bars all racial discrimination (private or public), in sale or rental of property.
* Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) In this case, the Court decided that certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African-American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited.
* Lau v. Nichols (1973): The Court found that a city school system's failure to provide English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry amounted to unlawful discrimination.
* Roe v. Wade (1973): In this landmark case, the Court decided that a woman's right to abortion is part of the constitutional right to privacy.
* Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974): Found that Ohio public school mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant teachers violate constitutional guarantees of due process.
* Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977): In this case, the Court declared that proof of a racially discriminatory intent is required in claim that race was a motivating factor in a land zoning decision.
* University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) : The Court decides that a public university may take race into account as a factor in admissions decisions.
* Batson v. Kentucky (1986): This decision holds that a state denies an African-American defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.
* Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): The Court holds that a Georgia statute criminalizing same-sex sodomy is constitutional.
* Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986): Found that a claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
* Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987): The Court decides that a county transportation agency appropriately took into account an employee's sex as one factor in determining whether she should be promoted.
* Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1987): In this case, the Court held that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment can form the basis for a valid claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
* Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992): The Court decided that an award of money damages is possible in a case brought to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, alleging sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher.
Can anyone refresh my memory? Did Justice Marshall recuse himself in any of the civil rights cases that affected African Americans? Did Sandra Day O'Connor recuse herself in any of the post-1981 cases that directly affected women?
30
Would people be this pissed off if there were a female judge hearing a case about woman's rights/sexual harassment/rape/etc.?
31
@23 & 26: Aww, you brought thought into it, LC. Not your strongest feature, so you might want to reconsider.
As to the judge's "obvious bias", who should we have instead? A straight person? By your incontrovertible logic, that person would have an obvious bias as well. Maybe a bisexual -- but it would have to be a bisexual who is not currently in a relationship or else they might be swayed that way. And we should measure their previous relationships, as well. If they've had more same sex relationships than opposite (or vice versa), they'd obviously sway to that direction.
Actually, that was the long way around to saying Loveschild, you're a bigoted moron and you're whining because your side has no case. We've seen that if your side can't win legally you'll lie, cheat and kill to win by any means necessary. You really are the scum of the earth.
As to the judge's "obvious bias", who should we have instead? A straight person? By your incontrovertible logic, that person would have an obvious bias as well. Maybe a bisexual -- but it would have to be a bisexual who is not currently in a relationship or else they might be swayed that way. And we should measure their previous relationships, as well. If they've had more same sex relationships than opposite (or vice versa), they'd obviously sway to that direction.
Actually, that was the long way around to saying Loveschild, you're a bigoted moron and you're whining because your side has no case. We've seen that if your side can't win legally you'll lie, cheat and kill to win by any means necessary. You really are the scum of the earth.
32
So called judical activism is an interesting thing.
When it is used to acomplish something that agrees with your bias then you call it moral, right and good? You can claim that the public is being forced out of their bigotry for good reasons.
When it disagrees with your personal bias than you call it is shady, wrong, and weak? And, you bitch that your being oppressed against your will.
When it is used to acomplish something that agrees with your bias then you call it moral, right and good? You can claim that the public is being forced out of their bigotry for good reasons.
When it disagrees with your personal bias than you call it is shady, wrong, and weak? And, you bitch that your being oppressed against your will.
33
And up next in LC's battle for homolessness, impeachment of the heterosexual, church attending, god fearing judge that allows children to be adopted by same sex couples.
You really are legend in your own mind.
You really are legend in your own mind.
34
Sooo.... based on NOM's logic, an African-American judge should recuse him/herself from any case involving another African-American, a woman judge should recuse herself from a case involving another woman, ad nauseum... Where will it all end?
35
I'm find with this case being retried as long as all Catholic judges on the Supreme Court recuse themselves. The Catholic church financed much of the pro-8 campaign and they obviously cannot be un-biased.
36
Oh no, a gay activist judge!
Nevermind that the Pro 8 people had absolutely no case, and that giving all people equal rights in this country is simply the right thing to do.
Nevermind that the Pro 8 people had absolutely no case, and that giving all people equal rights in this country is simply the right thing to do.
