Skip to comments.Judge to announce Prop 8 stay ruling
Posted on 08/11/2010 9:53:59 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
The judge who threw out California's ban on gay marriage said Wednesday he is prepared to decide whether to stay his ruling pending appeal.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, chief of the court in San Francisco, ruled last week that Proposition 8, adopted by California voters in 2008, is unconstitutional. The court said he plans to issue his decision on a stay Thursday morning.
Walker issued a temporary stay last week. If he decides to keep his ruling from taking effect pending appeal, same-sex couples might be barred from marriage in California for several years, the Los Angeles Times said.
The case is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If he can come up with a fig leaf that he thinks will get past the appellates, he jolly well won’t stay it.
Ahnold and Moonbeam both gave him cover.
Consider it lifted.
This judge really opened up a can of worms. What a mess.
This is the problem with having unelected judges.
He is a federal judge. Congress can impeach him, not the “people of California.”
If the people’s will at the polls can be overturned by a Leftist judge, then elections no longer have any meaning.
The only option left for the conservative majority is revolution.
They were talking about this on Fox 11 news here, showed a bunch of gay men kissing each other, made me almost lose my dinner. Of course everyone here in the local media has a huge smile on their face whenever they are discussing the ruling
I know he is not elected, but there must be some mechanism to remove a negligent judge from the bench. If a judge literally loses his mind, can’t they force him to step down?
I sure hope he does not lift that stay as that would open the doors to gay marriage and close the door on Walker’s decision to be overturned.
He WAS politely asked to recuse himself but he declined saying he could render an unbiased opinion. Everyone in California KNEW what his ruling would be. The PEOPLE need to take back our country from people who are unelected, activist and arrogant.
thoth wormth are GAAAAAY!
Internal ethics panels, or if that fails, impeachment.
Who asked him to recuse himself?
The USSC needs to step in an stop this activist fool. Walker needs to be slapped down by his superiors and taught a lesson. He is the quintessential rogue judge.
Psychology and Psychiatry would say the California gay marriage decision was entirely rational.
Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Californias Proposition 8, and found as fact that parent gender was insignificant for raising children, and thereby dismissed one of the arguments made in favor of the ban. This finding relies for foundational scientific credibility on the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
Removal followed a two year campaign Newsweek described as ongoing disruptive, chaotic attacks on psychiatrists and physiologists. Yet throughout these attacks, no academic papers were presented at conferences refuting research previously done.
Eventually, the onslaughts forced sufficient abstentions and apprehensive responses for a third of APAs 17,000 plus membership to approve removal. The under-voting and submission to public pressure support an understanding that the DSM is as likely to accumulate political manifestos and marketing brochures as attempts at scientific exposition.
After this decision a task force was established to ensure perpetual sanctity for the APA action. No research papers would again arise to confirm initial therapy success rates of 30% to 60 %, substantiating that 7 of 10 homosexuals could eventually walk away from the lifestyle forever. This task force would set peer review standards mandating pre-ordained theses, acceptable flexibility in research design definitions, and acceptable human data points. Psychology and Psychiatry chose to relinquish scientific rigor for popular societal and political acclaim.
Therefore, Judge Walker could safely reference any number of derivative studies, which find any arrangement of parent sexes provide the same benefit to children, and that any contrary opinion must constitute at least cultural prejudice.
“Ahnold and Moonbeam both gave him cover.”
Ahnold is thinking of Hollywood future, and Moonbeam is thinking of Statehouse future, neither is thinking of US or California future. They both deserve the fate of Sodom and G ....
Well put, my good FRiend.
“The principal cause of child poverty in the U.S. is the absence of married fathers in the home,” Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes in a new paper. “Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. Being married has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level.”