CA same-sex marriage ban gets another day in court

AP via SF Examiner ^ | 12/8/11

[SmithL]

Another episode in the long legal saga of California's same-sex marriage ban is scheduled to unfold in a San Francisco courtroom.

A federal appeals court plans to hear oral arguments Thursday on whether a lower court judge who ultimately struck down voter-approved Proposition 8 should have recused himself because he was in a same-sex relationship.

[Izzy Dunne]

There’s something just wrong about using the term “oral arguments” in this context.

[newzjunkey]

I'm surprised a federal court is even going to bother looking at the recusal issue.

[GreenLanternCorps]

There are multiple arguments for a new trial in this case.

1. The issue with the video recordings which shows bias by the judge.

2. The conduct of the trial itself, including labeling matters of opinion as findings of fact.

3. The non-disclosure by the trial judge that he could personally benefit by his decision.

4. The fact that the state deliberately put up a weak defense because the Governor and Attorney General both opposed the amendment.

I’m not a lawyer, but I think the case needs to be retried with the backers of the amendment given a chance to vigorously defend the law before a neutral judge.

[Joe Boucher]

Nope,
NO conflict here judge!!!
No reason for recusal?
Is there ANY reason to trust our govt. any more???????

[longtermmemmory]

this hinges on whether these appelate judge believe the myth of “born that way” and it is immutable.

The opposition will argue this is like skin color and civil rights cases.

That said, that skin color issue would have been open and obvious.

In this case this judge concealed the fact of his sex fetish and the fact it related to his future goal of “marrying” another male. If he had simply stated this to the attorneys, mere peer pressure would have had the fools say “no problem”.

the APPEARANCE of impropriety is imporopiety in and of itself.