Tweet
Must be nice to have an almost unlimited number of bigoted rubes willing to open their wallets whenever h8 comes calling. Case in point: Charles Cooper, losing lead attorney guiding the ProtectMarriage consiglieres to defeat at every single stage of the Prop 8 trial, announced Oh, Hell Yes, They Will Appeal Chief Judge James Ware’s eloquent, swift beatdown of their horrific motion to order Judge Vaughn Walker to recuse himself because, you know what — he’s Ghey! And he has a long-time partner! And he probably, therefore, wants to marry!
“The ProtectMarriage.com legal team obviously disagrees with” the ruling, Charles Cooper, lead counsel for the measure’s sponsors, said in an e-mailed statement. “Our legal team will appeal this decision and continue our tireless efforts to defend the will of the people of California to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”
Andy Towle’s legal correspondent, Ari Ezra Waldman, sums it up well:
Appeal such a wholehearted beat down? Does he think he will get any more sympathy from a panel of Ninth Circuit judges who have known Judge Walker for years and have, in any event, already invested their court’s own time and effort into this case?
Bonus! National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Kate Kendell perfectly describes what was at risk in the proponents’ request that Judge Walker’s ruling be vacated based on his orientation and relationship status, here:
video h/t Courage Campaign’s p8tt
27 Comments
I love Kate Kendell.
She told me in the elevator she was a big fan of the FDL liveblogging during the trial; said she couldn’t get enough of us!
That’s great, thanks Teddy:)
Kate Kendell rules!
TEDDY!!!
Hey lets face it the p8 crazies are just that fucking crazy and that “Marriage” between any thing except man on woman is against the Constitution and will destroy “Their Marriage”. They are all just BIGOTS! As has been said if “God” didn’t want gays/lesbians/transgendered he wouldn’t be letting so many be born…
I’m still frankly astonished that Prop H8 passed in the first place. Enormous amounts of money aside, that represents an appalling bigotry and/or apathy from the electorate.
Gotta love Kate Kendell.
I just adore Bloomberg’s headline: Gay Judge’s Decision on California Marriage Law Ruled Valid… Ass wipes…! 8-(
Oh yes she does.
Wicked fierce humor.
MSNBC’s is even better, (or worse), it reads: “Gay judge’s same-sex marriage ruling upheld” *sigh*
Obama’s bullshit did a lot of damage in that regard.
Can we make this whole recusal/challenge moot? I will go marry the Judge myself so we can move on. He looks great, and Im pretty cute ;) Let anyone who objects…etc. Over-ruled….
Thing is, it barely squeaked by — which was a big change from the first time it passed, as the Knight Initiative, in 2000, when it passed by a 24-point margin. The Knight Initiative was overturned in the courts, which set the Mormon and the Catholic bishops to plotting their next move, which turned out to be Prop H8.
OT– French human rights (or lack of it) news …
“France rejects same-sex marriage bill” (Boston.Com, June 15, 2011)
Transgender Woman To Campaign For French PresidencyFrench transgender woman hopes to run for president” (PinkNews.Co.Uk, June 15, 2011)
Oops! Pardon the munged article title, folks.
I just have to say that lately I find way too many progressives using the word “horrific” to describe things that are far from such. Case in point here? Your opening paragraph containing the words “horrific motion”. I think we can all agree that the motion was stupid, petty, mean and small-minded. But it was not horrific.
I know….!
I think you’d find the Judge’s Dr-pal standing up in the church to object when the minister comes to that part about “If anyone knows any reason….”
In my view, it was.
The very idea that a judge could not preside over a trial because of his sexuality and his relationship status was odious and heinous. You may not like my word choice, and you’re free to choose your own words when you write about this motion. But the idea of vacating this judge’s decision after his hard work providing these vacate-petitioners such a fair trial was, truly, horrible. I was in the courtroom every day, and I’m entitled to this opinion.
The very idea of this motion was an insult to American jurisprudence and to the career of a distinguished jurist and public servant.
Not only is it an insult, the whole premise of the appeal is mind boggling. Try as I might, I cannot get my mind around the dichotomy that a judge cannot preside over a trial about gay marriage because he is gay and “might” want to marry his same sex partner, but a heterosexual judge CAN preside because he is married to his opposite sex partner. I mean, that must be the progression of the logic (if you can call it that, with any stretch of the imagination). What the hell are these bigots thinking?
And, if you follow their logic, since in their world same-sex marriage is a terrible threat to “traditional marriage” how could a heterosexual judge possibly rule impartially, seeing her or his marriage, or potential marriage, in mortal danger from marriage equality?
It’s a conundrum indeed.
Crane-Station here, good article Teddy. To me it is like saying: ‘You are divorced. So you cannot preside here in family court…
Absurd, the whole thing. And to try to rekindle the issue? I will tell you what I would do on round two if I were a judge. I would write a scathing opinion and tear them a new asshole. Something that leaves the paper smoldering and smoking. Because this is outrageous.
“Traditional marriage” must not mean to the H8 folks what it means to you or I, Teddy. It makes me wonder how the H8 folks treat their own supposed committed relationships when they appear to be focusing such financial, mental and emotional energy on depriving others of theirs.
Great rulings all around. Let the bigots spin round and round ’til they turn to butter.
Kate Kendell’s camera presence and delivery are fantastic.
Oh, and the message is brilliant!
Yes, exactly. Plus the UTAH Mormons, in particular, ran a very disingenuous (to be polite) *stealth* campaign – million$$ spent on it, too – from UTAH to pass this outrageous law in California.
Many/most CA citizens had no idea until it was too late. A lot of anti-propH8te money was raised at the last minute in order to get the word out, and we came very very close to being successful.
There may have been some voter apathy, but I truly believe that the *majority* of CA citizens are against Prop H8te. It’s just how it was handled by a cabal of the Catholic Bishops (a more *hypocritical* group of sexually devient THUGS I cannot imagine) and the Mormon Hypocrital MALE-dominated cult. I have to acknowledge that they handled their “chess move” well enough, but it’s a scam on CA voters.
Problem with CA initiatives is that they are very expensive to mount, and it takes a LOT of money to get them to pass. Then it’s hard to overrule them.
These H8teful beings really wish to cling to their version of “reality.” I am somewhat stymied by their viscious tenacity. It IS about bigotry, and how! But it seems as if there’s more to it than that…. partly FEAR bc their way of life (which is built on sand, not a firm foundation) must feel very threatened to THEM.
Best of luck in fighting off these deviants… bc THEY are the ones who are deviant, deceptive, cruel and controlling.
For the Preserve Marriage forces to appeal this slam by Judge Ware, does the court of appeals have to grant them leave to appeal and if so what is the likelihood of something that has been so thoroughly slammed by this Court to gain such leave?
When will they realize that they lost this when Judge Walker handed down a 138 page decision with solid conclusions of law. This is just another daft ploy on their part to try and keep themselves in the public eye.
Joanna, watching from BC Canada
Yet its only in a unique situation like this that you hear the orientation of the judge mentioned. You never hear Black Judge’s ruling in major civil rights case upheld.
Joanna, watching from BC Canada
Homosexuality is dangerous. It entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat, but the danger cannot be removed.
The unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself. There’s a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else. Homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.
All laws force someone’s moral view on another. This isn’t about forcing Judeo-Christian views on someone else. It’s about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We’re being faulted for even making a moral distinction.
Gay rights is not about equal rights. It’s about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.
I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have the same right, yet they want more than these same legal freedoms. They want a special right and society has no obligation to grant it.
As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn’t have any special standing by law.
I didn’t say I disagreed with your message, but overindulgence in hyperbole certainly dims its effect.