Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

[Wingnut]

My concern is the precedent that is set here. Not once, but twice, the people of California have voted to disallow same sex marriage, yet the courts (who are full of unelected people) are overturning those decisions. What happened to governing for the people and by the people?

I struggle personally with a position on legislating same sex marriage. I don't see a legal argument to be made against it, yet I do have religious and moral concerns. My worries about the current circumstance have more to do with the workings of the law than the issue itself.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree there is irony, and i do understand the concern, but if it was revealed the judge was LDS and gays were swearing he couldn't be trusted, i do wonder what the response here would be. It was never hidden from the people so to me the fact it was open from the get go is a good sign.

I agree with Pam. I'd also say the judge in your hypothetical should recuse himself.

(Of course, if I were the judge, I'd say something else entirely.)

[Snow]

I feel you are right Snow but that doesn't mean we can't still show some outrage over it.

On balance, I think it is probably better that gays, who so desire, have the opportunity to commit to long term legal unions. What the alternative - that we compel them to NOT legally commit to long term legal unions. How would that be better?

[Soulsearcher]

I self deleted my posts...they were ugly and un-called for....and to Soulsearcher and anyone else that I offended by my comments...I am truly sorry. Sometimes my grumpy side over rules my compassionate and common sense side.

(Sidenote: While I am against g/l marriage for religious reasons and likely also for cultural prejudices learned in my adolescence,,,,,I really am not all the bothered by the decision nor am I overly concerned if it stands one way or the other. Just feeling feisty! )

I understand the feelings Bytor, and yeah the dog comment was offensive, but sadly it's come to be all to common. i don't blame you and i understand the frustration sometimes.

You know what i do when the articles on gays pop up on yahoo news? I tend to skin the article, but i read each and every comment that follows.

Typos are left in

during the 19thcentury, they just hung gays, at daybreak, while the whole town got to watch. popcorn anyhone?

I'm sick of hearing it's a thing they were born with, Bull they chose to be outcasts, pure and simple, I think gays are disgusting . Weaklings who can''t handle a real normal relationship. They are one of the biggest reasons for the moral decay world wide. They ought to put them all in there own country, and let them deal with there spread of aids to thereselves only. and stop causing non gays there plauges. so normal people don't have be sickened by having to see them.

These are some of the nicer quotes. there are a fair amount on the other side as well. But the quotes that scare me come from the religious right. The people who stood beside the lds and catholics during the protests and all patted each other on the back thinking this was ok and god's will. This is why i take exception to a lot of the comments. These are hate comments, it's really easy to get ugly and yes both sides do, though most of the "they need to die" comment are directed towards gay's in the name of god. So now the people of god want others to die or end up in camps.......last couple of times people were put in camps cause they were different didn't go so well for the world.

I understand the fear, frustration and anger on both sides, but telling me i need to die because I'm different, it came from attitudes that i am no different than a pedophile or some one who sleeps with animals, makes it a lot easier to forget i am a person.

Thank you for your post Bytor it really did mean a lot, thank you.

[Soulsearcher]

You are a passionate advocate for your cause. However, I think what they really want is for the State to sanction and approve their relationships. In secular terms, is a couple that is devoted to one another and not legally married (hetero) any less a devoted couple?

From what i remember you are married Bytor, and I hate to use the same old example, but if you wife lay dying in the hospital would you want to be by her side? Gay couples have been kept apart at the final moment just because they are not "married" It's not religion that keeps them apart at that moment, it's a man made rule. Governments and institutions have given marriage more than just a religious meaning. The secular hetero couple has made a choice to be nothing more than what they are, no one has told them sorry your love just doesn't count as real and so you can't be together in this way.

The kids i mentioned in earlier posts. I'm not their father, but I'm closer to them than their father. One calls herself my lil girl and calls me her second daddy. I asked her how she'd feel if she was in the hospital and i was kept out of her room because someone had such a narrow definition of things and she cried and said she couldn't imagine. I told her that this was what i was fighting for, and she didn't agree with gay marriage, but she finally saw what some people might lose and it broke her heart.

[jayanna]

Maybe they should have a union that is a legal, long-term one, that is not called "marriage" the very term means the putting together of two opposites to make them one. Wouldn't that fact necessitate the creation of a new term? Like GLU, Gender-free Legal Union? I know that sounds really lame, but I'm serious about a legal union of some kind.

