Comments on: Prop 8 Proponents’ self-serving argument for reversal

By: enough already

enough already — Wed, 25 May 2011 15:27:07 +0000

What is really telling here is the fact – and Bois is willing to swear to it in court – that the Christians knew Walker was gay and that he was in a long-term relationship going into this.
That they now say he didn’t reveal it to them AFTER they had the opportunity to bring the matter up as an objection pre-trial is lying.

Which, I thought, was forbidden to Christians?

Guess not.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 25 May 2011 08:07:04 +0000

I’m with Johnny C. This:

The particular facts and circumstances that give rise to such a reasonable concern in this case — Judge Walker’s ten-year same-sex relationship, his refusal to disclose both his relationship and whether he and his partner have any interest in marriage, his findings concerning the manifold benefits of marriage for “committed, long-term same-sex relationships,” and the extraordinary rulings and course of proceedings in this case — plainly do not necessarily exist for all or even most gay and lesbian citizens or judges.

Proves Walker was exactly that judge they should put their ‘faith’ in. Else the H8 supporters must necessarily say Walker didn’t get married during the period marriage was available to him just in case he might have to rule upon it. And that’s about as far-fetched a conspiracy theory as the myriad of birthers have concerning Obama.

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Wed, 25 May 2011 02:07:29 +0000

Well now, to be fair, the only judge of any orientation they would admit to being “unbiased” is one who took their side :)

Just like they do with polls. A majority of people cannot possibly *really* support marriage, so all the polls saying they do must, of course, be lying.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 24 May 2011 23:04:20 +0000

JohnnyC, are you trying to provoke me into slapping you. Using logic on a religionist…sheesh.

Last week I watched the video of Olsen and Boies at the Cato Institute in DC. Mr. Olsen pointed out the the defenders of Prop H8 knew that Judge Walker is gay, it was brought up during pre-trial discussions. They didn’t want to look like bigots by demanding or even requesting that Walker recuse himself. It wasn’t until they lost the case and the rest of their efforts look bleak that they started grasping at this straw.

Now to return to JohnnyC’s logic. Judge Walker is retired from the bench now. He and his partner could move to Iowa, Massachusetts,Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut or the District of Columbia and marry. That’s not happening either.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 24 May 2011 22:58:36 +0000

I’m no lawyer, but I agree their argument is so thin, I just can’t imagine the judge taking it seriously.

Even if he did, I’ve been thinking the same thing as JohnnyC ever since they filed this motion. And for that matter, do we know for certain that Walker and his partner are NOT married?

By: JohnnyC

JohnnyC — Tue, 24 May 2011 22:44:38 +0000

If Walker and his partner had an interest in marriage, wouldn’t they have taken advantage of it during period when it was legal in CA? Doesn’t the fact that they did not do so weigh heavily against plaintiffs arguments?

By: Amicus

Amicus — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:51:26 +0000

I haven’t read their brief.

Did they admit that Judge Walker has ‘something to gain’?

And what a contradiction that is, if they have, right?

Afterall, in their view (many of them), is that gays are just abusing themselves with each other and ‘making it official’, making the abuse of each other official, is somehow “gaining something” for the Judge.

By: Shofixti

Shofixti — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:35:33 +0000

The only good bias, Chris, is their bias.

The phrase that strikes me is:

…concerning the manifold benefits of marriage…

It’s quite Scrooge-like to be so obvious about keeping all the benefits to yourself at the expense of others.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:04:44 +0000

Well, and if they’re arguing that same-sex marriage will somehow hurt straight marriages, wouldn’t a straight judge also be unacceptably biased?