Bryan Schwegler wrote: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.
My opinion on gay marriage differs from that of Ryan's. For the sake of the cause, the judge should have recused himself from the case. That is where he went wrong.. (please read my last 10 post)
Stephen Eisel wrote:My opinion on gay marriage differs from that of Ryan's. For the sake of the cause, the judge should have recused himself from the case. That is where he went wrong.. (please read my last 10 post)
But he didn't. So that's really a pointless thing to argue when the real discussion is around the veracity of his finding of fact. It also doesn't seem to be an issue that the 9th Circuit which I think would be a key part of the appeal....but it's not.
So if I'm reading you right, you're saying that you think the judge's legal arguments and conclusions in the case were correct, just that he should have recused himself?
I think I've got it now, the judge should have recused himself because he is gay and gays are incapable of impartiality because all they care about is the "cause" and furthering the homosexual agenda in this country and corrupting children.
Stephen Eisel wrote:My opinion on gay marriage differs from that of Ryan's. For the sake of the cause, the judge should have recused himself from the case. That is where he went wrong.. (please read my last 10 post)
But he didn't. So that's really a pointless thing to argue when the real discussion is around the veracity of his finding of fact. It also doesn't seem to be an issue that the 9th Circuit which I think would be a key part of the appeal....but it's not.
So if I'm reading you right, you're saying that you think the judge's legal arguments and conclusions in the case were correct, just that he should have recused himself?
Correct! add in the logic from the Ted Olson's clip (that Jim posted) and you have a slam dunk case!!!!! Legalize it and get over it...
Danielle Masters wrote:I think I've got it now, the judge should have recused himself because he is gay and gays are incapable of impartiality because all they care about is the "cause" and furthering the homosexual agenda in this country and corrupting children.
Absolutely not! It is ok to think outside the box once in a while!
So I'm curious, if the argument is that the judge should have recused himself because he's gay and the ruling could affect his life, wouldn't that be a dangerous and wide precedent to set as a reason for recusal?
For example, shouldn't half the Supreme Court recused themselves on that gun rights case since it ultimately could have affected their right to own a gun (since I'm sure more than a few of them do)?
Or should a judge in Cleveland recuse himself from ruling on any of the county corruption cases since the outcome could potentially affect the quality of his life in Cuyahoga county?
Should every Christian justice (or any faith really) recuse themselves from any legal cases regarding separation of church and state?
Or should the female justices recuse themselves from Sexual Harassment cases since the ruling could affect them?
How about every white male justice recuse himself on any affirmative action case since the outcome affects him?
Danielle Masters wrote:I think I've got it now, the judge should have recused himself because he is gay and gays are incapable of impartiality because all they care about is the "cause" and furthering the homosexual agenda in this country and corrupting children.
Speaking of the evil "Homosexual Agenda", here's what the wonderful Christians at Focus on the Family had to say about it:
Ultra-conservative Christian mega business ministry Focus on the Family wants all these gay people to stop talking about child bullying, because they're pushing a secret agenda to turn America's kids into homosexuals, and that is not what Jesus intended.
We all know that being compassionate turns people to being gay, so let's get more bullies out there! And of course as Glenn Beck says, Jesus wasn't about helping the disenfranchised or the poor...you know that whole evil social justice thingy.
So while we in the United States accept that a Supreme Court Justice who's an "Ambassador" for the gun industry can ethically rule on cases that impact the very industry he represents, maybe in Old Europe, where the WFSA is located, they can still feel the sting of a little thing called shame.
