Oh, Yes, About that "Liberal" Cally Judge

[jillian]

What, Ronaldus Magnus nominated an activist homo loving loving judge? Say it isn't so.

This is not the first time a non-biased President nominated a judge on merit rather then a limus test.

In all honesty do you think a Democrat would be that fair-minded?

Absolutely. Why, just look at George W. Bush and the appointments he made to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fair minded as can be. Nothing partisan there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Religion can still define marriaige any way they want. It is the State of California that must not discriminate.

There is no way a persons Civil Rights should be voted on

Marriage isn't a civil right. The only "right" as far as marriage is concerned is the right of the private religion to define marriage as it sees fit. If a religion decides not to allow gay marriage then the state of California does not, nor does anybody else, have the right to force them to marry gay people.

So, there is no such thing as a legal/civil marriage? The only marriages that exist are those done by religions?

That's how it's supposed to be. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the state has no business interfering.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Marriage isn't a civil right. The only "right" as far as marriage is concerned is the right of the private religion to define marriage as it sees fit. If a religion decides not to allow gay marriage then the state of California does not, nor does anybody else, have the right to force them to marry gay people.

So, there is no such thing as a legal/civil marriage? The only marriages that exist are those done by religions?

That's how it's supposed to be. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the state has no business interfering.

What about the countless religions and churches that want to perform same-sex marriages, but are currently unable to, due to the law?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reagan-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban | Cato @ Liberty

Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation denounces Judge Vaughn Walker for “extreme judicial activism” and “judicial tyranny” in striking down California’s Proposition 8, which barred gay people from marrying. And of course he doesn’t fail to note that Judge Walker sits in . . . San Francisco. Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries ups the ante: Judge Walker has “contempt for the rule of law” and is part of “the criminalization of not only Christianity but of the foundational values of civilization itself.” National Review allows the head of the National Organization for Marriage to mutter about the judge’s “personal bias.” Blog commenters rail against the “left-wing liberal judge.”

In fact, Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.

Interesting stuff...gotta love The CATO Institute!

There are further details at link.

Reagan has been dead for how many years? Just suposed that Reagan appoint Judge chnaged his point of view on things like maybe coming out oif the cloest a few years ago?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, there is no such thing as a legal/civil marriage? The only marriages that exist are those done by religions?

That's how it's supposed to be. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the state has no business interfering.

What about the countless religions and churches that want to perform same-sex marriages, but are currently unable to, due to the law?

Countless number of Churches? How many churches are there and is it authorized through there church doctrine?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, there is no such thing as a legal/civil marriage? The only marriages that exist are those done by religions?

That's how it's supposed to be. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the state has no business interfering.

What about the countless religions and churches that want to perform same-sex marriages, but are currently unable to, due to the law?

If a religion wants to perform same-sex marriages then more power to them. If a religion wants to allow polygamy then go for it. The law shouldn't define marriage because government has no place in marriage other than enforcing a contract.

 

[Ravi]

Marriage isn't a civil right. The only "right" as far as marriage is concerned is the right of the private religion to define marriage as it sees fit. If a religion decides not to allow gay marriage then the state of California does not, nor does anybody else, have the right to force them to marry gay people.

So, there is no such thing as a legal/civil marriage? The only marriages that exist are those done by religions?

That's how it's supposed to be. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and thestate has no business interfering.

Well...actually it is a social ceremony...and religion is social.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

 

[bodecea]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

Sure...and then any straight judge should have withdraw for the same reason.

 

[rdean]

What, Ronaldus Magnus nominated an activist homo loving loving judge? Say it isn't so.

Maybe he just nominated a patriotic American who loves "civil rights'?

 

[hortysir]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

This will be used against you in somebody's sig area

 

[LuckyDan]

Reagan-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban | Cato @ Liberty

Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation denounces Judge Vaughn Walker for “extreme judicial activism” and “judicial tyranny” in striking down California’s Proposition 8, which barred gay people from marrying. And of course he doesn’t fail to note that Judge Walker sits in . . . San Francisco. Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries ups the ante: Judge Walker has “contempt for the rule of law” and is part of “the criminalization of not only Christianity but of the foundational values of civilization itself.” National Review allows the head of the National Organization for Marriage to mutter about the judge’s “personal bias.” Blog commenters rail against the “left-wing liberal judge.”

In fact, Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.

Interesting stuff...gotta love The CATO Institute!

There are further details at link.

The article continues:

What was the hold-up? Two issues, basically. Like many accomplished men of the time, he was a member of an all-male club, the Olympic Club. Many so-called liberals said that should disqualify him for the federal bench. People for the American Way, for instance, said in a letter to Judiciary Committee chair Joe Biden, “The time has come to send a clear signal that there is no place on the federal bench for an individual who has, for years maintained membership in a discriminatory club and taken no meaningful steps to change the club’s practices.”

The second issue was that as a lawyer in private practice he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics.

Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.

 

[jillian]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

no more than someone should have recused for being heterosexual.

or should clarence thomas recuse himself from every case dealing with blacks?

it doesn't work that way.... not to mention, i've heard that, but haven't yet seen a credible source for it.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Yup, Dan, those are the points I wanted to make.

The most liberal groups didnt want him...not to mention some of his views are more libertarian than not.

Looks like the fundamentalist Christians lose again, not only on the case, but on trying to smear the person.

 

[LuckyDan]

Yup, Dan, those are the points I wanted to make.

The most liberal groups didnt want him...not to mention some of his views are more libertarian than not.

Looks like the fundamentalist Christians lose again, not only on the case, but on trying to smear the person.

They're not quite you're only obstacle, nor have they lost. Yet.

But I'm not optimistic. Marriage will be a thing of the past, one way or the other.

But hey, we'll all be "equal!" Isn't that what really matters, more than anything else?

 

[ConHog]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

no more than someone should have recused for being heterosexual.

or should clarence thomas recuse himself from every case dealing with blacks?

it doesn't work that way.... not to mention, i've heard that, but haven't yet seen a credible source for it.

I didn't know either, but I will accept O reilley as proof that he is gay. Not that I think it matters.

 

[jillian]

Yup, Dan, those are the points I wanted to make.

The most liberal groups didnt want him...not to mention some of his views are more libertarian than not.

Looks like the fundamentalist Christians lose again, not only on the case, but on trying to smear the person.

They're not quite you're only obstacle, nor have they lost. Yet.

But I'm not optimistic. Marriage will be a thing of the past, one way or the other.

But hey, we'll all be "equal!" Isn't that what really matters, more than anything else?

how is marriage a thing of the past?

 

[jillian]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

no more than someone should have recused for being heterosexual.

or should clarence thomas recuse himself from every case dealing with blacks?

it doesn't work that way.... not to mention, i've heard that, but haven't yet seen a credible source for it.

I didn't know either, but I will accept O reilley as proof that he is gay. Not that I think it matters.

i saw that. and colbert just said the same thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

Yes he is
Irate Prop. 8 backers say gay judge not impartial - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

Sure...and then any straight judge should have withdraw for the same reason.

We already know that there isn't a Constitution right for gay marriage, but a gay judge just legislated that there is a Constitutional right.