You can have a living will, I know b/c I made one, appoint others to make decisions for your care if you can't do it for yourself, you can give someone power of attorney, anyone at all. I've even signed medical releases for people so they can get med. information and communicate with my doctors on my behalf. I even have a medical release for my answering machine! It would be a good idea to do that before anything can happen, like the moment you decide to make a commitment to someone.

If I may go off topic for a moment, Snow, what do you mean 'we' outdid the Catholics, are you part of the We? Personally, I wasn't there. But I find your use of that particular pronoun interesting. Maybe it was sarcasm, but I would rather think it was born of a deep desire to align yourself with the LDS community at large. :)

Oh, and it's really cool, you can actually see the iris on your eye avatar change right after it opens.

And yeah, I hate haters too.

[RanMan]

So we assume a gay person can't really be impartial? A reminder from what i hear this guy was appointed by Regan and fully vetted. Most of his rulings seem to be on par for all his career. Could be a lil much to say "gay so can't be trusted to be fair"

If we refuse to believe him saying he can be impartial and has no leanings to either side......how can we believe anyone really?

I don't remember anyone saying that a gay person couldn't be trusted to be fair. That is your spin on it. I'm pretty sure you would likely to voice the same, but opposite, argument if the judge were LDS. There is nothing wrong with wanting a person making the choice that doesn't have a personal interest in the specific ruling. That's just common sense - not an attack on the person's trustworthiness.

:)

[FunkyTown]

Actually, I think the judge didn't rule this due to personal biases.

I think he wanted to do something historic. If he thinks that this will be a landmark civil rights case in ten years time, he may be thinking towards his future and realizes that simply upholding this wouldn't make his name known, but going down as the man who sweepingly crushed Prop 8 is a politically savvy move.

It's also theoretically possible he cared one way or the other, but my personal faith in people with power is relatively low regardless of orientation.

[Soulsearcher]

I don't remember anyone saying that a gay person couldn't be trusted to be fair. That is your spin on it. I'm pretty sure you would likely to voice the same, but opposite, argument if the judge were LDS. There is nothing wrong with wanting a person making the choice that doesn't have a personal interest in the specific ruling. That's just common sense - not an attack on the person's trustworthiness.

:)

Actually it was implied by the first few posts that this judge because he was gay was completely unable to be impartial because he was gay. The fact the original few posts specifically questioned this ability and mocked the fact it was said that he acted without bias went directly to his personal ability to be trusted. As i said earlier i understand the feelings of the sentiment, if it had been and LDS judge I would have the same fears, but i also think that judge would find the same support from some LDS if he said he was unbiased as this judge is getting from gays.

[Just_A_Guy]

From what i remember you are married Bytor, and I hate to use the same old example, but if you wife lay dying in the hospital would you want to be by her side? Gay couples have been kept apart at the final moment just because they are not "married"

AFAIK this is generally a non-issue, since domestic partnership/civil union legislation usually addresses situations like this. We're fighting over a name, and the social opprobrium (or lack thereof) that the name implies.

I think he wanted to do something historic. If he thinks that this will be a landmark civil rights case in ten years time, he may be thinking towards his future and realizes that simply upholding this wouldn't make his name known, but going down as the man who sweepingly crushed Prop 8 is a politically savvy move.

He may be trying to build a name for himself; but I doubt he seriously thought the opinion itself would stand the test of time (the rational-basis test has nearly a century of precedent filling it out; and I don't think appellate courts will take kindly to this judge's attempt to--pardon the pun--redefine that legal principle). I think he just wanted an opportunity to bench-slap the traditional-marriage crowd, and provide a rallying point for the gay-marriage movement.

It's also theoretically possible he cared one way or the other, but my personal faith in people with power is relatively low regardless of orientation.

Heh.

[Soulsearcher]

It could possibly be a non-issue now , the problem being there are a large number of members and people who have commented from the religious right that the civil unions is the next target. They don't want Gay's to have anything. So with prop 8 it was a great first step. I've seen posts from this site over the years that civil unions are just as evil and need to not exist. People voted once to take something away, be it right or privilege, based solely on religious conviction, so are we sure we have nothing to worry when someone gets it in their heads that the civil unions need to go? There are enough people who think gay is just a disease that needs to die out that make people a lil concerned as to where exactly we'll stop having things taken away. All it takes is the prophet getting instruction to fight another crusade and we go through this again, and how many people that now think civil unions are an ok solution find themselves fighting against it? Silly concerns maybe, but really honestly based on the same fears you had about gays getting married, no fact there will be harm but a lot of fear about where it might end up.

