Skip to comments.Prop. 8 trial stirs questions, emotions (judge exposed as sodomite)
Posted on 02/08/2010 1:36:22 AM PST by DesertRenegade
The trial on the federal constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban, has been in many respects a tale of two trials. The question is, which trial was U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker watching?
To many observers, the anti-Proposition 8 side appears to have scored all the points. Attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson spent two weeks attempting to discredit the law, calling dozens of witnesses who gave dramatic and emotional testimony that banning same-sex marriage harms gay couples, their children and even society.
But defenders of Proposition 8 say they're missing the point. California voters made it law by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent in 2008. At this point, the only question the court needs to address is the legal issue of whether voters acted rationally, not whether same-sex marriage is beneficial or harmful to society.
Judge Walker accepted additional evidence and friend-of-the-court briefs last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger after wrapping up the testimony phase of the trial Jan. 27. Attorneys are expected to return to federal court in San Francisco in March for closing arguments in the non-jury trial.
Rick Jacobs, president of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, who attended the entire trial and blogged for the pro-gay-marriage group's Web site, called the proceedings "transformative."
"Anybody who watched that trial, any federal judge who sat through that trial, would have to rule that Proposition 8 is blatantly discriminatory," said Mr. Jacobs. "I'm not a judge, but everything was so clear in every possible way that Proposition 8 is the latest extension of decades-long discrimination against gays and lesbians."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
|Walker, Vaughn R.
Why am I not surprised that this sick sodomite judge was too corrupt to recuse himself, like a normal person would?
Maybe I’m reading the excerpt wrong, but from what I understand the article is saying that the Anti-Prop 8 people are saying the trial should be a slam-dunk win for them, but the judge is saying he needs more evidence, meaning NOT a slam-dunk game over trial.
Am I wrong?