Prop. 8 backers press claims on gay trial judge

[n2doc]

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press

Tuesday, October 4, 2011


The sponsors of California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban have asked a federal court to invalidate the ruling of the federal judge who struck it down, saying the judge should be disqualified because he did not divulge he was in a long-term relationship with another man.

Lawyers for the Proposition 8's backers filed their open brief on the issue late Monday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. They claim that another federal judge erred when he concluded U.S. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's relationship status was irrelevant to Walker's ability to fairly preside over the trial on the measure's constitutionality.

In their brief, they argue that Walker's impartiality can be questioned because he is "similarly situated" to the plaintiffs who sued to overturn Proposition 8, two same-sex couples in established relationships. They also said that while Walker has not indicated if he and his partner wish to marry, research presented as evidence in the trial found that two-thirds of unmarried same-sex couples would tie the knot if they could.

"Given that Judge Walker was in a long-term, same-sex relationship throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced), he was, in Plaintiffs' own words, `similarly situated to (Plaintiffs) for purposes of marriage,'" the lawyers wrote. "And it is entirely possible — indeed, it is quite likely, according to Plaintiffs themselves — that Judge Walker had an interest in marrying his partner and therefore stood in precisely the same shoes as the Plaintiffs before him."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/04/state/n160345D30.DTL

[xchrom]

1. Get the right bigoted judge & they could win that argument.

These dim fucks are terrifying.

[yardwork]

2. And a heterosexual judge would have been "similarly situated" to the defendants. So?

Gay judges are biased but straight judges are impartial?

[Evasporque]

3. idiot straw clutchers....nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. "... research presented as evidence in the trial ...

found that two-thirds of unmarried same-sex couples would tie the knot if they could."

Hey, wait a minute. Just the other day, I read this:

One in five same-sex couples say they are married, census figures show

Same-sex couples more willing to reveal relationships in census, figures show
By Carol Morello, Published: September 27

One in five of the nation’s 646,000 same-sex couples consider themselves married, according to census figures released Tuesday showing a sharp rise in the number of gay people willing to identify themselves as couples.
....

Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said the census figures show that the number of gay couples seeking to get married is small. He pointed to a census analysis that 42 percent of same-sex couples living in states where gay marriage is legal actually wed. In comparison, there are 54 million heterosexual married couples and 8 million couples who live together but are not wed.

"Even where it’s legalized, most same-sex couples living together do not choose to marry,” Sprigg said. “To my mind, this calls into question whether most homosexuals even want to participate in the institution of marriage.”

You can see the problem. It cannot simultaneously be true that "research presented as evidence in the trial found that two-thirds of unmarried same-sex couples would tie the knot if they could," and that "Even where it’s legalized, most same-sex couples living together do not choose to marry.” It's either one, or it's the other.

So which statement was a lie? Was the statement to the court a lie, or was the statement to the Washington Post reporter a lie?