User Tag List

First 20282930

Results 291 to 300 of 300

  1. #291
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Rave View Post
    I really hope the judges around here will kick proposition 8 down the tubes.
    We'll see what happens. It didn't help that the judge in question had been in a same-sex relationship for ten years, which people found out after the fact.

    Realistically, it shouldn't matter. Should we exclude a judge from Prop 8 because he's a Christian? No, we expect him to judge the merits of the case. (Ironically, the judge in the Dover, PA, evolution trial was a Christian, and yet he chewed the Creationists a new one.) Similarly, someone can still be gay and weigh a case on its merits. It just looked bad, publicly.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #292
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Being gay and wanting marriage equality are not the same.

    In the court's decision, Chief Judge James Ware determined there was no evidence that Judge Vaughn Walker intended to marry his long-time partner; thus, he had no obligation to disclose his relationship.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gay-judg...#ixzz1QMcG6OiK

  3. #293
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    It is as it should be. The opposing view is ethically indefensible.
    Gay marriage and legal, consensual euthanasia for the terminally ill are the two issues I find extremely hard to understand the other side on without their defense falling on a passage or two from the cruder parts of arcane texts. I don't agree with people on many issues of course, but I can generally empathize with what they think is at stake on other cases.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  4. #294
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Being gay and wanting marriage equality are not the same.
    Right... but his disqualification is not a matter of his being gay, but being engaged in a 10 year gay relationship.


    Quote Originally Posted by 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a)
    Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
    This disqualification is based on a reasonable person basis. Any reasonable person would conclude that Walker's engagement in a ten year relationship is enough to question his impartiality regardless of evidence as to his intention to marry.

    You can read more about why "A straightforward application of the judicial ethics rules compels the conclusion that Walker should have recused himself from taking part in the Perry case" here: http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/20/j...ker-was-wrong/
    By the way that's written by a legal ethicist who thinks Walker did come to the right conclusion in the case.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #295
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    In the court's decision, Chief Judge James Ware determined there was no evidence that Judge Vaughn Walker intended to marry his long-time partner; thus, he had no obligation to disclose his relationship.
    Next up on the Daily News: "Chief Judge James Ware embroiled in a 25-year same sex relationship!!! SHould he have recused himself from judging another judge in a same-sex relationship??"

    Oh, when will the recursive insanity end????

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    This disqualification is based on a reasonable person basis. Any reasonable person would conclude that Walker's engagement in a ten year relationship is enough to question his impartiality regardless of evidence as to his intention to marry.
    As I said earlier, to take it to that standard pretty much means Christian judges cannot therefore legitimately render decisions in favor of political views held by Christians. They can only render decisions running counter to the positions typically held by others of their faith or be considered to be reasonably biased.

    Is that what we want to reduce our bench seats to? It's an interesting conundrum.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #296
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    For some reason, I was actually thinking about this the other day briefly. I think the reason religious people oppose this so much is because in the bible when they speak about Sodom and Gomorrah, there were men having sex with men and everyone was a perve. I think they assume that the world will go to shit and somehow we may all end up punished for being a sinful society.

    This may not be the case, but that was the idea I had the other day. *old school shrug*

  7. #297
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    As I said earlier, to take it to that standard pretty much means Christian judges cannot therefore legitimately render decisions in favor of political views held by Christians. They can only render decisions running counter to the positions typically held by others of their faith or be considered to be reasonably biased.

    Is that what we want to reduce our bench seats to? It's an interesting conundrum.
    Yes, this is a very high standard. Yes, it should be that way.

    Again, I'm not saying Walker should have stepped aside because he was gay but because he was in a 10 year relationship.
    In this case it's not a matter of personal beliefs or behaviors. Any reasonable person would think that the judge's personal interest in gaining financially and potentially emotionally and physically (see the article above) would make his impartiality reasonably questionable.

    A comparative situation where the judge's impartiality might be questioned would not be where the Judge is merely a Christian. But, in a situation where the judge was a christian who was against the wedding plans of his gay son his impartiality might be reasonably questionable.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #298
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Yes, this is a very high standard. Yes, it should be that way.

    Again, I'm not saying Walker should have stepped aside because he was gay but because he was in a 10 year relationship.
    In this case it's not a matter of personal beliefs or behaviors. Any reasonable person would think that the judge's personal interest in gaining financially and potentially emotionally and physically (see the article above) would make his impartiality reasonably questionable.

    A comparative situation where the judge's impartiality might be questioned would not be where the Judge is merely a Christian. But, in a situation where the judge was a christian who was against the wedding plans of his gay son his impartiality might be reasonably questionable.
    10 year relationship doesn't mean that he is for gay marriage. He could be someone who supports civil unions for all we know.

  9. #299
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Yes, this is a very high standard. Yes, it should be that way.

    Again, I'm not saying Walker should have stepped aside because he was gay but because he was in a 10 year relationship.
    In this case it's not a matter of personal beliefs or behaviors. Any reasonable person would think that the judge's personal interest in gaining financially and potentially emotionally and physically (see the article above) would make his impartiality reasonably questionable.
    It's not a constructive posture to imply that everyone who disagrees is not a reasonable person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    A comparative situation where the judge's impartiality might be questioned would not be where the Judge is merely a Christian. But, in a situation where the judge was a christian who was against the wedding plans of his gay son his impartiality might be reasonably questionable.
    That seems a lot more specific.

    If we had to rule on the legality of some sort of divorce, how would we treat the judges? Would we discount any judge that was married? Would we try to investigate their personal lives to see who might be planning to divorce and then discount them?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #300
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Rave View Post
    10 year relationship doesn't mean that he is for gay marriage. He could be someone who supports civil unions for all we know.
    The standard is not based on what he actually believes, but rather on what would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality.

    The article I posted above explains:

    “A judge contemplating disqualification under § 455(a), then, should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially presiding over the case. Rather, the question is whether a judge’s impartiality might be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person, and every circuit has adopted some version of the ‘reasonable person’ standard to answer this question.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It's not a constructive posture to imply that everyone who disagrees is not a reasonable person.
    The perspective of a reasonable person is the standard of review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That seems a lot more specific.
    That's because I have to add circumstances when the judge himself is unlikely to actually get a same-sex marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    If we had to rule on the legality of some sort of divorce, how would we treat the judges? Would we discount any judge that was married?
    No. Married people don't generally benefit from divorce. They are generally healthier and wealthier if they stay married. There would have to be some extra circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Would we try to investigate their personal lives to see who might be planning to divorce and then discount them?
    No we should not investigate. This hearing was based on information that was made public.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Same-sex Marriage, do you support it?
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 608
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 02:49 PM
  2. Obama Administration Support for Same-Sex Marriage
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-09-2013, 09:23 PM
  3. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO