Tony Perkins: Prop. 8 Judge Should Have Recused Himself Because Of His Sexuality

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Tony Perkins: Prop. 8 Judge Should Have Recused Himself Because Of His Sexuality



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/08/tony-perkins-prop-8-judge_n_674788.html

Tony Perkins, head of the influential Family Research Council, argued on Sunday that the judge who overturned California's ban on gay marriage should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality.

One of the most powerful social conservatives in the nation, Perkins told CBS's "Face the Nation," that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision was compromised by the fact that he is "openly homosexual. (It's rumored, but not an open fact, that Walker is gay).

"I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments," said Perkins. "This is far from over."

"Had this guy been ... an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case," he added. "So I do think (his homosexuality) has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent."

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Oh good grief.

Grasping at straws.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

2. Homophobic jerk. n/t

[ibegurpard]

3. assuming that it's even true that the judge is gay

this logic would mean that a straight man shouldn't be able to judge it because of his bias the other direction.
What a fucking douchebag.

[qnr]

4. But doesn't that mean that a heterosexual judge would have been just as biased?

Where are the hermaphroditic Judges when you need them?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

10. That's where his logic falls apart...

...and he uses the sour grapes example of

"Had this guy been ... an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case"

...but one thing's for damn sure, and that's the fact that Tony would have kept his mouth shut if that evangelical preacher judge had made the ruling.

[qnr]

11. I doubt that, I'd be more inclined to think that he'd be crowing about it, but to

a different forum.

[truedelphi]

14. there is a good ol' TOUCHE, if ever there was one.

Thanks for the excellent logic.

[JDPriestly]

19. A former evangelical preacher would have decided the same way this

judge did. This is about the total lack of law or scientific evidence to support the arguments against permitting gay marriage. The case was decided on a rational basis test. The only way that it can be overturned is by a Court that simply throws reason and law to the winds and says, there is no reason, there is no law, it's so because we say so.

[Beaverhausen]

5. FRC will probably make a lot of money from it's followers...

...due to this decision- an added plus that the judge is gay.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Fuck you Tony!

N/T

[JI7]

7. looking at that pic, i would like to punch him

[nightrain]

8. maybe Tony should recuse himself from discussing gay marriage since apparently he isn't gay?

[opihimoimoi]

15. My thought too

[activa8tr]

23. That's the best point yet! Because that makes so much sense n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. + a zillion!

[Gman]

9. I guess their logic is that

since Vaughn ruled the way he did he must be gay. Maybe they think it's proof he's gay. Actually its the routine petulant right wing smear campaign.

[Matariki]

12. Say - is that Tony Perkins the well know pederast?

[krispos42]

13. So an openly straight judge should have ruled instead?

Or do gays just have inheirently inferior judgement comparted to straights?


:banghead:

[opihimoimoi]

16. KILL THE MESSENGEER...never mind the message....

[pinboy3niner]

17. Perkins? "Influential"? Only with the community that's NOT reality-based

He can stick it in that "unnatural" orifice of his.

[JDPriestly]

18. Actually, aside from any personal opinions, once it has been established

as it was in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right and then that gender discrimination may only be permitted for a significant reason, then the right to marry cannot be denied based on gender. In my opinion, deciding that only people with different genders can marry is gender discrimination. The lawyers apparently argued the California case and won based on the argument that is no rational basis for denying people of the same sex the fundamental right to marry. The judge applied a tougher standard than I think is necessary and the answer is obvious.

The only way the Supreme Court will overturn this decision is if it simply says, well, same sex marriage is Constitutional because we say so. They could, of course, rule that marriage is not a fundamental right -- but somehow I don't think they will do that.

[LAGC]

20. So let me get this "straight" (pun intended)...

If Walker (who is supposedly "openly homosexual") had ruled in favor of keeping Prop. 8, there would be no problem.

What if a presumably straight judge had ruled against it just the same? Would that make it okay?

[Bluebear]

21. Perkins should stop commenting on the decision because it is based on religion.

[tanyev]

22. So Tony's going to request a eunuch to hear the appeal?

[immune]

24. Selective democracy on display

I wonder what you all would be saying if a smokin' judge threw out all the voter approved smoking bans.

Me, I'm a live and let live kind of DUer, dontchaknow, but the hypocrisy of the double standard smells worse than stale tobacco.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. that's the worst analogy I've heard in years

:rofl:

[immune]

26. And why is it the worst analogy you've heard in years?

One vote was upheld and one was not.

[COLGATE4]

27. Well, Gee, I dunno

Could it possibly be because on case involves a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and the other doesn't?

[immune]

29. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Where does it say that "some" people have rights and others don't?

[Hepburn]

31. Try reading AND COMPREHENDING the 14th Amendment.

Sheesh...:eyes:

Hint: Here's the part upon which to concentrate:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[immune]

33. Equal protection?

Smokers have equal protection? When did that happen? They apparently aren't persons under the 14th amendment.

But lets get real for a minute, this is about benefits, not rights. Couching the issue in other terms is weak, to say the least. And while I would deny NO one their justifiable claims to benefits ...

benefits = control. Its begging for more trouble than you really want. Just wait until you get a taste of having a bevy of bureaucrats lodged firmly between you and your partner.

[Ms. Toad]

44. Loving v. Virginia

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[immune]

45. What you don't seem to get is that I am NOT against the choice

of who one may marry. You can marry your billy goat for all I care.

