That doesn’t make any sense.  This is about the Defense of Marriage.  Since Prop 8 was about protecting straight married people, it seems like only a gay judge would be allowed to rule on the issue.  A heterosexual justice’s reflexive desire to preserve his straight monogamous relationship with his wife would have tainted the ruling.  But a gay justice - particularly an unmarried gay justice - wouldn’t feel threatened by the dissolution of Prop 8, because he wouldn’t be at risk of suddenly having his sexuality fall into ambiguity.

I think the gay marriage opponents might be getting all confused and befuddled.  Maybe gay vapors are inhibiting their cognitive abilities.

It was great but sad a few weeks ago when I did my (California) state taxes and encountered language explaining that only the same-sex marriages performed before the imposition of Prop H8 are valid for tax status purposes (but are indeed considered valid marriages for this purpose).

Nice to see official acknowledgement of one more aspect of human diversity, but upsetting when you realize there are thousands/millions more people whose desires are being thwarted by a bunch of other-people’s-sex-and-personal-lives-obsessed cretins…

There are also similarities here to the claim, repeatedly voiced by right-wingers in the debate over Sotomayor, that empathy is a bad quality for a judge.

The view seemed to be that having a rich sense of what discrimination is like from the inside—from the perspective of the victim—would stand in the way of objective application of Constitutional legal doctrines.  Since the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to provide for liberty, respect, equality of opportunity, etc., this makes no logical sense at all.  What an “empathetic” judge knows that a non-empathetic judge doesn’t is of obvious relevance to the issues faced by the Court.

The real motivation for this stupid idea has to be the conviction that the effects of discrimination on those discriminated against don’t really matter.  That’s what’s going on here too.

In California, domestic partnerships are valid for tax purposes.  But neither marriages nor partnerships are allowed for federal taxes.

Either way, we spend about $9k more in federal taxes than a het couple.

Wait, wait, wait - their appeal starts off with:

“Given that Chief Judge Walker was in a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced),...”

But I thought gays didn’t HAVE committed, long-term relationships, Mr Oh So Concerned?

So, according to this “logic,” any cases involving men must then be judged by women, and cases involving white folks require a judge who is a person of color, and we’re definitely going to need way more gay judges to handle all those cases involving straight people’s relationships!

I think there’s this odd assumption going on that if an issue affects you, then you can’t be objective. But of course white men are always assumed to be objective about pretty much anything, but I think that may be part of white men not being recognized as a “special interest group” proper.

It’s like if you have privilege, then you disappear as a distinct group and become “normal” instead.

Don’t forget the healthy serving of right-wing projection. These Prop H8 sponsors believe that this judge ignored the law due to his own personal life or political ideology because they believe that, were they in his place, they’d do the same without hesitation.

What these wingnut dopes never seem to understand is that there’s no better way to get on the judiciary’s bad side than to fling around this kind of accusation willy-nilly. Judges guard their reputations for impartiality jealously, and if you’re going to make an accusation of bias you have to back it up big-time. That’s just as true for right-wing judges as it is for left-wing ones, and if Judge Walker has a good reputation then his fellow judges will close ranks around him.

I’m frankly amazed that trained members of the bar even filed this motion. They’ve basically screwed themselves.

Oldie but baddie.  In 1975 a Wall Street law firm tried to disqualify Judge Constance Baker Motley, a black woman, from a case.  The law firm said that she could not be impartial because the lawsuit alleged race and sex discrimination.  Judge Motley refused.  She pointed out that every judge has some racial or gender identity.  If being black and female prejudices you against one side, then being white and male prejudices you against the opposite side.  Same for the Prop 8 case.  There is no View From Nowhere.

Um, that would be racial and gender identity, the condition that every judge brings to court.

by their “logic”, only a eunuch should be allowed to sit on the bench for this case, since an avowed hetero or homosexual would have a clear conflict of interest. somehow, i doubt many eunuch judges are available.

I think the answer is that only a polyamorous bisexual judge with at least two partners of each sex would be in a position to rule impartially on Prop 8. Anyone else, straight or gay, would have an impermissible personal interest, either present or future, in the outcome of the case.

Along these same lines, of course, Barack Obama, as a biracial person, was the only legitimate candidate for the presidency.

Now that I think about it, maybe they did this on purpose as a face-saving measure. I doubt the Prop H8ers with any practical sense truly wanted this case to get to the SCOTUS and into the realm of Federal law. They’ve had a heck of time over-turning Roe v. Wade, and this case doesn’t have the baby-murderin’ aspect so beloved of the Xtian fantasists.

As far as the attorneys go, I suppose in exchange for a substantial re-negotiation of billing rates, a law firm might be willing to let a partner or two go kamikaze to satisfy a stupid and/or desperate client’s ego. The LDS and the RCC have deep pockets.

I think the answer is that only a polyamorous bisexual judge with at least two partners of each sex would be in a position to rule impartially on Prop 8.