37
Well, once again @26 nails it so to speak.
If you can't trust a gay judge due to bias, maybe we could all agree on a straight married judge that enjoys a vigorous pegging. This may also give the SCOTUS pause when considering an appeal.
Everyone wins?
If you can't trust a gay judge due to bias, maybe we could all agree on a straight married judge that enjoys a vigorous pegging. This may also give the SCOTUS pause when considering an appeal.
Everyone wins?
38
@31 How about doing away with the whole 'trial' ? Start there. It's now painfully clear that this whole thing has been nothing more than something instigated by gay lobby groups and a gay judge just because they don't like how the people of California vote.
The little veil of impartiality it had( if any) has been completely lifted.
The little veil of impartiality it had( if any) has been completely lifted.
39
38: if you knew anything about the trial, which you don't, you'd know that such cases end up at trial a majority of the time.
40
@38 Hey dummy! You do know that this judge was chosen at random, right? It's not like the plaintiffs were allowed to pick the judge. Nor were gay lobby groups.
Of course he can rule impartially, just like a woman ruling in a case involving sexual discrimination.
But this will give the bigots more talking points and that is unfortunate.
Of course he can rule impartially, just like a woman ruling in a case involving sexual discrimination.
But this will give the bigots more talking points and that is unfortunate.
41
@38: Hm, I guess this secretly is about the rights of straight people since the man who brought the case forward and Olson/Boies are all straight.
42
@38: You are so right -- let's do away with that pesky judicial branch! The legislative branch is lousy with homos, too. Get rid of congress! With one supreme leader we can ensure that we're all safe. Oh and we shouldn't let the people vote on him -- too many homos out there could put one of them in power!
You are repugnant, you are ignorant and you are dangerous.
You are repugnant, you are ignorant and you are dangerous.
44
Oh, this is going to be fun! If the gay judges recuse themselves from gay-issue cases, and the female judges recuse themselves from female-issue cases, and the African-American judges recuse themselves from African-American issue cases, then the next step is that the male judges will recuse themselves from all cases involving males!
Woo Hoo! Everybody wins! No bias...of course, nothing will ever actually make it to trial, either, since there will be no available judges.
Woo Hoo! Everybody wins! No bias...of course, nothing will ever actually make it to trial, either, since there will be no available judges.
45
So, Loveschild, since your proposal to throw out the entire trial isn't going to happen no matter how much you would like it to, since the facts alone will probably be enough for the judge to rule against Prop 8 regardless of his sexual orientation, are you suggesting that the trial should be moved to, say, Texas?
Please drop the "judicial activism" and "will of the people" business. There was a time when segregation was "the will of the people" in this country and it was finally done in by "judicial activism". Would you honestly be in favor of segregation if enough people voted for it?
Please drop the "judicial activism" and "will of the people" business. There was a time when segregation was "the will of the people" in this country and it was finally done in by "judicial activism". Would you honestly be in favor of segregation if enough people voted for it?
47
@45, just a heads up, being black isn't the same as making a CHOICE to "BE" gay. She says it every time.
48
@47 well we could change black to Christian, as that too is a choice, but they have always held all the power in this country and there are already anti-discrimination laws in place to protect them. It's really a shame that the big bad homos are oppressing their rights though....
49
Walker was the attorney in the Olympics case, not the judge, so his job in that case was to be as partial as he could be.
Note that the presence of a female judge in sexual harassment cases and the presence of an African-American judge in race discrimination cases makes a substantial difference. Of course, political affiliation (roughly which president appointed the judge) also strongly influences outcomes, so there is not illegitimate or wrong about these differences of viewpoints, but impartiality does not mean that different judges would not come to different decisions based on the same facts and the same arguments.
Isn't the rumor that (former) Justice Souter is gay much more plausible? In his 60's, confirmed bachelor, etc.?
Note that the presence of a female judge in sexual harassment cases and the presence of an African-American judge in race discrimination cases makes a substantial difference. Of course, political affiliation (roughly which president appointed the judge) also strongly influences outcomes, so there is not illegitimate or wrong about these differences of viewpoints, but impartiality does not mean that different judges would not come to different decisions based on the same facts and the same arguments.
