Posted on 04/26/2011 6:29:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
I did not like or agree with the judge’s ruling. That said, his being Gay, which we in the “legal community” all knew, no more disqualifies him than being straight would.
It would be different only if he and his partner planned to get married at the time he made the decision.
No way the decision gets tossed on this.
This judge should have recused himself immediately, because he could not possibly been impartial. Yet he chose not to and legislated from the bench. He put his own homo-happy agenda above the will of the people of California. It does not get any more egregiously biased and wrong than that. It should clearly be enough to get his ruling reversed.
What are you talking about? Everyone knows that Liberals are not biased, even when they use the power of the government to make rulings that benefit themselves personally.
Unlike conservatives, you see, Liberals are able to separate, to compartmentalize their personal goals from their public trust. The fact that we almost always discover (sometimes years later) that what they decide for the public happens to coincide exactly with what would benefit them personally is of absolutely no importance, of no significance, whatsoever.
Of course, when a Republican gets caught using public power to benefit himself personally, why, then it's an outrage, a crime right up there with the Sack of Rome. That's because Republicans are bad, you see, while Democrats and other left-wingers are good.
It's just logic.
Were he and his partner already married?
If not, how does anyone know they were not planning marriage?
As a lay person that’s something I believe we have to take his word on.
If he could materially benefit from deciding one way, would that not disqualify him from sitting over this case?
Well, law does train people to be sophists, and sophists by definition disdain the truth. But the judge was in effect saying: my opinion is that I have the right to marry, and so the law must be made to conform to my opinion.
To put things in the perspective of the rule of law of the past 1600 or so years, if he'd been jailed for sodomy, disbarred, and tossed off the bench, his personal life wouldn't be an inconvenient issue for him now.
Did his partner cut him off?
I don’t know what his plans are/were. I don’t know him personally.
He wrote a hateful absurd anti religious opinion.
Yes.
I’m straight - with a herd of kids and grandkids. Does that alone make me more qualified to hear the case than a gay judge? I think not.
Just another c*ck s*cker, no surprise.
I’m not against homos, but they are making me be against them.
I think that you don't know how wrong you are.
I think this was always the plan of the activist gay movement. Imagine the plan:
1. Gay Activist Judge In The Closet takes the highest profile gay case in California history.
2. Gay Activist Judge In The Closet rules that marriage vote is unconstitutional.
3. Gay Activist Judge In The Closet acknowledges his deception.
4. NEXT MOVE: Gay Activist Judge uses his deception to force future courts to allow gay judges on gay activist cases. Demands no need for recusal due to sexual orientation -- claims bigotry and prejudice.
-PJ
Do you believe that the existence of gay marriage would devalue traditional marriage?
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.