The judge did his job.

Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

Also, on a side note, if the "will of the people" is so important to you, then shouldn't Al Gore have been President in 2000? He DID win the popular vote.

Obviously TMW hates the Constitution, because he seems to not want the judiciary to do its job. Or have any respect for what the document actually says.

@TMW-

So, a gay judge can't be trusted to hear a homosexuality related case, but a straight judge can? Should white judges be barred from hearing cases involving white people?

@Bob: The judge was biased, plain and simple.

What, biased towards following the Constitution?

Just because you SAY he was biased, doesn't make it true.

I might add, its a fairly serious accusation to lay against somebody who sits on the federal bench. Appointed by Ronald Regean, I might add.

@Jack: How could a gay judge not be biased against gay marriage? The case affects him. A judge should not preside over a case that affects him.

No Jack, you don't get it. A judge whose nomination from Reagan was shot down in the Senate because he was too conservative, before he got renominated and successfully squeaked through into the Circuit Court like Judge Walker is clearly a key linchpin of the homo-liberal conspiracy to let the gays get health insurance. Besides, we can't expect gay people to understand straight people law. That's just silly.

We call this the ad hominen attack. Its irrelevant if the judge was gay or not.

You're attacking the man, because you are either too ignorant to argue the case on the facts, or too idealogically lost to the right to be able to do so.

Please explain to me how the State of California has the right to supersede the 14th Amendment. Or how they aren't actually violating it.

Lets argue this on the merits and the facts, please.

Isn't the central point of the prop 8 backers that gay marriage affects everyone in America? Do we have to requisition a judge from, say, Tanzania to hear the case then?

@Bob: The judge is gay, correct? This case affects gay people, correct? So, by extension, the case affects the judge, correct? Now please give me an explanation of why a judge should be allowed to preside over a case tha affects himself.

How do you know if it affects him? What proof do you have, other than reports that he's gay that he's directly affect by this?

Also, you have to prove his interpretation of the law is wrong before his bias one way or the other makes any difference.

Cease the smear tactics, and answer the fucking question. How does Prop 8 not violate the 14th amendment?

@Bob: I don't back Prop 8. I'm glad Gay marriage is legal, I'm just upset at the method it was made legal. Prop 8 does not affect everyone in America (at least not directly). It affects the judge directly. So, why should a judge be allowed to preside over a case that directly affects himself?

"Also, you have to prove his interpretation of the law is wrong before his bias one way or the other makes any difference." And why is that? If he's biased, he should be thrown out and a new, unbiased judge should come in to gove HIS interpretation.

"Cease the smear tactics, and answer the fucking question. How does Prop 8 not violate the 14th amendment?" I DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8! I'm glad gays can marry. I merely despise the means we used to repeal the results of Prop 8

So a female judge should not be able to accept a rape case? Oh, wait, neither can a male judge, he may be biased toward the defendant. Maybe we should castrate a male judge to hear rape cases. Also, by your logic, no married judge is eligible.

The entire defense argument is that gay marriage affects everyone, not just gay people. So, by your criteria and the defense argument, straight people aren't qualified to judge this matter either. Maybe what we need is a judiciary staffed primarily by bisexual judges.

Oh, and regarding judges presideing over cases that personally affect them, I didn't notice the Supreme Court recuse themselves en masse from Bush v. Gore, to cite one example.

@Burke: How the hell does a rape case affect the judge!? Was the judge raped? Did the judge rape the person? No? Well then it doesn't affect the judge, and he or she can preside over the case just fine.

So if a law affects white people, we can't have white people presiding over a case? Normally, the only reason a judge must recuse themselves from a case is when they have a financial conflict of interest. Otherwise, one could accuse a conservative judge of being biased, or a liberal judge of being biased, and the legal system collapses.

You must assume a judge is unbiased (because that's their entire professional purpose) unless you can PROVE he isn't. Accusations and slander aren't going to cut it, kiddo.

You still haven't answered the question. Point of law. This is what we call a straw man argument. You are refusing to actually deal with the actual case, because ( I must assume), you'd lose the argument based on the actual case.

@Bob: As I said in all caps: I DON'T FUCKING SUPPORT PROP 8!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm glad that gays can marry. I just despise the method we used to repeal prop 8.

And you're wrong for despising that method, as it is the judiciary functioning precisely as it was designed.

Ok. Despise all you want. Too bad this is exactly how our legal system is supposed to work.

Maybe if you spent more time learning about reality, rather than some pipe dream anarchistic wet dream, you'd be able to understand.

I agree with Bob, the Judiciary branch did its job.

@JackKlein: As I've said 3 times in all caps, I DO NOT SUPPORT PROPOSITION 8! I WANT GAYS TO BE ABLE TO MARRY! BUT I DON'T LIKE HOW WE REPEALED THE DESICION! IF THIS IS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, AND WE'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING, THEN SHOULDN'T THE RESULTS OF THAT VOTE BE FINAL REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS?!

In a word, no.

If you want to change what the Constitution says, you have to pass an amendment.

Our rights under the Constitution are enumerated specifically to ensure they couldn't be overridden by a majority to tyrannize a minority.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. Period.

"The Constitution is the highest law in the land. Period." Are you a Christian? Because if you are, you just sinned (Well, you've still sinned even if you're not a Christian, but in that case, you wouldn't care). God's Law is the highest Law in the land. Period. I don't give a shit about the constitution. Even though I believe the 14th amendment is correct, the majority apparently doesn't, so, if this is a democratic republic, why should it matter what the constitution says?

1. Calm down, Con Man. I don't think anyone here has confused you with a prop 8 backer; we seem to be able to read and your issue is not subtle enough to leave Kierkegaard wrestling with the implications for 20 years. That said, why don't you take another gander at some of the criticisms of your advocated position?

2. As to whether the results of a vote should be final, regardless of what the Constitution says, let's roll with that for a moment. I'd be willing to bet that you could pass a ballot initiative pretty much anywhere in this country stripping citizenship from professing Muslims. Does that mean that should one ever pass, the Muslims of that jurisdiction should lose their citizenship?

I'm an atheist. Or in more fuzzy-bunny terms, a secular humanist. I don't give a shit about whatever particular God's Law you cite. God's law has no relevance to the Constitution, or the laws of this Republic. None, and zero.

One of the Constitution's many functions is to prevent a majority from tyrannizing a minority. That is why to change the Constitution requires much more than a simple majority.

I'm sorry you don't like the way our legal system works. Feel free to petition the government to pass an amendment to make it more to your liking.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35381
Talk is cheap, it's time for action!

Con Man

Sorry I wasted our time. Until I saw your last post, about the invisible sky wizard's law, I thought you might be reachable. You're not.

Or gotten a law passed in the Deep South in 1880 forcing black people back into slavery? A majority rules is the most important thing, right?

And that meant it was totally cool for the elected government of Nazi Germany (Hitler was legally made Chancellor) to exterminate a race of people if they just passed a law by a simple majority?

The Constitution exists to protect people with the law. That is why they were very careful about crafting both it, the bill of rights, and subsequent amendments.