Isn't the rumor that (former) Justice Souter is gay much more plausible? In his 60's, confirmed bachelor, etc.?
50
If you submit that a gay judge must have a gay bias, then it must follow that a straight judge must have an anti-gay bias. So is the only fair solution is to have a bisexual judge to hear this case? But none of that matters in the end. Regardless of the judge's orientation, the case will be appealed, no matter who the judge is or how he or she may decide.
51
@45 Are you sure ? I wouldn't be so confident if I were you. Setting aside all the poor arguments that have been made by the No side, this judge for all intended purposes has lost all credibly now. He didn't have any reason to invalidate the law before and now he's not even trustworthy to oversee it. Let's skip the charade in SF and take it to where it counts, the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Segregation has nothing to do with choosing to be a part of the institution of marriage. Those who identify as gays in their private lives are still allowed to enter into marriage, the doors are open to anyone. What you do in your privacy is your business. But as with all else in life, there are some basic rules and one of the rules of marriage is that it comprises the union of one man and one woman. Segregation in the south was based on the color and ethnicity of a person not on what they did. Being from the south you should know that better than most here.
52
So if you think he can't judge this case because being gay automatically makes him biased agains the Prop 8 backers, then you must also agree that a straight judge couldn't judge this case either, because he/she likewise must automatically be biased FOR the Prop 8 backers.
That means that only bisexual judges can ever rule on a case involving sexual orientation, because all gay judges and all straight judges must be biased, and cannot possibly render a fair verdict. Only bisexuals are capable of impartiality.
Do we have a list of bisexual judges around anywhere?
That means that only bisexual judges can ever rule on a case involving sexual orientation, because all gay judges and all straight judges must be biased, and cannot possibly render a fair verdict. Only bisexuals are capable of impartiality.
Do we have a list of bisexual judges around anywhere?
55
@51, you claim that "But as with all else in life, there are some basic rules and one of the rules of marriage is that it comprises the union of one man and one woman."
How long, exactly, has that been a rule? For one thing it's a very arbitrary rule, and one that even in the Bible, which you often thump as though it offers proof of what you believe, is treated with a great deal of flexibility.
As for segregation, it was a matter of prejudice. Are you going to tell me that because you think that "[w]hat you do in your privacy is your business" you don't have a prejudice against homosexuals? People can be fired, and, in places like Uganda, they can be executed for what they do in private--a practice you've actually defended.
You're also forgetting that, until Loving v. Virginia, segregation did have something to do with marriage: people were not allowed to marry if the color of their skin didn't more or less match.
And finally, you're complaining that this judge has no credibility because he may be gay. Couldn't the same argument be made of a heterosexual judge?
How long, exactly, has that been a rule? For one thing it's a very arbitrary rule, and one that even in the Bible, which you often thump as though it offers proof of what you believe, is treated with a great deal of flexibility.
As for segregation, it was a matter of prejudice. Are you going to tell me that because you think that "[w]hat you do in your privacy is your business" you don't have a prejudice against homosexuals? People can be fired, and, in places like Uganda, they can be executed for what they do in private--a practice you've actually defended.
You're also forgetting that, until Loving v. Virginia, segregation did have something to do with marriage: people were not allowed to marry if the color of their skin didn't more or less match.
And finally, you're complaining that this judge has no credibility because he may be gay. Couldn't the same argument be made of a heterosexual judge?
57
Stop arguing with the blessed Loveschild that has been sent from above to uplift us spiritually and teach us about the love of her God.
From her own lips the truth. "My Heavenly Father has always sent his angels to guard me in all my ways."
Take from her inspiring 'love' and 'wisdom' and get thee to a church. So that you too can be made in her image.
So you may be strengthened to defend the Catholic Church's against "sins" it acknowledges but does nothing to atone for, and defend potential genocide in Uganda because it is a God loving nation.
Stop now this 'hateful' behavior and reverently accept the wisdom of your spiritual guide who has so graciously appointed her 'holy' self for your benefit.
From her own lips the truth. "My Heavenly Father has always sent his angels to guard me in all my ways."
