Prop8 Judge Admits Hes Gay

[cambaby]

YA DUN GOOFED
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...p_8_sames.html

So a homosexual federal judge overturns the will of the majority of Californian voters and no one sees the obvious conflict of interest here?

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

YA DUN GOOFED
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...p_8_sames.html

So a homosexual federal judge overturns the will of the majority of Californian voters and no one sees the obvious conflict of interest here?

No more than a Senator that apologies to BP.

[baddog]

Not exactly breaking news to anyone in CA.

[Serial Pervert]

let him be gay, let gay people marry, whatever

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by cambaby

YA DUN GOOFED
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...p_8_sames.html

So a homosexual federal judge overturns the will of the majority of Californian voters and no one sees the obvious conflict of interest here?

what does his sexuality have to do with his ability to do his job?

he was a conservative appointee and was labelled by democrats as 'insensitive to homosexuals and the poor'

obviously white judges shouldn't be making ruling on white people

cause that be a conflict of interest

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by Serial Pervert

let him be gay, let gay people marry, whatever

Why stop at homosexual marriages? Extend it to polygamy, child marriages and beast marriages. Hell necro-marriage too.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Why stop at homosexual marriages? Extend it to polygamy, child marriages and beast marriages. Hell necro-marriage too.

Turn off Faux News and step away from the TV.

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what does his sexuality have to do with his ability to do his job?

he was a conservative appointee and was labelled by democrats as 'insensitive to homosexuals and the poor'

obviously white judges shouldn't be making ruling on white people

cause that be a conflict of interest

There is a magnitude of ruling we are talking about here, dont act coy and act like this isnt the single most important law that homosexuals have ever felt needed to pass. Also your argument about who labeled him what is irrelevant. The guy IS sympathetic to homosexuals, he wouldnt be one if he wasnt.

Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.

[iMind]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Why stop at homosexual marriages? Extend it to polygamy, child marriages and beast marriages. Hell necro-marriage too.

Who gives a shit really, all this shit about gays gettin' married is retarded.
Never understood what business the government has in who's in love with who etc.

Fuck marriage, it's an unnatural thing to begin with.

[dyna mo]

yeah, they should of had a normal judge handle this case.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

The guy IS sympathetic to homosexuals, he wouldnt be one if he wasnt.

Really? Because I'm not gay, but I'm sympathetic to their LACK of rights DENIED to them by people like you.

Originally Posted by cambaby

Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.

Also let's not forget, the man is a JUDGE. It's his job to JUDGE things. The "majority of voters" means fuck all in front of a judge.

[Coup]

cry about it you fucking homophobes

[iMind]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yeah, they should of had a normal judge handle this case.

lol, wtf, so many bigots in an industry where you think you'd find the opposite

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yeah, they should of had a normal judge handle this case.

So not only can gays not marry, but they should be discriminated against for positions on the bench because they're gay too? Somehow gay = abnormal now?

EDIT: Also, why do you think it's fair for a straight judge to rule on the rights of gays? Straight judges are more fair?

[Tom_PM]

OMG, imagine if he's a judge who likes having sex upside down and backwards with people of another race? The horror.

[Jdoughs]

You can just as easily say that the 'straight' judges are biased as well.

Straight or Gay, both have conflicts of interest here.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by cambaby

There is a magnitude of ruling we are talking about here, dont act coy and act like this isnt the single most important law that homosexuals have ever felt needed to pass. Also your argument about who labeled him what is irrelevant. The guy IS sympathetic to homosexuals, he wouldnt be one if he wasnt.

Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.

wrong, wrong , and wrong...

the ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the constitution as it pertains to marriage..

all judges are biased and sympathetic to something close to them.. its a fact.. if you want a perfect system then don't let a human being make the decisions...

let those faggots wed i say... let those faggots wed....


God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.


Lets all sing...

.




.

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by iMind

Who gives a shit really, all this shit about gays gettin' married is retarded. Never understood what business the government has in who's in love with who etc. Fuck marriage, it's an unnatural thing to begin with.