Yeah, but wouldn’t they be too busy to actually keep a job?

wouldn’t they be too busy to actually keep a job?

You also need tigers’ blood to be that active.

Thanks for the laughs.  I love this thread.  Hehe, “tigers’ blood…”

a common right wing trope about elections, which is to complain that if Group X (never straight white men) was excluded from election results, they would have gone a different way.

Here are some examples of this trope:

“Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign.  And Obama ran a good campaign here.”

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press. It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.  There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position….He happens to be very lucky to be who he is”

“the party could not win in November with just “eggheads and African-Americans,”

I think the answer is that only a polyamorous bisexual judge with at least two partners of each sex would be in a position to rule impartially on Prop 8.

Yeah, but wouldn’t they be too busy to actually keep a job?

Perhaps they could be asexual and aromantic? They’d have a lot of time on their hands, right? Or just on a bunch of antidepressants, in which case they’d be libedo-free and cheerful? (This is also my plan to solve teen pregnancy, actually. Did wonders for me… :D)

Or they could all just be un-lay-able Nice Guys, who we know spend a lot of time with their—er, that is, have a lot of time on their hands.

(Ps. anyone else having trouble with strikethroughs? Just me?)

Right: only an asexual loner judge could rule fairly—unless he was envious of people who could form relationships and lust after others, and decided to invalidate all marriages altogether.

Clearly the only way to get unbiased decisions on human rights issues is to consult animal judges.

But not “soft” animal judges—no ponies, no deer, no birds (except eagles, because AMERICA), no kittens. Just hard-ass manly animals: bears, wolves, panthers, and sharks. No cobras or other snakes—they’re badass, but they killed our LORD in the Garden of Eden.

This reminds me of all the shit conservatives sling about how many black people voted for Obama, and how that somehow is not a legitimate choice, or even racist!  Trump brought it up again recently.

I believe the reason we are given the message that “non-white people, women, and gay people just count for less” is to intimidate those groups into not voting.  If you count for less, you are less likely to make your voice heard.  if you are believed to be just as valuable as white males, you are as likely as white males to voice your opinion and cast your vote.

I wonder if Trump is a stalking horse for Jesse Ventura. (This was an actual conversation at my house last night.)

Man I am so glad to be a member of the Default Group.  Otherwise, I might have biases.

Or just on a bunch of antidepressants, in which case they’d be libedo-free and cheerful?

I guess next time I’m feeling depressed and horny it just means it’s time to take my meds? 

This reminds me of all the shit conservatives sling about how many black people voted for Obama, and how that somehow is not a legitimate choice, or even racist!

How many whites voted for McCain? Oh right, they were just voting for the Best Candidate and weren’t considering race issues at all.  These people give me reason to petition for citizenship—I want to vote for Obama next election just to piss them off.

You can’t trust those asexuals. They might just not have met the right man or woman. Maybe Deep Blue.

Didn’t some Right Wing pundit dismiss a poll showing huge support for unions on the grounds that union members were among the pollees?  So yeah, conservatives are flinging this craptacular argument all over the place.

Does this mean we can stop the Utah Boycott?

The underlying assumption is that non-white people, women, and gay people just count for less.  Our citizenship is viewed as a novelty, and not real like that of straight people/non-white people/men, depending on the circumstances.  I’m genuinely surprised I haven’t seen anyone suggest that women should be excluded from legislating about reproductive rights on these grounds as well.

Well, when women are represented anything like their actual numbers in society, expect this argument to come into play in a big big way.

We’ve already seen pundits bitching that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they “vote wrong” and aren’t logical enough to think about issues in “real” ways, so once there are enough female senators and representatives that “I think we all agree that bitches are shit” doesn’t work anymore as “moderate compromises” and things like choice and women’s rights can be protected on a real scale at the political level, there will naturally be a giant backlash claiming it doesn’t count because the wrong people voted or were representatives.

Hell, we’re getting a taste of that with the Nancy Pelosi hate, which is far above that reserved for most democratic leaders. Because she’s a woman who has gotten further than women usually get, there is a belief that her leadership is fundamentally tainted in the same way as Obama’s is and thus there must be a way to make it so she doesn’t count. See also wingnut responses to Hillary Clinton being an influential stateswoman. None of it counts because not right plumbing, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, so on…

Basically, they support authoritarianism and are getting more and more blatant in calling for it as relative white straight male christian power decreases.

I’m looking forward to the Prop 8 people pushing for black and latino judges in criminal court and more female judges for domestic violence cases.

So does this mean that rich legislators can’t vote to increase tax breaks on the wealthy? Wealth is, after all, a statistically abnormal state.

No, no, Maureen, being rich is like being a white, cis, straight, Republican, Christian, American male who likes to bone dudes (be they underage pages, bag carriers, strangers in an airport, etc.) on the side., i.e. normal.

” Perhaps they could be asexual and aromantic?”

I swear that said “aromatic” and I thought, well, yeah, a judge like that isn’t particularly likely to get married. Robes get hot, I guess.