With anti-marriage-equality forces out of delaying tactics, the Ninth District Court of California began hearing arguments today in the seemingly neverending legal haranguing over Proposition 8.
The latest debate is over the arguement put forward by pro-Prop 8 forces that Judge Vaughn R. Walker should’ve recused himself from the case because he’s gay and in a long-term same-sex relationship. As it’s been said many times, if allowing gays to wed will indeed damage the institution of marriage, aren’t heterosexual judges just as likely to be impartial?
Next thing you know jurists with kids won’t be able to rule on custody cases.
Prop 8 backers might want to drag Walker’s private romantic life into the proceedings, but they’re uncharacteristically shy about being put in the spotlight themselves. The Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel will also rule on whether videotapes of the Prop 8 trial should be made public, which anti-equality forces are against.
Obviously they know the camera will add ten more pounds to their bloated carcasses.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
christopher di spirito
Ten years from now, Prop 8 will still be tied up in court. The court system in the Golden State makes a mockery out of justice.
Mike1987
This is endless
BigWoody
I’m confused…. You wrote:
“As it’s been said many times, if allowing gays to wed will indeed damage the institution of marriage, aren’t heterosexual judges just as likely to be impartial?”
Is it possible you meant:
“…aren’t heterosexual judges just as likely to be BIASED?”
MimoSF
@christopher di spirito: FYI the ninth circuit court is a federal appeals court and has nothing to do with the California State Justice System. Queerty only references California because that is where the Ninth Circuit court is based. I agree this whole thing is ridiculous, but lets just be clear it is the Feds who are dragging heels…
ewe
So are we to believe and accept that a heterosexual judge is impartial whether or not they have an interest in the outcome of a case but a gay judge is biased whether or not they have an interest in the outcome of a case?
So are we to believe and accept that a heterosexual judge is impartial whether or not they have an interest in the outcome of THIS PARTICULAR case but a gay judge is biased whether or not they have an interest in the outcome of THIS PARTICULAR case?
B
Re: – the opposition is trying to drag in Retired Judge Walker’s personal life because they are using a well-known tactic: throw as much mud as you can in the hope that something will stick.” It can be a sign of desperation: you don’t throw everything except the kitchen sink when you have a really good argument that could end up being buried in the noise.
Robert in NYC
So by the proponents’ “perverse” logic and for the sake of consistency, this could imply that a divorced hetero judge should be banned from ruling on divorce cases and only single hetero never married judges should preside over divorce hearings? What idiots. Of course this won’t hold any water, the court will rule against the proponents. Then we can gloat as Maggie Srivastav and Brian Brown cry crocodile tears.
the crustybastard
AD HOMINEM LOGICAL FALLACY: If the argument is unassailable, attack the person making it.
This weak shit could be easily dismissed by any kid from the local high school forensics squad. They’re bringing it before federal appellate court judges?
If this legal strategy doesn’t prevail, maybe they could try stamping their foot and yelling, “BUT IT’S NOT FAIR!!”