There is more than homosexual marriage at stake here, this is a fight for states rights versus the federal government. Slowly this country is being taken over by activist judges with personal agendas, the federal government and states rights are being eroded and in some cases just flat out IGNORING the will of the majority of people.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by iMind

lol, wtf, so many bigots in an industry where you think you'd find the opposite

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

So not only can gays not marry, but they should be discriminated against for positions on the bench because they're gay too? Somehow gay = abnormal now?

EDIT: Also, why do you think it's fair for a straight judge to rule on the rights of gays? Straight judges are more fair?

sarcasm, check into it.

* i borrowed this joke from the colbert report, i don't suggest you 2 watch it though, y'all's heads would explode with all the sarcasm.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

There is more than homosexual marriage at stake here, this is a fight for states rights versus the federal government. Slowly this country is being taken over by activist judges with personal agendas, the federal government and states rights are being eroded and in some cases just flat out IGNORING the will of the majority of people.

How does two gay men or two gay women marrying each other affect you in any way? (aside from your night terrors)

[KrissyElise]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Why stop at homosexual marriages? Extend it to polygamy, child marriages and beast marriages. Hell necro-marriage too.

Yea.... Because it's all so close to being the same thing...... You are an idiot.

[dyna mo]

http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1322232

if you are not familiar with/can't understand sarcasm do not cliky clik

[jjmerago]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.

Hey Retard!! The majority of Americans chose Gore and Bias Judges in his Brothers state made him pres!
Polygamy is rampant and the majority of sick pervs that would marry "beats" would be straight hicks marrying their smell hounds!

[cambaby]

Are you all that simple minded you can only think "FREE THE FAGS" and not the issue at stake here? The federal government ALREADY left the same-sex marriage up to each individual state and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This is about Democracy, if same-sex proponents want it passed they need to get enough votes to pass it and boom its done, instead they skirt around the voters wishes.

It wont be so funny when its a law you really care about.

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by KrissyElise

Yea.... Because it's all so close to being the same thing...... You are an idiot.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE look up the words dumb shit.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by cambaby

There is a magnitude of ruling we are talking about here, dont act coy and act like this isnt the single most important law that homosexuals have ever felt needed to pass. Also your argument about who labeled him what is irrelevant. The guy IS sympathetic to homosexuals, he wouldnt be one if he wasnt.

Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.

i think you're making general statements on what the gay community does and does not want.

i know what i believe, and i believe that the state should be separate from religion and has no jurisdiction (or right for that matter) telling a man and a man, woman and a woman, who they can and cannot marry.

it scares the shit out of me that if i was born a little bit different, i would not be allowed to experience marriage and all the joy that apparently goes with it

[iMind]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

sarcasm, check into it.

* i borrowed this joke from the colbert report, i don't suggest you 2 watch it though, y'all's heads would explode with all the sarcasm.

My bad,
I don't watch TV sorry.

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by jjmerago

Hey Retard!! The majority of Americans chose Gore and Bias Judges in his Brothers state made him pres!
Polygamy is rampant and the majority of sick pervs that would marry "beats" would be straight hicks marrying their smell hounds!

Polygamy is not rampant, you are delusional and a conspiracy theorist. Fucking atheist anarchist go slice your wrists and do the world a favor you provide nothing of value to society.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

if same-sex proponents want it passed they need to get enough votes to pass it and boom its done, instead they skirt around the voters wishes.

No they don't. They just need to let it ride it's way to the Supreme Court where the Constitution will be upheld. Rights are not something you vote on. That's why they're called rights. And the word "inalienable" in front of it makes sure that voters don't ass-fuck another group because of their narrow-minded paranoia. Judges exist to ensure that voters don't vote in garbage that is unconstitutional, whether the judge smokes cock or not.

You lose. Suck it up and move on. (pun intended).