Take from her inspiring 'love' and 'wisdom' and get thee to a church. So that you too can be made in her image.
So you may be strengthened to defend the Catholic Church's against "sins" it acknowledges but does nothing to atone for, and defend potential genocide in Uganda because it is a God loving nation.
Stop now this 'hateful' behavior and reverently accept the wisdom of your spiritual guide who has so graciously appointed her 'holy' self for your benefit.
60
@51: "Segregation has nothing to do with choosing to be a part of the institution of marriage"
It was part of systemic bias.
"Segregation in the south was based on the color and ethnicity of a person not on what they did."
No, Segregation was based entirely on choice, in order to avoid constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court level. From the majority opinion of Plessy v. Ferguson:
The court affirmed that skin tone and ethnicity were not a rational basis for a law, but the choices made by those targeted by segregation laws were.
It was part of systemic bias.
"Segregation in the south was based on the color and ethnicity of a person not on what they did."
No, Segregation was based entirely on choice, in order to avoid constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court level. From the majority opinion of Plessy v. Ferguson:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
The court affirmed that skin tone and ethnicity were not a rational basis for a law, but the choices made by those targeted by segregation laws were.
61
It's useful, #58, and it's amusing that s/he hasn't cottoned on that she's actually helping people by giving them a chance to practice demolishing the outlandish claims of people who are actually like her.
63
Those who identify as gays in their private lives are still allowed to enter into marriage, the doors are open to anyone.
Replace "gays" with "blacks", then check your sentence for meaning, clarity. Your uninformed petulance is showing once again - you with a coat hanger suspended over multi-hued, hand-linked boy-man-woman-girl avatars.
Replace "gays" with "blacks", then check your sentence for meaning, clarity. Your uninformed petulance is showing once again - you with a coat hanger suspended over multi-hued, hand-linked boy-man-woman-girl avatars.
64
What I find interesting is that Loveschild's definition of "marriage" says nothing about love, even though that has become the primary defining characteristic of--and reason for--marriage in our culture.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is allowed or not it's not going to affect my marriage. However I still haven't been given a single valid reason as to why two people of the same sex shouldn't enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as other married couples.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is allowed or not it's not going to affect my marriage. However I still haven't been given a single valid reason as to why two people of the same sex shouldn't enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as other married couples.
65
@38 - How about doing away with the whole trial and just giving every human being the same rights?
Oh, but that would be unfair to hateful bigots.
Oh, but that would be unfair to hateful bigots.
66
About halfway through the trial, which I followed extremely closely (I was constantly hitting "refresh" on the blogged transcripts to read every word in as close to realtime as possible), an attorney friend who was following (but not part of) the case mentioned Judge Walker's orientation to me. I was stunned and asked if the Defense might discover that. He told me that everyone on both sides has always known, even before he was randomly assigned the case.
As first I took that as a sign that the Defense genuinely didn't think it was a problem, otherwise they would have raised it early in the game and created such a stink that he'd be forced to recuse himself. But now in retrospect, I wonder if they were secretly thrilled. I wonder if they knew their defense was so weak that they would lose at the trial level regardless who presided. If they kicked up a fuss early on and got Walker removed, they'd no longer be able to claim a gay judge ruined their case. By waiting until after, they can insinuate that his bias caused them to lose at trial and possibly also tainted the appellate process by controlling what evidence and testimony was and was not allowed. (Which, btw, is not entirely true, because I gather a different judge ruled on admissibility of evidence, which I assume is done so that the trial judge only sees the evidence that was ruled admissible and won't be tainted by seeing disallowed evidence.)
As first I took that as a sign that the Defense genuinely didn't think it was a problem, otherwise they would have raised it early in the game and created such a stink that he'd be forced to recuse himself. But now in retrospect, I wonder if they were secretly thrilled. I wonder if they knew their defense was so weak that they would lose at the trial level regardless who presided. If they kicked up a fuss early on and got Walker removed, they'd no longer be able to claim a gay judge ruined their case. By waiting until after, they can insinuate that his bias caused them to lose at trial and possibly also tainted the appellate process by controlling what evidence and testimony was and was not allowed. (Which, btw, is not entirely true, because I gather a different judge ruled on admissibility of evidence, which I assume is done so that the trial judge only sees the evidence that was ruled admissible and won't be tainted by seeing disallowed evidence.)
