Judge who overturned Prop 8

[Smitty]

is apparently gay. I am in favor of his ruling, but just curious what the folks who hollered “conflict of interest” at the judge in the offshore drillng case think (he had $15,000 of oil-related stock in a retirement fund, I believe)?

Is money the only thing that can be considered a conflict?

Thanks

Share This

[dobro]

If the judge was heterosexual, would that be a conflict of interest too? Must the judge be bi-sexual to qualify for non-conflict of interest.

I, too, agree with his ruling and think his sexual preference is not an issue. Money, however, is non-sexual and always an issue when these things are considered. If the judge has a financial interest in the case he should recuse, period.

Share This

[flowerpetal]

Hetero, Gay or Bi, its irrelevant. This is about human rights; not who you…

With the question about conflict of interest, no judge would be without interest.

Share This

[Huindekmi]

The judge is also conservative and appointed by the first President Bush. The judge is openly gay and both sides in this case had a chance to request that he recuse himself from hearing the case. Both sides declined.

Share This

[JoB]

LOL…

this judge writes one of the most articulate, well researched and logical rulings i have ever read

and the conversation centers on his sexuality?

What is wrong with this picture?

Share This

[flowerpetal]

Muckraking JoB. It seems to be what people like to do.

Share This

[Carson]

Its amazing how much the right wants to get involved in personal decisions, well, when it suits their narrow minds anyways….Don’t Tread on Me, unless I disagree with you!!!

Share This

[Smitty]

JoB, it was just a question about what people consider a conflict of interest. Many, many people thought the judge in the off-shore drilling case had a conflict because a small portion of his retirement was tied to the oil industry. I don’t agree with them, but understand their position.

Had this Prop 8 judge been hetero and ruled against it I imagine people would have been looking for everything and anything to discredit him.

Share This

[JoB]

smitty…

i have to ask…

would the judge have been any less gay had he ruled in favor of prop 8 or would his sexuality simply not have been an issue then?

my guess is that those in favor of this law assumed that this judge’s politics would overwhelm both his reason and his self interest and that his sexuality would become a selling point for them. if not.. they could use his sexuality to smear him and the decision he wrote after the fact.

either way.. it shows blatant disregard for the integrity of the legal system.

the truth is that prop 8.. as you agree… was bad law and bad law needs to be overturned regardless of the political or sexual orientation of the ruling judge…

unfortunately.. at this point in our history.. we can’t count on that kind of intellectual integrity that this judge displayed if/when this hits the supreme court:(

Share This

[JoB]

smitty..

we cross posted…

so i missed your comment before posting..

i disagree. had the judge been heterosexual and ruled in favor of prop 8.. the sexuality of the judge wouldn’t have been an issue.. since heterosexuality is the prevailing norm. It is only an issue because he could take advantage of the law.. not because he would.

that is what i see as the difference between this case and the New Orleans case.

in that case, there was no question that the judge’s ruling had personal immediate financial benefit.

Share This

[charlabob]

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to everyone born in the United States. The right is now trying to amend (or repeal) it so that children of illegal immigrants, born in the US, can’t be citizens. Under the law of unexpected consequences, they could conceivably kill two groups with one stone — the 14th was the basis for the Prop 8 ruling as well.

JoB, this is why people trust Jon Stewart for news — he’s the first (and perhaps only) person who noticed this connection.

“The facts have a liberal bias.”

Share This

[JoB]

charlabob…

it’s a slippery slope isn’t it…

first they came after the …. but i wasn’t …. so i didn’t notice..

then they came after the …. but i wasn’t … so i didn’t care.

then they came after me and there were no …. left to notice or to cry out.

there are a lot of ways to strip individuals of citizenship and the right is pursuing every available option… starting with the weakest.

when they are done with us… they will go after their base … a bit at time until they have totally eliminated any need to buy the masses.

with the latest supreme court ruling giving corporations more rights than citizens the have already set the groundwork to do so.

Share This

[sunshine]

here is some more info on this judge:

This “liberal San Francisco judge” was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It’s a good thing for for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.

Josh Green of the Atlantic notes a pattern: the federal judge in Boston who struck down a significant portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that it denied gay and lesbian couples the federal benefits afforded to straight couples, was appointed to the bench by President Richard Nixon. And the chief judge of the Iowa Supreme Court who wrote the unanimous decision striking down that state’s marriage ban was appointed by Republican governor Terry Branstad, who was just renominated for governor by Iowa Republican voters. Of course, Nixon and Branstad don’t have the conservative cred of Reagan and Meese.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/who_overturned_prop_8.html

From the Washington Post.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

dobro:

Right on.

Share This

[JoB]

righteous ruling!

Share This

[WSeaFam2]

What ever happened to separation of church and state? We can not make laws that strike down our rights to make happy the minority of people who are offended “morally”. We all have our own moral compass, however we are a country of freedoms that should be avaliable to ALL.

Share This

[Smitty]

My personal opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Everyone is recognized as a civil union. Everyone is equal. If you want to get “married” as well then go for it.

