The Observation Deck

Stephen Eisel wrote:

About 60% of your posts in this thread contain examples of it. Read them again.

I went back and re-read Ryan's post... Maybe I missed the hate or maybe you are jumping to conclusions based upon Ryan's political party affiliation? hmmmm? Could the boy that cried "Intolerance" need to take a quick look in the mirror? just asking!

No Stephen, but thanks for trying to figure it out.

And you don't even know my political affiliation, or are you just making an assumption? And I am intolerant of bigots, I will freely admit that, but I'm also not the one trying to claim I said nothing offensive.

Now let's get focused back on the question at hand....what legal arguments did the judge make that were wrong? Or is it easier to continue avoiding the question?

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

About 60% of your posts in this thread contain examples of it. Read them again.

I went back and re-read Ryan's post... Maybe I missed the hate or maybe you are jumping to conclusions based upon Ryan's political party affiliation? hmmmm? Could the boy that cried "Intolerance" need to take a quick look in the mirror? just asking!

No Stephen, but thanks for trying to figure it out.

And you don't even know my political affiliation, or are you just making an assumption? And I am intolerant of bigots, I will freely admit that, but I'm also not the one trying to claim I said nothing offensive.

Now let's get focused back on the question at hand....what legal arguments did the judge make that were wrong? Or is it easier to continue avoiding the question?

I did not bring up or assume to know anything about your political affiliation. I simply asked "are you jumping to conclusions based upon Ryan's political party affiliation?" it is a simple yes or no answer... thanks!

In my opinion, the judge should have recused himself from hearing the case.

Stephen Eisel wrote: I did not bring up or assume to know anything about your political affiliation. I simply asked "are you jumping to conclusions based upon Ryan's political party affiliation?" it is a simple yes or no answer... thanks!

Your asking the question itself is making assumptions of my political stance. But the answer is no, that has nothing to do with my conclusions. His own language and viewpoint is what I drew for my understanding of how he feels about the issue.

In my opinion, the judge should have recused himself from hearing the case.

That is still just another excuse to avoid answering the real question being asked. Just sayin'

Your asking the question itself is making assumptions of my political stance. But the answer is no, that has nothing to do with my conclusions. His own language and viewpoint is what I drew for my understanding of how he feels about the issue.

Your diversity radar must be jammed .... go figure!

He should have recused himself merely because he is gay?!?!

Seriously?!

Now that would be a slippery slope to start saying judges should recuse themselves based on sexual preference, we could then go on to say judges should recuse themselves due to skin color, gender, marital status, eye color, shoe size, etc.

Now if you have another reason besides his homosexuality please enlighten us.

Danielle Masters wrote:He should have recused himself merely because he is gay?!?!

Seriously?!

Now that would be a slippery slope to start saying judges should recuse themselves based on sexual preference, we could then go on to say judges should recuse themselves due to skin color, gender, marital status, eye color, shoe size, etc.

Now if you have another reason besides his homosexuality please enlighten us.

This has nothing to do with sexual preference but the ability of the judge to remain impartial on decision that may personally impact his life.

Jim DeVito wrote:Since fox news youtubes are all the rage...



I think the winner is at 5:00

I think that Ted has the correct reasoning... and eventually the Supreme Court will strike down these state bans on gay marriage..

Does United States Code Title 28, section 455 apply to Judge Walker "Any justice ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

That is an absurd argument, he is a judge, it's his job to remain impartial. Do you have any evidence that he plans on getting married anytime soon? Or maybe some closeted judge will decide that "wow if I change this law, then I can get married too". Perhaps we should start asking all judges what their sexual preference really is.

How about cases on abortion, abortion can personally affect anyone so how do we find judges to rule on that? Or should only male judges vote on abortion because they can't get pregnant? Or only women over a certain age?

This is getting so absurd.

Ryan-- that you and a partner can have the status of being married is a status that is extended to other couples by virtue of their commitment. The state has no place other than validating that commitment.

A good and moral and virtuous community will recognize this fact.
Questioning another's' status means that your "marriage" is suspect.

Others have averred, politely, that your views are offensive.

Your views are offensive, as is the logic that you have used to justify them.

Speaking from the perspective of an agnostic, your religious arguments are repugnant.

Ryan---- I truly enjoy saying "hi" to you at the Y every morning, but on this topic--
let's just enjoy a good game or workout and let other topics take their proper place.

Stan

Stan,

Just so we are clear.

My view, that it would be immoral to normalize the gay lifestyle by calling it marriage, is offensive? I am offended that they want to try to normalize it.

What this truly comes down to is that some people feel gays chose to be gay, I am not one of those people. Some people also feel that while gays are born the way they have the choice to act on their sexual preference that it is their burden that God placed on them, I also do not feel that way.

I feel people are born gay or straight, I know I couldn't be convinced to be gay anymore than my gay friends could be convinced to be straight. So in my mind being gay is just as normal for people who are gay as being straight is normal for those of us who happen to be gay.

If one of my children come to me some day and tell me they are gay I will love them no more or no less than if they were straight.

Because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what any of us do in our bedrooms, as a society we have so many more things to be worrying about. Like poverty, education, violence, etc. If people are worried than allowing gays to marry will somehow affect the validity of their marriage than perhaps they should take a good long look in the mirror as they've obviously got some major issues. And if people think that allowing gays to marry will somehow make their children turn gay or something I would suggest making a move out into the middle of nowhere. I was going to suggest Iowa but since they allow gay marriage their I've heard corn fields are burning.

Ryan--- Your response is explicit. The application of the concept of morality and by extension the authority of the state in the relationship of two individuals must aver to the wishes of the individuals.
To do otherwise puts at risk any relationships that the state recognizes.
Stan

Danielle Masters wrote:That is an absurd argument, he is a judge, it's his job to remain impartial. Do you have any evidence that he plans on getting married anytime soon? Or maybe some closeted judge will decide that "wow if I change this law, then I can get married too". Perhaps we should start asking all judges what their sexual preference really is.

How about cases on abortion, abortion can personally affect anyone so how do we find judges to rule on that? Or should only male judges vote on abortion because they can't get pregnant? Or only women over a certain age?

This is getting so absurd.

Did you actually read what I wrote? "may" and "remain' were the key words. This has nothing to do with the abortion arguement. It is not absurd to think that some one would file a lawsuit because the justice should have disqualified himself because his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. As of right now, The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has intervened and stopped gay marriages in California.

That is an absurd argument, he is a judge, it's his job to remain impartial.

Now that was funny!!!

It's telling that both Ryan and Stephen continue to ignore the simple legal question asked. I think it speaks volumes.

Thanks for confirming guys.