Guess what Cal. Fed. Judge Vaughn R. Walker is and it isn't straight?
Page 1 of 47 1234567811 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 600
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,439

    Guess what Cal. Fed. Judge Vaughn R. Walker is and it isn't straight?

    Yep his is an open gay serving as a Federal District Judge. "Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay." Wouldn't just know it that of all the judges to hear the case of California's law banning gay marriages it would have to be an open gay judge.

    Of course he left his personal perverted views out of decision. What a joke. Wonder how come the media kept so silent about it? Could it be that they didn't know and surly aren't biased and would tell us all the "facts".

    Yeah sure. What a scam now the voters of California are not allowed to ban gay marriages because a "gay" judge has ruled it unconstitutional. Thank you, thank you very much.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Yep his is an open gay serving as a Federal District Judge. "Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay." Wouldn't just know it that of all the judges to hear the case of California's law banning gay marriages it would have to be an open gay judge.

    Of course he left his personal perverted views out of decision. What a joke. Wonder how come the media kept so silent about it? Could it be that they didn't know and surly aren't biased and would tell us all the "facts".

    Yeah sure. What a scam now the voters of California are not allowed to ban gay marriages because a "gay" judge has ruled it unconstitutional. Thank you, thank you very much.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
    Where in the constitution does it say gays can not get married?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,439
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    Where in the constitution does it say gays can not get married?
    You have to be kidding. Where in the constitution does it say gays have a right to get married by a state. Marriage is left to the states to handle and administer. The tenth admendment handles this. The constitution does not mention marriage. Thank you very much.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    You have to be kidding. Where in the constitution does it say gays have a right to get married by a state. Marriage is left to the states to handle and administer. The tenth admendment handles this. The constitution does not mention marriage. Thank you very much.
    So if a state votes and passes a law that a black man has to enter a place of business by the back door then the states have the right to do it?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,488
    The constitution says nothing about marriage. It's a state's right, the feds need to keep their nose out of it.

    As to states passing laws governing race in marriage, that would likely be in-conflict with federal civil rights laws. But sexual orientation has no such protection.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,439
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    So if a state votes and passes a law that a black man has to enter a place of business by the back door then the states have the right to do it?
    Ken answered your question above. Let me ask however do you think the states exist in our Constitution just to issue driver's licenses and administer whatever laws Congress passes or directives issued by the President and the federal bureaucracy.

    Have you ever even read it? Or do you just feel that is how it should be because in your mind they should have the right. Well that is exactly how most liberals view the Constitution so you are not the only one. Just wonder where liberals got there education? . Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    this was no accident

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    I understand the reasoning for the separation of powers and why there states have jurisdiction in some areas while the federal government has in others.

    It is the same here, we have provincial powers and federal powers.

    In this ruling it was not the federal government butting into the state's turf but people of that state asking why they were being denied the right to marry the person of their choice.

    The state recognizes the right for heterosexual's to choose whoever they want to marry and yet it denies the same right to couples of the same sex.

    In the court case the state and the proponents of the law to ban same sex marriages were given the opportunity to give their case why gay people should not be allowed to marry while the proponents for gay marriage were given the same opportunity to show why they should be allowed to marry.

    The heart of the same sex marriage ban was if same sex couples were allowed to marry that this would have a negative effect on straight marriages and in effect stable households to raise children.

    Well it seems the gay marriage deniers did not bring forth compelling evidence that allowing gay couples to marry would harm straight couple's marriages. And in that end they did not show how it would be in the government's interest to discriminate against individuals to be able to chose to marry whomever they please.


    Or at least that is how I read the ruling.

    Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted
    amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983....

    http://lat.ms/dB2yOs

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfstrike View Post
    this was no accident
    Sometimes you really make me laugh.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,439
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfstrike View Post
    this was no accident
    You got that right letting a gay judge decide this case. There is only one other federal judge out of a total of 1,774 judges. So there is one open gay judge for every 887 judges. Now that is no accident that he was given the case to decide. Thank you very much

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_f...here_in_the_US
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,439
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    ....................Well it seems the gay marriage deniers did not bring forth compelling evidence that allowing gay couples to marry would harm straight couple's marriages. And in that end they did not show how it would be in the government's interest to discriminate against individuals to be able to chose to marry whomever they please.

    Or at least that is how I read the ruling.
    http://lat.ms/dB2yOs
    Well obviously they didn't convince the gay judge that he and his gay lover should not be allowed to marry. With the cards stacked like that I wonder why the state even wasted there time just let the gay judge rule for his gay "buddies" and then appeal the gay decision. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Andalucia
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by k_fridge View Post
    The constitution says nothing about marriage. It's a state's right, the feds need to keep their nose out of it.

    As to states passing laws governing race in marriage, that would likely be in-conflict with federal civil rights laws. But sexual orientation has no such protection.
    There was a time when states thought they could control marriage between the races. And if not now soon, people will say there was a time when states thought they could control marriage between same sex partners.

    Bottom line the states do not have the right to deny rights.
    "War is cruelty,and you cannot refine it." Sherman to the leadership of Atlanta prior to burning the city.

    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    Albert Einstein

    Romney campaign: "We're not going to let our campaign be ruled by fact-checkers,"

    Lindsey Graham: “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Yep his is an open gay serving as a Federal District Judge. "Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay." Wouldn't just know it that of all the judges to hear the case of California's law banning gay marriages it would have to be an open gay judge.

    Of course he left his personal perverted views out of decision. What a joke. Wonder how come the media kept so silent about it? Could it be that they didn't know and surly aren't biased and would tell us all the "facts".

    Yeah sure. What a scam now the voters of California are not allowed to ban gay marriages because a "gay" judge has ruled it unconstitutional. Thank you, thank you very much.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
    Great Caesar's Ghost.............Judge Homo Walker was nominated to the bench by none other than Cowboy Ronnie.


    I feel bad for you brother but sometimes we find out our hero's feet are of clay.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

Page 1 of 47 1234567811 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event