[cofchristcousin]

There was a guest on Olbermann last night who explained things well. Can't remember her name. According to my memory, she said that the case was presented very poorly, the majority of their testimony was a couple of witnesses claiming that gay is bad for families, but did not substantiate that with anything credible. Because the case was so poorly made, the Judge's ruling was a no brainer.

Since the case cannot be made credibly that same sex marriage is harmful to anyone, the real question ( not addressed much in the case) is whether the majority has the right to deny marriage to some persons based on a specific religious moral belief. It will probably not be so easy from here on out.

[Cassiopeia]

From the stand point that our constitution was set forth to separate church and state and to establish and protect the rights of each individual, I don't have a problem with a gay couple having rights under the law.

Marriage has multiple definitions:

Main Entry: mar·riage

Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

I heard of an interesting discussion in which someone said yesterday, they didn't mind if gays were civilly united but insisted they not be allowed to use the word marriage or have a ceremony in a religious structure.

Given that religious practice and religious entities do not own the rights to the definition of marriage they can't dictate what the federal, state and local powers-that-be label the union as. They can however manage the affairs of their properties and religious practices and simply disallow such unions within. If those of a mind to object to the term, marriage being used by gays, I propose it is the religious entity that needs to change the terminology they use and not demand an entire nation be forced to comply with a religious demand. Is that not what our constitution is to protect us from?

One does not have to agree with the morality surrounding the choice to act on same sex attraction but as citizens we need to stamp out discrimination wherever it rears it's ugly head. Our government (however flawed) protects the rights of each and everyone of us. Not just the few we call elect.

[Just_A_Guy]

It could possibly be a non-issue now , the problem being there are a large number of members and people who have commented from the religious right that the civil unions is the next target. They don't want Gay's to have anything. So with prop 8 it was a great first step. . .

Silly concerns maybe, but really honestly based on the same fears you had about gays getting married, no fact there will be harm but a lot of fear about where it might end up.

It's too bad that experience with the other side's lunatic fringe has led us to conclude that we can't all trust each other's motives a little more.

But here's the rub: In American society, I have a hard time coming up with a single conservative social movement that, once it attained its stated goals, switched the target and kept pressing forward.

But how many progressive movements have pulled that bait-and-switch? The abolitionists didn't go away--they morphed into the civil rights movement (and, in that case, we can be glad they did). The feminists didn't go away with the advent of civil rights legislation, or abortion-on-demand. Gays who two decades ago were sanctimoniously insisting they would never go after marriage--all they wanted were civil unions--are now seeking to drive anyone who won't hop onto the bandwagon, out of commerce.

So in this case, when we see gays stating that all they want is marriage--forgive us if we notice how in parallel campaigns, the overall result wound up being the complete social marginalization of (and in some cases, government punitive action against) any group, entity, or association that declined to toe the liberal party line.

Conservatism hasn't managed to get us back to slavery, but liberalism has succeeded in taking children away from hyper-conservative parents.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

Gays who two decades ago were sanctimoniously insisting they would never go after marriage--all they wanted were civil unions--are now seeking to drive anyone who won't hop onto the bandwagon, out of commerce.

I do see the concern. Problem being we still have people saying how evil and what a mockery the civil unions are. I honestly would settle for civil unions if so many people didn't like reminding me how inferior from a moral stand point they are to a marriage. People have made it so only "marriage" means a true loving relationship. Civil unions are just a political band aid that gives people tax breaks. So is it a surprise to people when we said yes we just want things to be equal, that when we got it and were still laughed at we set our goals higher? The abolitionists and the civil rights workers was a great example, great people were free, but treated like garbage so lets fix that. Great i got the material part of my relationship recognized, but now i'm just a money hungry pervert because i'm not married and getting the benefits, let's try and change that view. I honestly think that the fact people want to belittle the relationships has a lot ot do with this fight. Don't laugh and make jokes and take every opportunity to point out how inferior something is and you might not see such a strong reaction to over compensate. This is more a general argument over time than focused at any one person or group, and yes i am aware our side is just as guilty and has it's own extremists.