67
@43: "In the gayest city in the U.S, yes. What would be the odds of getting a gay judge?"
Given that it's a Federal court, appointed by the President and approved by the US Senate, pretty darn low. Walker wasn't publicly out during his Senate confirmation hearings in 1989, when he was appointed by Bush 41, and it was never raised in the hearings. To the best of my knowledge, the very first Senate confirmation hearings for an OPEN lesbian/gay appointment was Roberta Achtenberg's Assistant HUD Secretary hearings in 1993. I am not aware of any other lesbian or gay judges in this court, and if there are some, they definitely were not publicly out at the time of their confirmation hearings.
Given that it's a Federal court, appointed by the President and approved by the US Senate, pretty darn low. Walker wasn't publicly out during his Senate confirmation hearings in 1989, when he was appointed by Bush 41, and it was never raised in the hearings. To the best of my knowledge, the very first Senate confirmation hearings for an OPEN lesbian/gay appointment was Roberta Achtenberg's Assistant HUD Secretary hearings in 1993. I am not aware of any other lesbian or gay judges in this court, and if there are some, they definitely were not publicly out at the time of their confirmation hearings.
68
@55 How about since society has existed.
Segregation is prejudice, you're correct on that, what you fail to grasp is that it's prejudice based on a physical trait. That's what Loving v. Virginia undid. Society upholding marriage is not segregation, what you do with your body and how you self identify is not forbidden in this nation. All of us are free to forsake or take part in the institution of marriage but we have to observe basic requirements if we want to do the latter. We have to be adults not children, can't be married to other people, have to be a couple comprised of a male and a female, etc..
Gays are the ones instigating a reversal of the will of the people of California ( trial ) not straights. So the actions of this judge are of relevance here.
69
@55 How about since society has existed.
Read some history. Marriages have been polygamous in many societies. Are you referring specifically to one society? Are you also suggesting that marriage should be upheld solely because of tradition? Many traditions have either evolved or been abandoned because, well, societies change.
So the actions of this judge are of relevance here.
So what the judge does "in private" is suddenly relevant, even though you yourself said previously that "What you do in your privacy is your business."
Finally, please address the "will of the people" issue. If it were the will of the people to allow same-sex marriage, would you accept it then?
70
Not "tradition" but nature and in the best interest of society and the nation of said society.
"So what the judge does "in private" is suddenly relevant, even though you yourself said previously that "What you do in your privacy is your business.""
No. I meant the bias he has repeatedly shown during the 'trial'.
"So what the judge does "in private" is suddenly relevant, even though you yourself said previously that "What you do in your privacy is your business.""
No. I meant the bias he has repeatedly shown during the 'trial'.
71
I meant the bias he has repeatedly shown during the 'trial'.
Please provide some examples of said "bias". I noted, for instance, that he allowed David Blankenhorn as an "expert witness" even though Blankenhorn didn't have any qualifications that made him an expert. I'd call that bias in favor of the defendants of Prop 8.
Not "tradition" but nature and in the best interest of society and the nation of said society.
Ah, suddenly it's all about the "best interest". As for nature, are you now claiming homosexuality is "unnatural"? And how exactly does same-sex marriage harm society?
I see you've dropped your "will of the people" argument since it no longer works for you, although I'm sure you'll resurrect it at a later date.
72
Wow..... I love the comments on this site (some of you guys are so AWESOME)! I also love that the "religious messengers from god" seem to forget that during the trial the Pro-8 folks didn't have a leg to stand on. Both "experts", during testimony, failed miserably.... They both more or less endorsed same-sex marriage under examination. Seriously, hate is hate is hate. Why do people not understand that discrimination on one set of people is discrimination against us all. Love thy neighbor, anyone? Anyone? ANYONE?!?!?!? It saddens me that we are supposed to be the so-called leaders of the free-world shining a light into the darkness of hate... yet a large segment of our population is fine with going against the heart of America's ideals.
America is the land of the freeeeeeee!*
*Some restrictions may apply.
