Wow. An archliberal judge who was obligated to recuse himself has petition to vacate based on nonrecusal denied by an archliberal judge (one of his friends and colleagues). I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked!

Surely you could have found a more credible source than one back scratcher scratching the back of his colleague. Yeah, that holds a lot of weight. Not.

For the record, I am not saying the Supremes will reverse this ruling or even grant cert, but if cert is granted and they do reverse it, I sure hope you and the other unprincipled leftists are as quick to praise that carefully worded opinion as you are Walker's or Ware's opinions. After all, it will have been at least 5 esteemed judges who voiced such an opinion compared to only a couple (4 if one includes the 9th Circus Court of Appeals mini-panel). I won't hold my breath, for I'm sure the hypocrisy will luminescently exude here.

Who hurt you as a child for you to be so damaged?

I thank those people immensely who brought me up to think objectively and realize that principle was more important than my own personal gratification, that to never want something if I got it improperly or via a means that were unethical or wrong. (Thank you Professor Ira Carmen of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign!)

That's what sets me apart from the emotional partisans like you and so many left-wing robots or the right-wing fanatics. I refuse to accept unethical behavior, partisanship, or other improprieties even if it gets me what I want. I refuse to be brainwashed by spin or other similar crap, including euphemisms that make things seem "fair."

Don't even get me started on the BS notion of "Mitt Romney didn't pay his fair share of taxes last year!" when in reality he paid several million dollars in taxes (and I'm no Romney fan, that's for sure!); or on the crap of Warren Buffet's secretary (Hey, Warren! Why don't you just STFU and pay your secretary more money so she can invest then be AT your same tax rate?) Too many Americans of both sides of the political spectrum are just too stupid to realize that just because a decision or something else "feels" right doesn't mean it is!

I don't want gay marriage by judicial fiat if that fiat is just plain wrong. I want it via a more effective and forceful way, one that has the respect of the people and is more legitimate.

But so far 4 judges have reviewed the arguments the proponents of Prop 8 have put forward, including Judge Walker's impartiality and 3 have agreed and one sort of agreed with Judge Walker. Sometimes you just have to concede and move on.

Your logic doesn't hold up with other issues which, if I remember from college, it means that it's faulty.

I know you feel strongly that you're right, and maybe some judge in the future will agree, but our CONSTITUTIONAL system (which by the way says nothing about impartiality) is that you have a trial and it can be reviewed, but not re-litigated. Walker's decision was brilliant in that he even applied strict scrutiny and found that even in that case it was still unconstitutional.

I wish you'd apply some of this vigor to an issue that is waaaaaaaaaaay more destructive to our society like the notion that corporations are people. Now THERE'S some legal fiction.

His Chief Judge and close friend and colleague, Judge Ware, so he doesn't count. Then, of course, we have the two notorious judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Hawkins (who have been more than once bitch slapped by the Supreme Court because of the formers' twisted opinions) who upheld Walker's monkey trial and decision.

In addition to Walker having to recuse himself, Appellate Court Justice Reinhardt should have as well. It was just over a year ago, you may recall, that Reinhardt declined to recuse himself from the Prop 8 appeal, notwithstanding the fact that his wife Ramona Ripston consulted with plaintiffs' counsel about the very decision to file the lawsuit, that she authorized the ACLU/SC—which had vaunted its "lead role" on the fight for same-sex marriage—to file amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs in the trial proceedings in the same case, and that she publicly celebrated the very ruling that he is now reviewing. No legal ethicist has defended Reinhardt's non-recusal, and his participation in yesterday's ruling provides a clean and sufficient basis for the Supreme Court to vacate that ruling.

In a sane legal world, Reinhardt would have recused himself, and the ACLU/SC would feel itself free to celebrate or condemn whatever ruling the differently composed Ninth Circuit panel issued. Instead, Reinhardt has taken part, and the ACLU/SC seems to be lying low, which is VERY interesting considering they were loud and celebratory following Walker's ruling. Why the silence now?

This whole case stinks to high Heaven and YOU know it. Any case this tainted by unethical behavior and improprieties as this one is MUST be vacated and at least remanded, if not outright overturned. I truly pray SCOTUS grants cert and does this. There is simply NO WAY you or anyone else here, knowing how SO many improprieties have occurred in this entire case, could defend the decision that occurred yesterday. For the love of all that is holy, admit this and see the wrongs here!

If our Constitution means anything, and I know to you and most here it does not, SCOTUS must vacate this ruling!

