Gay judge violates his ethics in ruling?

1. 61

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   If this is true he needs to be stripped of his pension and retirement benifits.
   
   
   -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.-
   
   
   Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06 … z1P9sXWroG

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, no, you didn't just ask a question. You started with a statement, and made a judgment call.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If this is true he needs to be stripped of his pension and retirement benifits.
         
         There is my first comment... and the title is a ? dan. So give it up and get a life. Anyone 6th grader can see that this is a ? and my statement if prefaced with if. Any 6th grader.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Then Black judges can't rule in a civil rights ruling (nor can white judges), and straight judges can't rule on gay rights issues either.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      deblippposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The problem here is, you're assuming that only a gay judge is biased. In a case about orientation, EVERYONE has an orientation. A straight judge might also have bias based on his or her orientation. When we assume that only the "othered" people have bias, we are reinforcing a prejudicial status quo.

      replyreport
2. 60

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years ago

   give me a break..."stripped of his pension...blah blah" because he's a judge who happens to be gay...how could a conflict of interest arise because of a person's nature?...gay or not...if that is the case 'conflicts of interest' would arise many times in many cases....so why single this one out?...i think i know the answer

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The thread title is a question, and this is a valid story. And if he is guilty of selling out his ethics, then yes, he should lose his pension and benis. Don't really care if you agree or not. The issue isn't his life-style choce, but his ethical stance.
      
      Fairly simple. Not everything is based on hate. Well maybe to a leftist it is.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So why should a straight judge be allowed to rule on a question of whether gays should be allowed the same marriage rights as straight people?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No judge should be ruling on this stuff.
            
            Marriage is between 2 people who love each other. There is no room for government.

            replyreport
3. 59

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   Ron Paul talks about marriage in his most recent book (which I highly recommend) "Liberty Defined".
   
   He points out with impeccable precision that this entire debate over marriage is nothing more than a symptom of the fact that we're relying too much on government to do things for us.
   
   Why do we need our government to let us know if we're married or not? For millennia it was just that we simply called ourselves married, and everyone recognized it. This is the key point - you don't need a sheet of paper from some guy you've never met before to tell you that you're married.
   
   What about benefits? Well, the fact that "if two straight guys get married to gain the marriage benefits" is even a possible argument against gay-marriage simply shows us that our government is too intertwined in the marriage topic. Why the hell does "being married" grant me a benefit (or punishment) in the eyes of "random government guy #76"!?
   
   If two gay people want to be married... then why should anyone care? They're not forcing you to marry them!!! They're simply engaging in a bond between themselves to further cement their love for one another. No individual is allowed to force their own life-style on another, and unfortunately people are using government to do so today.
   
   It's utter nonsense.
   
   Government's role in marriage, if it has any AT ALL, is to simply write down who claims marriage to who. And even then, that sounds like too much power to me -- a private company or church could easily do this task without any theft of taxpayers.
   
   Once again, Ron Paul has shown us how freedom is the best solution to our current government-related woes.

   replyreport
4. 61

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   Ohhh all the lil leant leftists are mad at me... whaaa

   replyreport
   1. 60

      SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      correction....that's left leanin' leftist....i'm not mad - i just want yor money, huney!...come join the conspiracy......
      
      

      replyreport
5. 60

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years ago

   ...Warning....
   
   Close yor eyes now - the light might hurt...
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      
      PEOPLE BEING HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!
      
      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!!1!11111

      replyreport
6. 95

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   Oh, absolutely he should lose everything and maybe jailed to boot.  The very idea that a gay judge should rule on a matter fought so bitterly by religious heterosexuals!  There certainly should have been a religious heterosexual on that bench; that's obviously the only way bias could be eliminated.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I did not say that, either... did I? You all just think you can put words in peoples mouths and that makes it so.
      
      Any judge regardless of sexual orietation, race, or religion, has got to be able to set aside his own beliefs and rule based on the Law and the Constitution.
      
      That is just simpe and the way it should be.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And where, outside your imagination, is there any indication that he has failed to set aside his own beliefs?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Another thing I did not say. hahahaha... ah you are too funny. Where did I say that? Show me...

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Then what was the point of the post?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The point of the post was to look at his standing, discuss it, and to discuss legistlating from the bench. That is all.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Because you question it!

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Because I question legistlating form the bench in any form bby any judge. Why is it all you have to attribute hate as the motive for everything. it must be a dismal world to live in on the left. All you see is hate hate hate. We will never come to any agreements or conclusions if all you all can do is attribute all things to hate and dismiss it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Hey, I don't hate, I leave all that to the likes of you.
                           I don't even hate those right wingers who can see no wrong in their view and ascribe anything bad that they can't ignore to the left.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I ascribe plenty of what is wrong to the Progressive Right, also. And to those Conservatives on the Right which have sold us out for their own gain.
                              
                              And I do not hate. I smply point out the facts. Facts, as you know, are incapable of hate.

                              replyreport
                  2. 59

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Legislating from the bench, no matter the issue, is indeed a problem.
                     
                     Marriage is NOT a government issue, and it should not be brought in federal courts.

                     replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Although I did not indicate anything about your beliefs or words, there are many, apparently including the people that think he erred, whose concepts of bias are just way off base.  Thus the sarcasm.
         
         Just more of the same old crap, continuing the fight in a different arena, from the bigoted and biased among us that demand everyone live life as they direct.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry wilderness I mistook your sarcasm for an attack. I agree with this just being the same old fight, but it is unsettled. The people of Cali said they didn't want it and the bench should not over-ride their will. Just my opinion. As far as if he erred or not... I don't know. I guess we will see though.

            replyreport
7. 61

   Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago

   this story is in the news
   
   No it isn't, it's on the Faux News Network. Now if what you say is true that a gay judge can not offer an unbiased ruling on a gay matter, shouldn't all straight judges be forbidden from handling straight divorce cases? There is no way they can offer an unbiased decision. Do you see how rediculous your statemnets are? no of course not. You do realize that simply because you vote for th right, it doesn't mean that you are, don't youy.I do believe you should throw your hat into the ring and run for vice president. Palin will need someone to make her look at least mildly intyelligent and next to you she will apear to be a friggin genius.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have not said that stump. Nowhere did I say a gay judge could not be fair and unbiased. go back and read my posts... you will find that nowhere.
      
      So again all you leftists stop trying to put word in my mouth. My words stand on their own and speak for themselves. Do yo se how rediculous you all sound asserting I said something that is nowhere on this thread.
      
      Probrably not.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         But had you believed him to be fair and unbiased there would have been no need for your post.
         All your posts shout out your bias.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That is idiotic. I posted it to discuss it, and the effecs of legistlating from the bench. but you all live in hate and cannot se anything without those specks in your eyes.
            
            And since it obvious I didn't say any of that BS you all accuse me of, then I must have inferred it. What a joke. You all tried to lie about me and I called you on it. End of story.

            replyreport