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by cambaby

There is a magnitude of ruling we are talking about here, dont act coy and act like this isnt the single most important law that homosexuals have ever felt needed to pass. Also your argument about who labeled him what is irrelevant. The guy IS sympathetic to homosexuals, he wouldnt be one if he wasnt.

Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.

The judges' sexual orientation is irrelevant as a matter of law, unless there is clear bias at hand in the text and logic of his ruling.

Your assertion of bias here is founded on a standard that NO appeals court is going to accept. Simply asserting judicial bias as a matter of identity politics is an argument that will fail in court, every time -- as it should, because there would be no end to the number of judicial recusals that we could demand based on such flimsy evidence of bias.

Have you read the opinion? If so, what is it that you find so biased about it?

Forget about who/what the judge IS for a moment, and focus on what he wrote. That is what the appeals court is going to do, and that is what the Supreme Court is going to do with both the district court's ruling and that of the appeals court, once the case reaches them (assuming they grant cert on it, which I think is a pretty safe assumption).

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

wrong, wrong , and wrong...

the ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the constitution as it pertains to marriage..

all judges are biased and sympathetic to something close to them.. its a fact.. if you want a perfect system then don't let a human being make the decisions...

let those faggots wed i say... let those faggots wed....


God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.


Lets all sing...

.




.

no the ruling was based on evidence, which is stupidly smart if you don't mind my oxymoron

now they need to argue with the logic, as all the evidence is opinion

[GrouchyAdmin]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

obviously white judges shouldn't be making ruling on white people

cause that be a conflict of interest

This is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with underscores here - on principle. Unless he's not being ironic/sarcastic.. then he's a tard.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by iMind

My bad,
I don't watch TV sorry.

you don't have to watch tv to understand sarcasm and not instantly jump to calling people names eh.

[arschloch]

Hahahaha, not surprising.

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i know what i believe, and i believe that the state should be separate from religion and has no jurisdiction (or right for that matter) telling a man and a man, woman and a woman, who they can and cannot marry.

Dude I hate to break it to you but marriage is not a religious issue. Are you saying that most homosexuals are not religious or that there are lots of atheist that arent married and wont because of religion? This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Religious as well as non-religious people are on all sides of this issue.

This really shows your lack of understanding of the issue. You seem to think this is fags vs religious rednecks and it is far from that. I am sorry you are so blind.

[Sergio Payingsolutions]

It's cute you think you are better than gay people. You're not.

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Have you read the opinion? If so, what is it that you find so biased about it?

Yes I absolutely have and there is a HUGE BIAS in it, he fails to take into account that the majority of Californian voters voted and passed an issue that the federal government gave them the RIGHT TO VOTE on. So let me ask you this, as a federal judge he simply IGNORED federal law and you dont call that bias?

[cwd]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Are you all that simple minded you can only think "FREE THE FAGS" and not the issue at stake here? The federal government ALREADY left the same-sex marriage up to each individual state and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This is about Democracy, if same-sex proponents want it passed they need to get enough votes to pass it and boom its done, instead they skirt around the voters wishes.

It wont be so funny when its a law you really care about.

Just so I understand...you are saying that if gay people are allowed to get married in the state of California democracy is at stake?

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by sbaldis

It's cute you think you are better than gay people. You're not.

Thank you for sharing that intellectual nugget of enlightenment?

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Dude I hate to break it to you but marriage is not a religious issue.

Truly naive. Take a look at where most marriages are performed. In a church, by a god freak. Sure there are other venues... Vegas chapels (also religious), courthouse by a judge, or a ship's Captain at sea. Most vows include references to god and the god freak performing the ceremony usually utters things like "in the eyes of god" and there's wine drinking and bread wafer eating and reading from the bible.... but it's not religious? Send me some of what you're smoking because I'm outta green.

Now take a look at who is trying to prevent gays from marrying each other. The religious.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Dude I hate to break it to you but marriage is not a religious issue. Are you saying that most homosexuals are not religious or that there are lots of atheist that arent married and wont because of religion? This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Religious as well as non-religious people are on all sides of this issue.