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

Obviously CC you need to go to a good law school right away. With your obvious legal knowledge you should breeze through law school and the bar exams in no time at all. Your professors would surely note your legal brilliance and recommend your appointment to SCOTUS without ever having you practice or teach law. Only then would the US be saved by your legal brilliance from decision which you disapprove of.
Either that or you could just go back to your doctor and have your meds adjusted

I shake my head in both sorrow and pity for you both, because deep down you KNOW this whole case just reeks of putrid improprieties and malfeasance. IF SCOTUS does vacate this with a stinging rebuke--they've done that several times to the 9th Circus, BTW--I can't wait to come back here and say, "See, I told you so."

It is just so sad that you poor souls don't give a damn about the law, the Constitution, impartiality--nope. "Just give us gay marriage! We don't care how, just give it to us!" How sad. And pathetic.

The conflicts of interest, the obligation to recuse--by two judges, mind you, one being an appellate court justice--are perfect law school examples to use on how to get a case vacated!

As usual you invert logic. Those for marriage equality are asking to exercise a right that everyone else has. That is not asking for a gift. It is asking not to be persecuted for wanting something that everyone else has but is being arbitrarily denied to one group.

I have no problem with that; I favor it. I just don't want it the wrong way.

To do so renders it illegitimate and without any force behind it.

I am still awaiting a response to the exact financial benefits the judge would have that required recusal from the case. You know... The one mentioned multiple times... Over and over... Which is now conveniently ignored because CC has no answer.

Still waiting the reason why the exact decision he made also violated Constitutional precedence when it can easily be argued and decided under Equal Protection, which was one of the arguments for the Lawrence v Texas case.

One of the commentaries on the results of this case is that the judges made it specific to California, which may limit SCOTUS taking a look at it...

Eventually we know where this is going... Couple will start moving to states not recognizing gay marriage... MilitRt personnel will fight for rights of spouses, etc... This state by state crap is agonizingly slow... Plus eventually SCOTUS will have to have a case to override state Constitutions limiting gay marriage/ civil unions/ partner right for straight couples... In Michigan this ha been really cruel, where the Repubs even fought partner rights for university employees... And the bastard governor signed it.

CC- The constitution never anticipated the need to address this issue or issues of racism. Would you have that people remain inequal and disenfranchised forever because Boone was brave enough or smart enough or strong enough to provide the right, humane response in a legal manner? This is what Judge Walker did- not some cockamamie judgment, but within reason.

As a side note- and because I am feeling bold- you are a self-righteous piece of work and kind of an ass**** when talking about politics. I am hoping you are much nicer and spmewhT compassionate external to this... I am worried you might have a stroke soon.

The "wrong way???" I hesitate to even weigh into this, because your comments are ludicrously nonsensical, but how is constitutional process of judicial review the "wrong way?"

It's not the process itself that is at issue here; rather, it is the manner in which that process was used improperly, if not abused. Judges in such cases must be above reproach more than probably any single profession. The mere appearance of impropriety, even if there is none in actuality, means judges should back away, lest their decisions be based on bias or be tainted with influence, direct or indirect. It doesn't matter whether there is no bias or influence actually present; it's the appearance of said bias or influence.

Because Walker and Reinhardt had blatant and serious conflicts that required them under federal rules to recuse themselves, they should never have heard, let alone ruled on, this case. The taint is so smelly that it's nauseating.

This is what's so clear, so obvious. Sadly, this is what is ignored and dismissed by the folks here, solely because they don't care. As long as they get gay marriage. Rules, Constitution, and ethics be damned.

That, sir, is not gay marriage. It's a frickin' farce, and I don't want any part of it. Give me gay marriage the way Washington State is going about it. THAT manner is far more effective, far more legitimate, and far more forceful.

Uh??? Because Walker is gay? If you follow your own logic, then no judge would have been able to hear the case, as straight judges also would have had a vested interest in the outcome.

I can only conclude from your comments that you are one of the following:

A. Maggie Gallagher
B. Brian Brown
C. Rick Santorum
D. Larry Craig

Come on, reveal yourself!

How do you know Brian Brown? He and his father Bob used to work for us in our association. Years ago they both left. I saw Brian once a few years after that, and boy! Was he packing a gut on him. Then as quickly as he popped up, he vanished. Poor soul.

Still avoiding the financial reason and specifics of the blatant need for recusal....

Don't hold your breath, kick. So much energy wasted for nothing. Kinda sad, actually. Well, the ruling still made me happy. I hope everyone else can share my positive emotion as well.

Only those who share your disdain and contempt for the Rule of Law and the Constitution. You're among like company here, save for yours truly, who stands above such disgust.