America is the land of the freeeeeeee!*
*Some restrictions may apply.
73
@61--- Yes, this is clearly the point of whoever LC is (likely a composite). No true conservatives --- and I have plenty in my family so I am familiar --- would waste so much time on a site that is the antithesis of what they believe.
Do you spend as much time on conservative blogs making comments as LC does here??
Do you spend as much time on conservative blogs making comments as LC does here??
74
@70: The text of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which Loving v. Virginia overturned stated that it was passed for the benefit of society, because nature intentionally made people to be different races and that it was for the protection and health of the state that intermarriage be banned.
And pro-segregationists insisted children would be harmed by integration.
And pro-segregationists insisted children would be harmed by integration.
75
@63: You know what happened to Bellerophon because of his arrogance, right? Get off your damn soapbox.
@68: Yakov married both Leah and Rachel. So, one-man-one-woman since the beginning of civilization?
Also, sexual orientation IS a physical trait. Look on the small scale and you'll see different patterns of neurochemistry. And if you say that different body chemistry doesn't make a physical trait and therefore can righteously be discriminated against, then you might as well post signs saying "the diabetic need not apply".
@70: So...what bias has he shown during the trial? Quote me some quotes, you quotey-quotey-quote-quota-quoter-quotey-CWB.
@68: Yakov married both Leah and Rachel. So, one-man-one-woman since the beginning of civilization?
Also, sexual orientation IS a physical trait. Look on the small scale and you'll see different patterns of neurochemistry. And if you say that different body chemistry doesn't make a physical trait and therefore can righteously be discriminated against, then you might as well post signs saying "the diabetic need not apply".
@70: So...what bias has he shown during the trial? Quote me some quotes, you quotey-quotey-quote-quota-quoter-quotey-CWB.
76
The trial judge matters, but only because he has an impact on the trial record. Good attorneys, which definitely are involved here, have plenty of ability to shape the trial record.
The final decision is going to be made by nine straight people.
The final decision is going to be made by nine straight people.
77
Here's hoping that he's completely subverted by the homosexual agenda and rules all marriage illegal, destroying the fabric of American society and letting the Communists win.
78
@71 Walker's use of the court for public relations campaign efforts on behalf of the No side have been evident since the first day. Starting with the insistence of having cameras, which effectively drove away many who were ready to testify on behalf of the people of California, because they know how the lobby groups that funded the No side have no scruples whatsoever and are capable of retaliating against them and their families. How about the clear bias he has shown when demanding exhausting complete disclosure of documents and emails (some of which were not even relevant to the case) of the Prop 8 side while refusing to demand the same of the No side ? And on it goes.
Walker is only endearing himself to the gay lobby groups but is making a complete joke of the judicial system by doing so.
Walker is only endearing himself to the gay lobby groups but is making a complete joke of the judicial system by doing so.
80
@78: Loveschild, the witnesses did not sign on to participate as witnesses until after Walker said he would likely have the trial broadcast. They were also paid for their participation. When the Supreme Court ordered that all broadcast be blocked, Walker again asked the defense if they would recall all witnesses who dropped out since the trial was no longer being broadcast, but the defense demurred and said they would not.
When Walker stated he would also rule on the possibility of having the witnesses who dropped out testify anyway, the defense objected.
When Walker stated he would also rule on the possibility of having the witnesses who dropped out testify anyway, the defense objected.
81
To add to @80: ...Loveschild, it would seem that this circus the Defense is playing at is an attempt at playing the victim. To make Walker look biased, to make the defense look like the victimized caste that is attempting to uphold tradition.
The fact that they joined the trial days after Walker said he'd broadcast it and then dropped out mere hours before the trial began shows that their intent is not pure and is incredibly suspicious and potentially dishonest.
The fact that they joined the trial days after Walker said he'd broadcast it and then dropped out mere hours before the trial began shows that their intent is not pure and is incredibly suspicious and potentially dishonest.
82
@79 Prohibitions against men and women of different races marrying could not stand scrutiny because it had no basis for denying what's natural to the human race, the union of men and women. Men and women of different races had been marrying each other way before the illness of racial segregation in this nation to the point that new nations and peoples have been brought about from those unions. Can you say the same about homosexual unions ?......... You can't.