You (okay, I'm assuming here), on the other hand, seem determined to deny people the right to smoke, even when they're not in your immediate vicinity or in the vicinity of anyone else who might object to it. Back in 1942 there were no laws forbidding smoking, so why would that have been included in the 14th, or any other law. IT IS NOT NOW AND HAS NEVER BEEN AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.

People want your gay bars. Well and good. So what's wrong with smoking bars? Geese and ganders.

[Ms. Toad]

52. No. I am pointing out that the Supreme Court has declared

that the freedom to marry is a fundamental civil right. You asserted it was about benefits, not rights. I am just pointing out that the entity which has the last word on what constitutes a fundamental right in this country has already spoken on that question - on more than one occasion. I cited to the most similar Supreme Court decision, which included two cites to previous decisions saying the same thing. Not all fundamental rights are expressly mentioned in the Constitution - marriage being one example.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has not declared smoking a fundamental right. More like geese and cows, than geese and ganders, if the question is the regulation of fowl.

[LTX]

42. Not the least because,

by this reasoning, non-smoking judges should also be prohibited from ruling in a smoking ban case. Which basically rules out judges in smoking ban cases. Or at least human ones. I suppose we could turn the case over to a panel of parakeets.

[uncommon]

32. A better analogy would be - if the judge had been straight, shouldn't he have recused himself as

well, since obviously he would have the big straight agenda at heart and thus be biased?

It's all smoke screen bullshit.

[immune]

34. Yes, its just another smoke screen to divide us

when we should be leaving each other's personal preferences alone and going after those who really do wish us harm. REAL harm.

[LTX]

40. And of course,

any judge with a 2d amendment case must step down if she/he owns a gun. Or doesn't own a gun.

And any judge with a 1964 Civil Rights Act case must step down if she/he is black. Or white. Or asian. Or hispanic. Or native american. Or female. Or male. Or christian, jewish, sikh, muslim, hindu, shinto, confucian, jainist, tao, wiccan, atheist, or any other religious or non-religious belief.

And non-smokers would necessarily be prohibited from ruling on a smoking-ban case as well. After all, they have their own non-smoking bias.

In short, we just have to get rid of humans as judges.

[lunatica]

28. Hetero judges should recuse themselves too then for possible personal bias

Woman judges should recuse themselves of any litigation about abortion because they have uteruses. Hetero male judges should recuse themselves of the abortion issue too, because some of they don't know fucking diddly shit about women's rights to their bodies.

This argument falls apart very quickly.

[immune]

30. Agreed.

That's why marriage or any other personal relationships/choices should be barred from a judge's rule. Period.

[Mz Pip]

41. And left to the whims of a biased electorate?

Should we just do away with the judicial system and put everything up for a vote? That sounds like what you're saying.

That's how we get bad laws.

[immune]

46. Do away with the judicial system?

Heck no, I'm saying they're too damned overworked to be meddling in the politics of personal relationships. They should stick with the reason they were created .... CRIME.

[lunatica]

47. I disagree. Judges need to make decisions about Constitutionality of laws too

Criminal judges should mete justice based on the breaking of laws, but their judgments should be subject to Constitutional review by other judges all the way up to the Supreme Court of the States and eventually to the Federal Supreme Judges if needed.

[immune]

48. "judgments should be subject to Constitutional review

by other judges all the way up to the Supreme Court of the States and eventually to the Federal Supreme Judges if needed."

Like the recent supreme court ruling giving transnational corporations full constitutional rights as US citizens? Is that what you meant by review? You don't think lower courts ever make equally politically motivated decisions? They are humans, for crying out loud, not gods.

Maybe we should be half as concerned with little people breaking civil laws that have no real constitutional basis, unless that document is stretched to the nth degree, and be twice as concerned with the "big" people who are never held to the same level of constraint by those laws or punished equally when caught red handed breaking the laws they, themselves, wrote and implemented on behalf of their wealthy, powerful "clients".

You may be the windshield today, but you should probably expect to be the bug on a different day / different issue, probably in ways you can't even yet imagine. I'm sorry, its just the nature of the beast.

[lunatica]

49. I guess if you can't get absolute perfection it should all be thrown out

That very ruling that corporations are people will be subject to review as long as it exists and eventually it will be overthrown.

If you expect perfection you will always be disappointed.

[LTX]

36. I guess this means

that in the future, to avoid the appearance of bias, family court judges must be gay if they are making any ruling regarding a heterosexual marriage.

[crikkett]

37. Dumbest thing I heard today. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

38. by that "logic" only women could sit in judgement of men

Wonder how old Tony would feel about that.

[pipi_k]

39. Yeah, Tony, and how about this...

Male judges should recuse themselves from cases involving men.

Women judges should recuse themselves from cases involving women.


Disabled judges shouldn't judge cases involving the disabled.


and on and on and on with the stupidity.

:eyes:

[dembotoz]

43. wasn't the judge a ronnie r appointment--lets impeach all ronnie r appointments

[hobbit709]

Hey Tony, wasn't your buddy on the FRC the guy that had a rentboy?

[sendero]

50. Here's how it works..

... if his legal reasoning is faulty, it will be overturned. Most of the accounts I have read say that his legal reasoning is freaking AIRTIGHT.

So, whether he is gay or bi or trans or asexual, it's all about the LEGAL BASIS for his ruling. So let's talk about that.

[Orsino]

51. Tony Perkins should shut the hell up because of his corruption. n/t