Gay Marriage

Quote: reno

Well then I'm curious to hear your thoughts about conservative Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman. Since the 1990s, Portman had consistently, reliably voted against special rights for homosexuals.

Then in 2011 his son told him he was gay. Portman's reaction? He flip-flopped on gay marriage!

Portman wrote, "At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years."

Probably just a coincidence, eh Beethoven?

I honestly don't understand what your point is, or what this has to do with gay judges. You're getting like twird now. lol

He's the guy who went from Duck Dynasty..........to gay marriage..........to interracial marriage..........to Brigham Young..........to the Mormon Church..........to Mormon doctrine..........to Catholic doctrine..........to abortion!! Yes, he somehow ended up babbling about abortion in a Duck Dynasty thread! LOL

Quote: chickenman

Quote: reno

Are you arguing that the politicians in ... Rhode Island ... would jeopardize their careers by voting against the will of the people?

Absolutely, resoundingly, yes. They do whatever the f*** they want.

+1

Liberal politicians go against the will of the people all the time. Hell, Obama's the perfect example. *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven

I honestly don't understand what your point is, or what this has to do with gay judges.

You want gay judges to recuse themselves from cases deciding the legality of gay marriage. I'm suggesting that those aren't the only judges who need to recuse themselves. Any judge with a gay child or a gay sibling will be too biased to decide these cases. (I was surprised you would disagree with me. This is common sense.) Gays can't be trusted to judge these cases impartially, and neither can their close family members. Just ask Dick Cheney or Sen. Rob Portman.

Quote: reno

You want gay judges to recuse themselves from cases deciding the legality of gay marriage. I'm suggesting that those aren't the only judges who need to recuse themselves. Any judge with a gay child or a gay sibling will be too biased to decide these cases. (I was surprised you would disagree with me. This is common sense.) Gays can't be trusted to judge these cases impartially, and neither can their close family members. Just ask Dick Cheney or Sen. Rob Portman.

I wasn't aware Cheney and Portman were judges. But yes, gay judges should recuse themselves.

Quote: reno

You want gay judges to recuse themselves from cases deciding the legality of gay marriage. I'm suggesting that those aren't the only judges who need to recuse themselves. Any judge with a gay child or a gay sibling will be too biased to decide these cases. (I was surprised you would disagree with me. This is common sense.) Gays can't be trusted to judge these cases impartially, and neither can their close family members. Just ask Dick Cheney or Sen. Rob Portman.

OK, then I agree with you. *shrug*

Still don't see what your point is, since none of those people were judging this case.

Maybe you missed my past post where I said: "Can you imagine all the liberal outrage if, say, a Christian judge or a Mormon judge had ruled to uphold the ban????"

Guess you can't imagine it...lol

By everyone's logic, I guess gun control advocates shoudl recuse themselves from gun decisions and those judges who are pro-rehabilitation should be prohibited from sentencing criminals. If gay people represent four percent of the population and four percent of judges are therefore gay, then you can expect 4% of judges to make decisions that favor their point of view (when there is latitude in the law to do so). I am sure there are at least four percent of judges who are anti-gay and would make a converse decision if faced with the identical arguments (if they have latitude to do so).

Point is that judges have the task of enforcing the law, and despite their preferences, they should be doing that. There are right-winged judges making decisions that favor the right and there are liberal judges doing the opposite as well.

The flavor of law today is to advocate for a person's rights despite what the Bible or religious zealots says.

Quote: boymimbo

By everyone's logic, I guess gun control advocates shoudl recuse themselves from gun decisions and those judges who are pro-rehabilitation should be prohibited from sentencing criminals. If gay people represent four percent of the population and four percent of judges are therefore gay, then you can expect 4% of judges to make decisions that favor their point of view (when there is latitude in the law to do so). I am sure there are at least four percent of judges who are anti-gay and would make a converse decision if faced with the identical arguments (if they have latitude to do so).

The difference is a pro-rehabilitation judge does not have a personal stake in the outcome, nor your other examples. Gay judges, OTOH, have a very direct and narrow personal stake in the outcome. Hence they should recuse themselves.

And it would be scary that gay judges would make decisions that would "favor their point of view." Judges are supposed to be impartial and only rule on law, like Scalia and Thomas are on the SCOTUS. Obama somehow thinks they are supposed to "fight for the little guy" or something based on his campaign speeches. A very dangerous idea.

Quote: AZDuffman

The difference is a pro-rehabilitation judge does not have a personal stake in the outcome, nor your other examples. Gay judges, OTOH, have a very direct and narrow personal stake in the outcome. Hence they should recuse themselves.

So true. And I love how the libs here conveniently ignored my point about virtually all gays supporting gay marriage. A gay judge in a gay marriage case would be like Jodi Arias' mother being the judge in her murder case.

The real issue is that judges are elected officials who typically side with a political party, and then you ask them to be fair. The end result is that the judges end up being partisan typically towards liberal causes in urban centres and conservative causes in the red states and rural towns which just makes the country more divisive.

Well, then no judge should ever recuse himself from a case. *facepalm*