83
Oh wise self proclaimed 'holy' spiritual guide @ 78. Answer our plea.
Where is this font of 'wisdom' that proves that "Walker's use of the court for public relations campaign efforts on behalf of the No side have been evident since the first day." Tell us please so we the humble and uneducated can confirm with our own hearts and minds the 'truth' of your proclamations. Cite your source(s) please and may they only be from non-biased actual news sources so that the uneducated among us may be freed from the our imprisonment of unbelief. Hence, the 'wisdom' that is NOM can not be used.
Where is this font of 'wisdom' that proves that "Walker's use of the court for public relations campaign efforts on behalf of the No side have been evident since the first day." Tell us please so we the humble and uneducated can confirm with our own hearts and minds the 'truth' of your proclamations. Cite your source(s) please and may they only be from non-biased actual news sources so that the uneducated among us may be freed from the our imprisonment of unbelief. Hence, the 'wisdom' that is NOM can not be used.
84
The union of men and women is natural only if your straight. If your gay then it isn't natural at all.
It seems that those who obsess over the union of humans, use it as a cover to obsess over sex. Like a pathetic musical score, you hear 'dicks and vaginae & vaginae and dicks' being chanted under their every argument. Now that is one heck of a proclivity to endure.
It seems that those who obsess over the union of humans, use it as a cover to obsess over sex. Like a pathetic musical score, you hear 'dicks and vaginae & vaginae and dicks' being chanted under their every argument. Now that is one heck of a proclivity to endure.
86
It's time to stop that awful liberal... um... Ted Olsen.. um... and his awful liberal plot to plot with the liberal judges and ruin marriage for normal people everywhere!!!
87
@85 - I don't think we were called the US back then.
But I'm going to bet we had the same percentage of population that was gay then. They just were closeted. If they could afford a closet, that is. Not many closets in log cabins.
But I'm going to bet we had the same percentage of population that was gay then. They just were closeted. If they could afford a closet, that is. Not many closets in log cabins.
88
@86: By way of liberal activist Judge Vaughn Walker, who was appointed by that terrible liberal activist Bush.
89
@ 82, Yes I can. Gay people have existed forever, and we are not going away. I am every bit as "natural to the human race" as you are.
91
@78: So...if you testify in court against gays, then the gays will kill your family, according to you, you stupid cuntwhorebitch. You realize that keeping cameras out of the courtroom doesn't stop your name from going on the record, right? So the only reason for not wanting cameras is so that people will not be as widely aware of the trial's proceedings. Why? I imagine they don't want John and Jane Q. Public to know how little weight their arguments pull.
92
Sometimes it's hard not to feed the trolls.
I have a particular susceptibility to the naturalistic fallacy. It makes me want to scream and throw things like an ape.
I have a particular susceptibility to the naturalistic fallacy. It makes me want to scream and throw things like an ape.
93
While I am loathe to generalize, I do suspect that anyone who refers to judicial activism does so in ignorance of the contents of a ruling. After one reads such a report, there's much more impact in saying He presumed an absence of common law, or I can't believe he compared homosexuality to bestiality than the one-size-fits-all He was legislating from the bench.
Whether or not the Honorable Vaughn Walker is biased due to his sexuality will be clear in his ruling, which will be public record. The bases with which he started will be listed in excruciating detail. The logical progression will be described one tedious step at a time. Those of you who think he's biased will be able to specify exactly how he was. You'll be able to pinpoint his fallacy down to the vary fallacy he indulged, or axiom he presumed.
Or, not, and the rest of us will know just how much merit to credit your opinion.
Whether or not the Honorable Vaughn Walker is biased due to his sexuality will be clear in his ruling, which will be public record. The bases with which he started will be listed in excruciating detail. The logical progression will be described one tedious step at a time. Those of you who think he's biased will be able to specify exactly how he was. You'll be able to pinpoint his fallacy down to the vary fallacy he indulged, or axiom he presumed.
Or, not, and the rest of us will know just how much merit to credit your opinion.
94
That was a little awkward.