Then answer his question or zip it. You are beginning to bore me with your pointless rants.

Whose question? I see no question. I do see your emotional claptrap, but that's something I've seen for lo these many years.

Anyway, you get the last word again. Hold your applause, because after my post here, I will no longer be able to be notified a reply is posted here.

Cheerio, night owl. You can stop clapping now.

This one....

"I am still awaiting a response to the exact financial benefits the judge would have that required recusal from the case. You know... The one mentioned multiple times... Over and over... Which is now conveniently ignored because CC has no answer."

Smooches, my poor lil' poster.

Here ya go, CC....someone who agrees with you! Strange bedfellows, I must admit, but at least you are both in agreement with each other...

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/02/santorum-...+%23gay+news%29

Oh, and just for you, CC...the court's reasoning...you ARE familiar with that word, "reasoning", aren't you? Great! Then you should be sitting on the edge of your seat for this one...

"Yesterday's decision is also the only federal appellate court to say this:

It will not do to say that Proposition 8 was intended only to disapprove of same-sex marriage, rather than to pass judgment of same-sex couples as people. Just as the criminalization of "homosexual conduct ... is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination in both the public and private spheres," so too does the elimination of the right to use the official designation of "marriage" for the relationships of committed same-sex couples send a message that gays and lesbians are of lesser worth as a class -- indeed, that the enjoy a lesser societal status (73, internal citations omitted)."



Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/02/9thanalys...l#ixzz1lrmFHVda

(link provided for your proof, CC)

I also think you should re-consider your career plans and pursue a career in Constitutional Law. While you provide no proof to support your opinion, I find your fascination with the U.S. Constitution to be your real passion. Have you thought about any Adjunct Professor positions at the community colleges in Chicagoland? There are quite a few colleges, and with your teaching background, you may be able to do an Adjunct even without a master's degree. (it's a lot easier if you do have one) Life experience could fulfill what may be lacking in sheepskin. Also, please realize I am not being sarcastic when I suggest this...I'm quite serious...you seem to have found your niche.

Typical response of the blowhard bullies when faced with reasonable requests and logic... Nothing, because often there is little substance behind their arguments. They think if the blow hard enough you will topple over.. But if you are strong enough and logical enough... You just realize it's a lot of hot air, hoping in secret it is coming out the more pleasant hole.

Thanks for the smooch and support, Miller

What is the right way? An amendment to the Constitution to create a right that was never explicitly denied by it in the first place - but impuned by activist judges based on personal prejudices - would be redundant.

To assume there was original intent to ban gay marriage brings up whole 'nother can of worms. One could creatively use original intent to ban all sorts of things, like a man walking around wearing women's clothing.

What is being challenged is homophobes reading something into the Constitution that isn't there.

Like the tea party and other right wing nuts CC only believes a judge has made a valid decision if he agrees with it. Judges are people with lives and will always be somewhat involved with the subject matter before them. Using CC's reasoning no judge will ever be able to rule on any case which is what they want anyway.

These "constitutionalists" conveniently forget that the judiciary is one of the three co-equal branches of government.

From a lot of the analysis I have heard and read there is no guarantee that SCOTUS will agree to hear the case because of the narrow ruling of the court in California.


On another happy note for those of you south of the border the Washington State legislature has also passed same sex marriage and the Governor will sign it into law.

Step by step you are getting there.

Reuters: Washington state's governor signs gay marriage law

Of course NOM and the haters are already gearing up to put it on the ballot.

DOMA ruled unconstitutional today:

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/02/domaanalysis.html

good analysis.

Of course the judge has a gay cousin who although has never expressed an interest in getting married may want to at some point so the integrity of the decision is in question.

LMFAO!!!!

ABC News: Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies

Good for you, Judge Parker. I could not agree more.

"8": A Play about the Fight for Marriage Equality!

Anti-Gay Pundits Need More Scrutiny From The Media!

Catholic Bishops Misled Faithful!

I'm shocked that the church would lie to their members.

I think this is a rather poignant example of what can happen to gay couples if they live where they cannot legally be married or at least have not taken the costly legal steps to protect each other in the event of a death.

http://youtu.be/pR9gyloyOjM

Already reports of hijinks in the NC election.

Apparently a 17 year old can vote in the primary if they'll be 18 by the time of the general election. But they can't vote on Amendment 1 because this is a final vote today.

So they have ballots w/out the Amendment 1 question and apparently in the civilized areas of NC (places that realize the absurdity of the amendment) they're passing out the ballots w/out the Amendment 1 question to those over 18.