As for forcing people out of commerce I'm split on this and it's not just being gay. I would want to see any one told it's not right to pick and choose because of discrimination based on any reason. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Gay's. I don't want ot see any group told i will not serve you because of what you are. Yes i know this could be taken to an extreme , and i hate seeing it taken to court, but to my mind it's wrong to tell people know just on the basis of what they are. The old restaurants with signs saying no colored people come to mind. Would this not make someone sick to see in today's America? So why would we want ot see signs on businesses post signs saying "no gay's" or "no Christians". i don't like either side of this extreme.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[rubondfan2]

...one day in the not too distant future, the Church's efforts will have been for naught and created another black eye for the Church through being perceived as an obstacle to enlightened progress...

As the end times become more intense and the return of the Savior more imminent, "the Church" along with many of us individually and collectively will experience and receive a great many "black eyes" for being seen as an "obstacle to enlightened progress". We have been told repeatedly by more than one member of the "first 15" that we are a Peculiar people and this perception will become more pronounced as times continue. Are we really so afraid of being seen as obstacles to enlightened progress?

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..." -- Quote: The Family: A Proclamation to the World... -- This seems a pretty clear doctrinal and positional statement to me. Do we sustain this or don't we? It is a very simple question and the line is very... very clear.

Clearly, our "enlightened" society is sprinting toward political and social ideologies which are in direct conflict with the commandments of the Lord and of course, for a time, the efforts of the adversary will seemingly prevail. However, does this mean that we as Latter-Day Saints simply sit back, watch it all happen, hoard up our food storage and lock ourselves in our basements praying for the Second Coming? -- Hardly. We fight! We educate! We testify! And we do all we can do to evangelize righteousness and true "enlightenment" to ALL of our spiritual brothers and sisters. Yes, we know who ultimately prevails in this war between good and evil, but I for one choose to be an active participant in this battle rather than passively "accepting" Satan's efforts to win the war.

[Dravin]

I honestly would settle for civil unions if so many people didn't like reminding me how inferior from a moral stand point they are to a marriage.

So is it a surprise to people when we said yes we just want things to be equal, that when we got it and were still laughed at we set our goals higher?

Those same people will likely be just as quick to point out your marriage is inferior to theirs from a moral stand point no matter what the law says. It sounds like you don't want legal equality you want enforced social acceptance of your choices. I thought such was regularly denied as a goal? Has that changed?

As long as various Church's doctrines decry homosexual relationships as immoral those people will not hold it to be a valid moral choice, much like how adultery may be legal but you won't see me saying it's a morally valid life choice. The only way that will change is if legislation requires such Church's to change their tune (or such Churches change their tune on their own but such would take time and may not ever happen) . Such has long been a denied goal of various parts of the homosexual activist movement, will this change too?

Do you understand that going from, we just want legal equality to we want social acceptance makes protestations that we will respect religion's right to preach our behavior is immoral makes such protestations weak for those who are suspicious such is one of your final goals? Sure the 1st Amendment may hold the line much as it still allows the KKK to call black people an evil despite legal acceptance of equality and growing social acceptance of the same, but I can see how it would be worrisome and result in growing distrust that your stated goals are genuine.

In some ways I see your behavior as being unhelpful to your goal. Forcing acceptance (and that is the overwhelming perception amongst those disagreeing with your lifestyle) tends to result in resentment and people hold to their original position all the harder. Ignoring the right or wrong of it all, it's like having the teacher force you to apologize, in my experience it results in resentment more often than genuine apology. Sometimes we just have to suck it up that we've accomplished legal parity (not sure if such is actually true but you post speaks of wanting more than that) and that some people won't accept our life choices. I'd love it if so many Baptists didn't demand I'm not Christian, but a court order isn't going to change their minds.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dravin

[Soulsearcher]

It's not so much social acceptance as the fact people don't need to constantly belittle things. Is it really so hard to just keep their mouths shut? I've seen people complain about how vocal gays are about things.....problem was it was a religious based organization that started the fight in Cali. I don't care if you accept me, but do you always have to point out how worthless my relationship really is? There is a fine line between giving us something and giving us something and laughing and reminding us in the end it's worthless. A lot of people are pointing out gays are just greedy, they don't care about love they just want benefits. They miss the point. It did have to do with equality on that basis, but it didn't mean there wasn't more to it. Is is social acceptance to ask for just a lil respect and less mocking? I thought it was just decent behavior.

[Just_A_Guy]

The abolitionists and the civil rights workers was a great example, great people were free, but treated like garbage so lets fix that.

I see where you're going; it's just that "treated like garbage" seems to be a sliding definition.