...You'll be able to pinpoint his error down to the vary fallacy he indulged, or false axiom he presumed...
Better.
...You'll be able to pinpoint his error down to the vary fallacy he indulged, or false axiom he presumed...
Better.
95
Uriel, your well-reasoned response is pleasing but utterly wasted on those who use the phrases "activist judge" or "legislating from the bench" to express their own personal, emotional dissatisfaction with a ruling. Those have become synonymous with, "OH YEAH? WELL I THINK the law oughta be..."
96
I think my point, balderdash is not only to encourage folk to watch for those words and recognize what's going on, but also to encourage those around here who use those words (and will continue to do so) just how quickly their foolishness comes to light.
97
Another example of those who aren't "normal" being biased. Because straight people's sexuality or white people's race (etc.) doesn't affect them in the least.
99
Boy, I'm in the zone today.
...but also to encourage those around here who use those words (and will continue to do so) to realize just how quickly their foolishness comes to light.
Sorry all.
...but also to encourage those around here who use those words (and will continue to do so) to realize just how quickly their foolishness comes to light.
Sorry all.
100
Lovechild, I know your knowledge is limited, especially when it comes to history, but here is an actual statement that was used to argue that interracial marriage wasn't natural:
Your arguments against gay people are every bit as hateful.
It is natural for part of the population to be gay. Get over it.
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Your arguments against gay people are every bit as hateful.
It is natural for part of the population to be gay. Get over it.
101
You can see recorded depositions from 2 of the DEFENCE's proposed witnesses here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PerryVSchwar…
Watch them and you'll understand immediately why they were withdrawn as experts for the defence: in a nutshell their testimony would have undermined the defence's case. Much like the testimonies of the two witnesses they DID call undermined their case, because not only were they unable to show that same-sex marriage is in any way harmful, but on the contrary they admitted that it's actually beneficial.
http://www.youtube.com/user/PerryVSchwar…
Watch them and you'll understand immediately why they were withdrawn as experts for the defence: in a nutshell their testimony would have undermined the defence's case. Much like the testimonies of the two witnesses they DID call undermined their case, because not only were they unable to show that same-sex marriage is in any way harmful, but on the contrary they admitted that it's actually beneficial.
102
Dingo@101, as instructive as that is, the whole problem is that the facts are just biased. And reality is biased. Loveschild can't catch a break because everything is biased in favor of equality. Thankfully Loveschild continues to cling to those deeply flawed yet mysteriously unbiased arguments in spite of being completely unable to justify them.
103
The unfounded assertions that Walker is biased are ridiculous, but ultimately are beside the point. No matter which way he rules, this case is going to be appealed and heard before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The point of the District Court case is just to make a record on which appellate arguments can be based. In short, it doesn't matter whether Walker is "biased" or not, because the district court decision *doesn't matter.*
Honestly, the Court of Appeals decision might not matter either. The case is going to go before a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit, go back down to the district court, then go back up again to be reheard before the 9th Circuit en banc.
Honestly, the Court of Appeals decision might not matter either. The case is going to go before a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit, go back down to the district court, then go back up again to be reheard before the 9th Circuit en banc.
104
Also, @28 - You make a lot of excellent points in your first paragraph. However, while you rightly point out that the Court of Appeals cannot reverse findings of fact, ruling that gays and lesbians are a suspect class is actually a finding of law, not of fact. In court, "facts" are a very, very narrow class of assertions - for instance, "X and Y were not allowed to marry, and their children are being denied the benefits of marriage" is a finding of fact, as is "N number of gay bashings occured in California between 2000 and 2010." On the other hand, the synthesis of this information into a finding that gays are historically discriminated against, and are therefore a suspect class, is a finding of law, and is subject to reversal.
Again, Boies and Olson know what they're doing. They're not trying to convince Walker of anything; they're trying to make a record compiling all the testimony and evidence that they've presented. That record is going to be the lynchpin of their arguments during the inevitable appeal.
Again, Boies and Olson know what they're doing. They're not trying to convince Walker of anything; they're trying to make a record compiling all the testimony and evidence that they've presented. That record is going to be the lynchpin of their arguments during the inevitable appeal.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (104) RSS