This really shows your lack of understanding of the issue. You seem to think this is fags vs religious rednecks and it is far from that. I am sorry you are so blind.

alright, not a religious issue

lets use an example i tried with the demon yesterday

i don't like what you're saying, and if i get enough people together, we can vote on your freedom of speech?

to clarify, not only vote on your freedom of speech, but waste valuable state funds on something that is a clear cut case of sexual discrimination.

[cwd]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Dude I hate to break it to you but marriage is not a religious issue. Are you saying that most homosexuals are not religious or that there are lots of atheist that arent married and wont because of religion? This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Religious as well as non-religious people are on all sides of this issue.

This really shows your lack of understanding of the issue. You seem to think this is fags vs religious rednecks and it is far from that. I am sorry you are so blind.

But could it be considered a religious issue due to the Mormon churches involvement and funding? As I understand it they were the main financial backers for one side of this issue.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Yes I absolutely have and there is a HUGE BIAS in it, he fails to take into account that the majority of Californian voters voted and passed an issue that the federal government gave them the RIGHT TO VOTE on. So let me ask you this, as a federal judge he simply IGNORED federal law and you dont call that bias?

He didn't "ignore" federal law. He ruled on it's validity. There's a difference. What you're suggesting is that the judge should have taken a look at Prop 8 and said, "Well, it's federal law so, it stands!"

How old are you?

[Vendzilla]

I really don't care if they get married or shacked up or civil unionized
One judge that by law had a conflict of interest threw out the votes of 7 million voters

I use stuff like this to get out of jury duty, like show up in a NRA t-shirt

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by cwd

Just so I understand...you are saying that if gay people are allowed to get married in the state of California democracy is at stake?

No, but then the USA is not a Democracy anyways, but I do agree with the statement above that this has hurt the Democratic process. What part of "the majority of Californian voters banned same-sex marriage" dont you understand?

[Sergio Payingsolutions]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Thank you for sharing that intellectual nugget of enlightenment?

It's fun being in the majority trying to keep a group of people under your thumb eh bigot?

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Truly naive. Take a look at where most marriages are performed. In a church, by a god freak. Sure there are other venues... Vegas chapels (also religious), courthouse by a judge, or a ship's Captain at sea. Most vows include references to god and the god freak performing the ceremony usually utters things like "in the eyes of god" and there's wine drinking and bread wafer eating and reading from the bible.... but it's not religious? Send me some of what you're smoking because I'm outta green.

Now take a look at who is trying to prevent gays from marrying each other. The religious.

Been married twice, by a juctice of the peace , once in a church, once in my families property.
Both times the justice read from a bible

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I really don't care if they get married or shacked up or civil unionized
One judge that by law had a conflict of interest threw out the votes of 7 million voters

I use stuff like this to get out of jury duty, like show up in a NRA t-shirt

I always get out of jury duty by telling the court exactly what I think of the police. Never had to serve on a jury yet.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by cambaby

No, but then the USA is not a Democracy anyways, but I do agree with the statement above that this has hurt the Democratic process. What part of "the majority of Californian voters banned same-sex marriage" dont you understand?

what part about universal suffrage, emancipation, and freedom of speech don't you understand?

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

He didn't "ignore" federal law. He ruled on it's validity. There's a difference. What you're suggesting is that the judge should have taken a look at Prop 8 and said, "Well, it's federal law so, it stands!" How old are you?

Prop8 couldnt even have been on the ballot if federal law had no allowed it, unfortunately for advocates of same-sex marriage federal law ALREADY ruled that LEGAL marriage is defined as a union between a male and a female. So let me get this straight, our federal representative created a law that federally in essence banned same-sex marriage, then voters in California banned same-sex marriage and then ONE HOMOSEXUAL judge decides he doesnt like that so he tries to pick it apart with an opinion and suddenly you all think the Supreme Court will overturn the will of the federal government and majority of people?