As for forcing people out of commerce I'm split on this and it's not just being gay. I would want to see any one told it's not right to pick and choose because of discrimination based on any reason. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Gay's. I don't want ot see any group told i will not serve you because of what you are. Yes i know this could be taken to an extreme , and i hate seeing it taken to court, but to my mind it's wrong to tell people know just on the basis of what they are. The old restaurants with signs saying no colored people come to mind. Would this not make someone sick to see in today's America? So why would we want ot see signs on businesses post signs saying "no gay's" or "no Christians". i don't like either side of this extreme.

I tend more towards libertarianism on this issue: IMHO, some chowderhead ought to be free to put a "no blacks" on his restaurant, just like I ought to be free to refuse to give said chowderhead my business.\

Is it really so hard to just keep their mouths shut?

Yes.

[Cassiopeia]

I tend more towards libertarianism on this issue: IMHO, some chowderhead ought to be free to put a "no blacks" on his restaurant, just like I ought to be free to refuse to give said chowderhead my business.\

And I can't help but ask, to what ends would you limit your market and client base? It doesn't make sense from a business stand point to limit the profits in that manner.

[Soulsearcher]

I see where you're going; it's just that "treated like garbage" seems to be a sliding definition.

I tend more towards libertarianism on this issue: IMHO, some chowderhead ought to be free to put a "no blacks" on his restaurant, just like I ought to be free to refuse to give said chowderhead my business.\

Yes.

It is an awkward definition. I guess I'm tired of the people who think I'm incapable of loving someone, that i just want sex and someone's benefits. The number of people calling me a diseased freak who is better off dead, i could do with out that as well. Is this the majority, no, but there are enough that it makes me wonder why people are ok with it.

And i understand the approach to businesses you present, but i worry about where we would draw the line. If it got to the point no one would serve you would you still be ok with that stance? You are worried a concession might lead to more concessions, i'm worried a lil about the same thing. Tell someone it's ok to not serve someone cause you don't like them, what happens if that goes further?

[Wingnut]

Those same people will likely be just as quick to point out your marriage is inferior to theirs from a moral stand point no matter what the law says. It sounds like you don't want legal equality you want enforced social acceptance of your choices. I thought such was regularly denied as a goal? Has that changed?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that many gays would be happy with legal civil unions, and then for everyone else to just leave them alone.

[cofchristcousin]

I think most gays would be happy with the state out of the marriage business altogether, and all couples would have legal civil unions. But that boat is sailing and marriage seems to be the future for us all.

[Just_A_Guy]

If it got to the point no one would serve you would you still be ok with that stance?

If circumstances were so extreme that I couldn't get the commodity anywhere (or, where the commodity is singular by nature--land, for example)--then I can see government intervention.

But even in the deep South of the 1950s, I'm not aware that that was really the case (except for restrictive covenants running with land in many residential districts). It wasn't that a black person couldn't buy himself a Coca-Cola; it was that he couldn't get it from a particular seller. That makes the seller a nitwit, but I don't think it justifies government intervention.

[Dravin]

Is it really so hard to just keep their mouths shut?

Nope, just as it isn't hard for a few Baptists I ran into on my mission to not shout out in accusation, "You aren't Christian! You worship a different Christ!" People will say things that hurt out feelings, people won't always accept our life choices. Sometimes you just have to suck things up.

As JAG points out, forcing them to keep their mouths shut (instead them exercising self control) is hard.

Is is social acceptance to ask for just a lil respect and less mocking? I thought it was just decent behavior.

The problem: a Minister gets up and decries that homosexuality is against the will of the Lord. Is that disrespectful? Is that mocking? Some say yes and some say no. Which is the problem. If you want the minister to shut-up then yes, you are seeing social acceptance. If all you want is the Skinhead to not follow you down the street and hurl slurs at you (but save them for his weekly Skinhead meeting) then you aren't, that's natural. If you want to "make" people not point out to you that while you may have the law behind you that you lack the Lord, that's also seeking social acceptance. The difference is what you would like people to do versus if you are willing to somehow force society to do what you would like them to do. As I've said, nobody wants people disapproving of their choices in life.

People certainly shouldn't be following you around and hurling slurs at you, just as people shouldn't go around throwing around racial slurs, such behavior is indecent. However do you think legal action is going to make the KKK love Blacks and Jews any time soon? People are jerks, the Baptist doesn't need to insult my religious choices but I'm not gonna clamor in the court to make him shut up and be nice.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dravin