Prop 8 for gay marriage in Calif

WOW, the judge who overturned this law that the people voted it unlawful is GAY. No wonder he overturned it. And to think our Justice System is fair. Let a gay judge rule on gay rights. What next, let a illegal immigrant rule on illegal immigration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110425/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

In all due respect, your argument makes no sense whatsoever on so many levels. Do you have a problem with heterosexual judges ruling on heterosexual issues? As Norm McDonald says on his new show, "What the H?".

In all due respect, your argument makes no sense whatsoever on so many levels. Do you have a problem with heterosexual judges ruling on heterosexual issues? As Norm McDonald says on his new show, "What the H?".

My first guess is no. However, sometimes folks don't think these things through.

Well i see a problem. The voters of California vote NO to same sex marriage and judge (GAY) comes in and over rules the voters on a issue he was obviously for. How can he be biased. It is the same thing as do you let the POPE rule for or against abortion. Obviously he is against it and would declare it illegal based on his belief.

Well i see a problem. The voters of California vote NO to same sex marriage and judge (GAY) comes in and over rules the voters on a issue he was obviously for. How can he be biased. It is the same thing as do you let the POPE rule for or against abortion. Obviously he is against it and would declare it illegal based on his belief.

Would you feel the same way if a hetrosexual Christian judged ruled against gay marriage? I mean being a Christian, he's obviously biased against gay marriage and according to your logic shouldn't be allowed to rule on it.

My point is a judge over ruled what the voters voted in. Voters in calif voted agaisnt gay marriage and all of a sudden a GAY judge comes in a rules it unfair. I dont see straight judges all of a sudden come in a rule agaisnt a gay right.

My point is a judge over ruled what the voters voted in. Voters in calif voted agaisnt gay marriage and all of a sudden a GAY judge comes in a rules it unfair. I dont see straight judges all of a sudden come in a rule agaisnt a gay right.

Well, there have been straight judges who overruled heterosexual groups protesting gay rights ordinances and legislation and ruled for the gay rights groups. How does that fare in your judgement?

But the judge over ruled what voters had voted in.

But the judge over ruled what voters had voted in.

Happens all the time.

Not sure that Mountain Ref doesn't have something of a point on this one. This judge was in a position to grant himself a right he didn't currently have. Aren't judges supposed to remove themselves if that circumstance is present?

Not sure that Mountain Ref doesn't have something of a point on this one. This judge was in a position to grant himself a right he didn't currently have. Aren't judges supposed to remove themselves if that circumstance is present?

Don't think of it that way. You'll find judges recuse themselves for a lot of reasons, especially if a conflict of interest is present, but not for this. Instead of gay marriage, imagine this is a free speech case. In any free speech case, a judge will invariably expand or restrict laws that apply to him as well.

yeah but free speech is different. we already have that guaranteed. gay marriage isnt guaranteed, but a gay judge is tryog to say he more say than all the voters who voted it down. So what good does it do to vote it it dont matter.

yeah but free speech is different. we already have that guaranteed. gay marriage isnt guaranteed, but a gay judge is tryog to say he more say than all the voters who voted it down. So what good does it do to vote it it dont matter.

Would you feel the same way if it had been voted into law and a straight judge overturned it outlawing gay marriage?

yeah but free speech is different. we already have that guaranteed. gay marriage isnt guaranteed, but a gay judge is tryog to say he more say than all the voters who voted it down. So what good does it do to vote it it dont matter.

Free speech is far from guaranteed. It is expanded or restricted with every case heard on the subject. Think of these: are people allowed to wear shirts with obscene images on them in public? Can a private citizen buy pornography? Can someone make a speech inciting listeners to imminent lawless action? Can a city tell a group when and where they are allowed to have a protest? All these have been discussed and retooled throughout the years in American courts. The jurisprudence on free speech is so vast that it's difficult to track it all sometimes. And with every case, our freedoms either grow or shrink depending on the outcome.

As for what was voted in by the citizens of California, the framers made it pretty clear that the will of the majority would not get to decide everything. It's why our government was set up the way it was.