And yet it's the Republicans who always rail about voter fraud.

I tell you, whatever a Republican accuses someone else of, is exactly what the Republican is doing.

No surprise but NC has voted to enshrine bigotry and prejudice in their state constitution. Must be such a proud moment in their history.

You could probably put the Emancipation on the ballot and have it repealed in some southern states, and have some church leaders speak out in favour of doing just that. Civil rights of a minority should never be put up for a vote.

For this reason among many, every single gay or lesbian person who smokes tobacco should quit today. Why support a bigoted state? Why provide income to evil people? Plus, you will rid yourself of a horrid habit. Stick it to 'em by snuffing it out!

My guess is that if anyone nudged Barack Obama out of the closet to support marriage equality it was his older daughter Malia.

That is the "family" he most likely was referring to. I can not imagine that she does not have classes and friendships with people who are openly gay.

She may even know fellow young people with gay parents. Her father's position of "separate but equal" civil unions must have seemed pathetic and antiquated.

Should she ever go into politics, mark this one down as her first major political accomplishment, even if it was passively achieved.

Well at least part of my speculation is supported by a local media outlet in the Obama's hometown:It is this kind of dinner-table conversation that will eventually change attitudes around the country and the world.

It will (most likely) be legal in the USA within 10 years or maybe a bit more. Each younger generation supports it more and more, or is in a more "I don't care either way" type view.

Other countries legalizing will just put more and more pressure. By the end of 2012 it could be legal in: Uruguay, Denmark, Nepal, Colombia, Finland, Australia, Luxembourg, and UK. Civil union could be legal in Cuba, Chile, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Poland & Malta. We're supposed to be the "land of the free"...

The land of the free yes, but rarely the first to grant those freedoms just not the last to do so.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/bristol-p...o-gay-gals.html

Bristol Palin, the prodigal daughter of Alaska, speaks out on same sex marriage saying Obama should not have listened to his daughters. She also talks about children needing a mother and father...I wonder how that is working out for her spawn.

Interesting how Obama's announcement was spun by the media (particularly FOX):

Log Cabin Republicans: Obama Announcement Is Cold Comfort to LGBT Americans

It pains people to say it, but FOX's headline was the most accurate, but only to a degree. Obama, realizing that if he "changed" his position he could reap MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions, did the expedient and spineless thing and said he now supports it. Then he goes on to say it's a state matter, thereby taking the position of many conservatives and other 10th Amendment folks--a Federalist position, if you will.

All in all, he didn't say much except enough of what was needed to bring in booku bucks. What a sellout. What a whore. Typical politician.

Mitt Romney's high school antics may have done more "to bring in booku bucks" for Obama than Obama's admission that he doesn't have a personal problem with marriage equality.

The quote from Romney's wife in an ad for her husband's campaign sums up the image they want to convey:[qoute]“I think there’s one word that would be high on my list of a few words you would describe Mitt with. It would be trust. I think the qualities Mitt would bring to the Oval Office would be integrity, intelligence, an ability to see a problem and see a solution and make people recognize that he has those leadership qualities that would unite many people.”[/quote]But there is an easy way for Romney to begin to live up to Ann Romney's claims about his "integrity, intelligence, an ability to see a problem and see a solution and make peiple recognize that he has those leadership qualitits that would unite people".

He could do as at least one of the participants in this gay-bashing did and apologize to the family of the victim of his failure in leadership.

Romney's supporters have lined up plenty of men - gay and straight - to defend his personal positive associations with individual gays - though I am not aware yet of any of the gay women defenders. Romney himself is so far sticking with amnesia about an event that is seared into the memories of the 'posse' he formed.

If Barack Obama's personal activities in high school can be used to define him why are Romney's acts different?

I quoted him in another post. I love how he mentions Dick Chaney, whom I guess would probably be anti-gay marriage if he didn't have a lesbian daughter, but doesn't say anything about the majority of Republicans that don't agree with him (Chaney).

Yeah I agree that what Obama did was most likely a calculated thing, and it worked, but at the same time it's Republicans that are the ones that are anti-gay marriage.

He's own party's nominee came out against gay-marriage!

But that's the problem. Obama's past, even his past as a worthless, do nothing Illinois state senator, have been deemed irrelevant by the media and liberals, but they can go back and dig up stuff Romney did as a kid, stupid stuff many of us probably did as well.

What's next? "Romney pulled a fellow kindergarten girl's hair! Therefore Romney hates women!"

For the record, I have never been a big fan of Romney and am not now.