Proposition 8 is an amendment to California's State Constitution. It was passed by a comfortable margin via ballot initiative in 2008.Well, it passed by less than 5%, but if Bam Bam, Maggie Gallagher, and the other Hall Monitors of Marriage were so comfortable with the margin, you'd think they'd be a little less hysterical and prone to fibs. But I suppose it's possible that they are supremely confident that their bigotry enjoys majority support, and all the lying is purely recreational.
Prop 8 maintained the age-old definition of marriage in the Golden State as requiring binary male-female compatibility."God sees men and women as a series of ones and zeroes..." And by the way, I could have gone the rest of my life without discovering that Matt is binary-curious.
It remains tied-up in Federal Court today.Studies show that courts which allow Japanese rope bondage during closing arguments see a 37% increase in jurors responding to summons.
Back in February of 2010 it became rumored that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker — who presided over the case at the District level — was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle."[I]t became rumored" -- wow, that's some aggressive passivity. It also became imagined that Judge Walker practiced homosexuality 90 minutes a day -- usually with a personal trainer, although occasionally he would practice the lifestyle freestyle -- five to six days a week, which explains why fellow practitioners call him the "Tiger Woods of the Homosex Senior Tour."
It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few people to publicly call for his recusal. It's inexplicable that attorneys defending Prop 8 didn't make such a motion.Well, if it makes you feel any better, Matt, I'm making a motion at you right now. Can you guess which one?
With Judge Walker's recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.Exactly! How could a gay man be truly impartial on the question of whether homosexuals deserve civil rights? The only way the anti-marriage equality forces could receive of a fair and unbiased hearing is if there was a bigot on the bench. We should also take this opportunity to revisit Brown v. Board of Education, and consider whether Earl Warren might actually have been a octaroon who was passing.
Federal law is clear. The code of judicial conduct requires that a judge step down from a case if "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or when he "has a financial ... or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding."Actually, Bam Bam, you've got a financial interest in the outcome of this case as well, seeing as how you've built your career out of being the biggest homophobe in the steam room. But I see your point. The problem is, we can't allow any human beings to sit in judgment of human rights -- the conflict of interest is simply too severe -- so we're going to have to turn this case over to another intelligent species. Maybe we can get that orangutan from Every Which Way But Lose; it became innuendoed that after his movie career fizzled he went back to school and got a degree from Liberty University School of Law.
By manufacturing from thin air a Constitutional "right" to same-sex "marriage" — something the Framers of the US Constitution could not have conceptualized, much less endorsed —Many of them owned slaves, Matt, and a whole lot of them endorsed the peculiar institution, so it seems obvious their their ability conceptualize "rights," was rather limited. Hell, most of what we live with nowadays they couldn't imagine, which is why they only supplied the Frame, and it's up to the rest of us to fill in the canvas.
Judge Walker abused his position on the bench to create for himself a new privilege that he previously did not possess. It's undeniable that he had an "interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding."So if Thurgood Marshall had been sitting on the Supreme Court, rather than arguing before it in 1954, should he have recused himself from Brown? After all, it created "a new privilege that he previously did not posses," i.e., the ability to buy a tuna fish sandwich south of the Mason Dixon Line.
Stemming from his own bizarre and contrived legal findings in the case, Judge Walker's ruling made it possible for both he and his male sexual partner to "marry."Well, Pat Robertson's* Regent University made it possible for Bam Bam to "graduate" from a "school," and get a "diploma," so it's not like he's opposed to fraudulent institutions per se. Besides, allowing gays to marry will finally eliminate that awkward dilemma one encounters when meeting a retired jurist: how to address his longtime companion? (Boyfriend? Gentleman Caller? No, wait, wait -- I've got it! "How do you do, Judge? I'm so pleased to meet you and your sex partner.") Of course, this formulation might be considered a trifle presumptuous, if only because the couple in question comprises two older men, and there's no way to tell if both their prostates are working.
Anyway, there's no indication that Judge Walker, who has been in a relationship with a male doctor for the last ten years, wants or intends to wed, but I understand that Matt is married, so the next time he makes it to L.A., I hope he'll drop by and introduce me to his lovely Not Tonight Bam Bam I've Got a Headache Partner.
Prior to his ruling he could not. Subsequent to his ruling — and if the ruling is upheld — he could. This is not opinion. It's an objective matter of fact. Judge Walker unilaterally and arbitrarily gave himself a newfangled "right."Perhaps, before they were allowed to rule on Loving v. Virginia, we should have examined the justices for symptoms of Jungle Fever. Or postponed the Griswold decision until we'd checked their wallets for condoms.
No reasonable person can deny that Judge Walker held a "personal bias" as his decision directly affected him on a very personal level.It also affected me on a personal level, since I don't like living in a state that treats LGBT people as second class citizens. So who would have made a better judge, Matt -- you? Who seems more reasonable, a man who won't talk about his own sexuality, or a man who can't stop talking about someone else's?
A few proponents of so-called "gay marriage" have slapped me in the face with the following red herring: "Why, using your logic a heterosexual judge would also have to recuse himself. No judge could ever preside over a case involving same-sex 'marriage.'"So again, would you have barred African-American judges from hearing segregation cases, or female judges from ruling on abortion rights? Are you going to ask Justice Sotomayor to leave the room if someone argues an immigration case?
This is apples-to-oranges nonsense. On a case concerning the novel question of radically redefining marriage to include same-sex pairs, a heterosexual judge, by definition, would not possess a personal "interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding." A heterosexual judge is precisely what Federal law requires under such circumstances.
But there's a practical issue, too. Walker "never [took] pains to disguise—or advertise—his [sexual] orientation," but what happens with a more reticent magistrate? Perhaps, before assigning a case involving gay rights, the Court could force all prospects to wrestle the bailiff nude. First judge to get a half-chub on would be disqualified.
*fixed, per Gale.