Share This

[waterworld]

Smitty: I see the oil drilling moratorium case and the gay marriage case as somewhat different on the conflict question, although I tend to think neither judge necessarily had a conflict that required recusing from the cases.

There’s a federal statute, 28 USC 455 that lays out when a federal judge is required to take himself or herself off a case. If a judge has a financial ownership interest, no matter how small, in one of the parties to a lawsuit, then the judge must step aside. In the oil drilling case, the judge did not own stock in any one of the actual parties to the lawsuit. That may have been contrived by the group of companies that filed the suit, but I don’t actually know that, and I don’t think the judge has to speculate about that. If the party on the other side (the US government) was truly concerned, it could have asked the judge to recuse.

In the gay marriage case, the issue is a bit different. The question there is whether the judge is biased or prejudiced concerning one of the parties, or whether he or a relative has a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. So if a male judge wanted to get married to his boyfriend, then he would have a stake in the outcome and should recuse himself. Or, if he had made up his mind about the issue in advance of the litigation and could not give a fair hearing, he should recuse. But I see no reason for the judge to recuse simply because of his sexual preference. The fact that none of the parties asked him to step aside is telling, also, as others have noted already. Each side evidently concluded that the judge was at a minimum fair, or perhaps even good for them.

I’m not all pollyanna-ish about this, though. Judges are, as far as I can tell, people, and they come with all the baggage the rest of us do. I would never assume that they are not influenced outside of their cases. And lawyers are loath to ask a judge to recuse, for fear of the fallout when the lawyer appears in that judge’s court on another case. But legal conflicts are difficult to prove, with the exception of things like stock ownership or direct personal stake in the outcome.

Share This

[dobro]

Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is merely a contract between two people. Once you pay for a license, the state doesn’t care whether your ceremony is performed by a priest, a satanist, or your dog. I’ve performed several marriages as a Universal Life Church minister and they are just as legal and binding as one done in your parish sanctuary.

The whole gay marriage “debate” is BS cooked up by Christianist nuts and RightWing politicians ginning up fear and loathing among ignorant people to get their votes.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any reason to not let two people of any gender purchase their “marriage” license and have a ceremony of their choosing to commemorate it. No church has ever been forced to perform or recognize any marriage they didn’t wish to. It’s a complete non-issue that, hopefully, will die a long deserved death sometime soon.

Share This

[DP]

dobro said:

The whole gay marriage “debate” is BS cooked up by Christianist nuts and RightWing politicians ginning up fear and loathing among ignorant people to get their votes.

 

Although I have come around to the position of supporting gay marriage, I don’t agree with what dobro said.

Dobro, my experience is that when someone makes an extremely broad statement (like yours) about a whole class of people, it means that either A) they’re trying to smear their opponent, or B) they simply don’t know many people among the class that they’re generalizing.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just haven’t met or talked with many people who don’t support gay marriage. But trust me, there are a lot of them out there, and they’re not all “Christianist nuts” or “ignorant.”

An intelligent case can be made for traditional marriage. An intelligent case can also be made for marriage equality. Whichever side you’re on this debate, you don’t have to believe that the other side is a bunch of kooks in order to feel good about your side.

—David

Share This

[B-squared]

Dobro… agreed!. it seems marriage has first and foremost been a business arrangement. And you need a state license for it to be recognized as such. i wonder how many folks would bother with marriage at all if it wasn’t for all the “rights” that come with it.

i’m just glad marriage has evolved beyond two men looking to consolidate power and wealth by selecting their children’s spouse and forcing the event.

Share This

[JoB]

DP…

while it is true that a case can be made for traditional marriage.. it isn’t the case the political movement is making.

nor does traditional marriage have to be the only form of recognized domestic partnership.

a whole body of law has been built around traditional marriage contracts that effectively excludes the rights of any form of non-traditional partners… including but not limited to gay partners.

That’s discrimination… plain and simple.

that conclusion has nothing to do with how i personally feel about marriage.

personally, I so wish that the sanctity of marriage crowd took themselves more seriously and did something about the heterosexual divorce rates… or the inequality of resources for the spouses and children of those who find themselves divorced … or .. even among themselves.

heck.. this is a soapbox i could stand on all day.

lucky for you. i have other things to do:)

Share This

[grr]

yup Job. If the Prop 8 people are sooooo concernced about traditional marriage, have them get an vote on banning divorce.

I find the judge’s ruling and Finding of Facts (all 80 of them) a fascinating read.

http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/district-court-decision/

starting around page 54.

Like a dear friend once said: “If you don’t want gay people to marry, don’t marry one”.

=

Share This

[dobro]

An intelligent case for discriminating against gay people seeking marriage can NOT be made. Read the judge’s decision and findings of fact. The only arguments for it are based in Christianist dogma and political manipulation. If you can present an argument for traditional marriage that does not include these two elements I’d be interested to hear it.

Share This

[JoB]

there is no intelligent case for discrimination.

there are lot of rationalizations why someone shouldn’t enjoy the rights you demand..

but no real defense.

Share This

[Author]

Posts