# Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500 "2011-06-14T22:31:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/81 "2011-06-16T04:56:56Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > Wow. How low can you go? Ignoring the predictable and pathetic attempt to introduce pedophiles into this discussion, let’s try this: redheads are less than 2% of the US population. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to be judges, what if one of the lawyers or interested parties is a redhead, clearly they will be biased toward them. Using your logic, since I want to marry 10 people, I should be able to, right? What does being a redhead have to do with matters concerning sexual relationships? NADA! With respect to polygamous marriage and pedophilia, a complaint of fundamentalists who practice polygamy are pedophiles, and again, we’re talking about sexual practices here. Calm the F down. People don’t think that pedophiles should be able to reproduce or marry others with kids. Some also think that gays can’t raise kids. Try to keep your responses a little on-topic and not so…irrational and emotional. This is not about whether or not Walker should _be_ a judge. It is about _conflict of interest._ Seriously? You don’t get that? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/82 "2011-06-16T05:00:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You haven’t shown any argument all for a conflict of interest. Simply belonging to a demographic, in itself, is not a conflict of interest, and has never een held to be one. It’s a stupid argument. Me having a uterus does not constitute as having a conflict of interest re: abortion. But me having a uterus and wanting to have an abortion may register as a conflict of interest. Abortions are a private medical matter, however. What if a known polygamist was ruling on polygamous marriage? I’m not arguing that there was a conflict of interest. I was asking about precedent - and, as a side, how could it not be? If you get all freaked out because someone is asking questions, it says you have a weak argument. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/83 "2011-06-16T05:01:20Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Don’t be sketchy. I said “Dr. King has nothing to do with gay men.” In case you have poor memory, the context was _Jim Crow_ and _same-sex marriage_. What you said was literally incorrect, which was why I mentioned Rustin. It was also metaphorically incorrect, which is why I pointed out that there are some obvious comparisons between the civil rights movement. You were objecting to that comparison. > [@](#): > > Yeah, that’s your view, but it isn’t everyone’s view. I didn’t say it was everyone’s view. > [@](#): > > There are people who were/are active in the civil rights movement that do not appreciate getting lumped in to another cause. I know, and I don’t care. They can go jump in a lake as far as I’m concerned. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that all gay people are part of the civil rights movement? That gays can’t be racist? That would be completely moronic and there is nothing even remotely similar to this idea in my post. So no, that’s not what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > Remember the discussion on Romney and being Mormon? Romney has nothing to _gain_ from letting his religion dictate his policies, but it doesn’t mean there’s no interest or influence. And if Romney were a judge, he would not have to recuse himself from all cases involving Mormonism. (Actually, Romney does have a role in the Mormon Church, but I’m not sure how big of a deal it is.) _Influence_ isn’t relevant and doesn’t create a conflict of interest. If the ruling is solid based on the law and the case, the influence doesn’t matter. If the ruling doesn’t apply or is bad law, then it’s bad law. It should be judged on those merits, not the identification of the judge. That’s been cited in depth by now. If the judge stands something to gain personally and not by implication, then that’s a real issue. > [@](#): > > Federal protection regarding hate crimes - but there’s no repeal of DOMA. So Walker is part of a protected class. And the Obama administration has stopped defending DOMA in court, which makes it likely the law’s days are numbered. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/84 "2011-06-16T05:02:20Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Bans on polygamous marriage prohibit members of certain religions to practice freely. It is a societal norm. The government has no obligation to offer formal recognition to religious practices. These people are still free to practice religious polygamy, but they aren’t entitled to government benefits for it. > [@](#): > > The ‘it’ referred to your statement, _It was found to have violated Equal Protection and Due Process under the 14th Amendment_. If you are talking about the ruling on Prop 8, that doesn’t matter. We are talking about legal precedent that came _before_ Walker’s ruling, and now you are confusing the two: neutrality/recusing one’s self and whether or not gays should be able to marry. You’re spectacularly wrong on both rulings, so it doesn’t really matter. Neither was based on “philosphy.” The 2nd decison was upheld because it could not be shown that Walker had a conflict of interest. Pure and simple. > [@](#): > > Gays can get married. No one bans gays from getting married. You’re not actually going to trot this garbage out, are you? Miscegenation laws didn’t stop black people and white people from getting married either. This angle is as sophist as it gets. If the thought of same-sex marriage bothers you so much, maybe you’d be more comfortable someplace like Saudi Arabia. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/85 "2011-06-16T05:05:12Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Me having a uterus does not constitute as having a conflict of interest re: abortion. But me having a uterus and wanting to have an abortion may register as a conflict of interest. > > Abortions are a private medical matter, however. What if a known polygamist was ruling on polygamous marriage? > > I’m not arguing that there was a conflict of interest. I was asking about precedent - and, as a side, how could it not be? If you get all freaked out because someone is asking questions, it says you have a weak argument. If you want to assert a conflict of interest, you have to show something to demonstrate it beyond simply pointing out a physiological characteristic. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/86 "2011-06-16T05:08:51Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Using your logic, since I want to marry 10 people, I should be able to, right? > > What does being a redhead have to do with matters concerning sexual relationships? NADA! > > With respect to polygamous marriage and pedophilia, a complaint of fundamentalists who practice polygamy are pedophiles, and again, we’re talking about sexual practices here. Calm the F down. People don’t think that pedophiles should be able to reproduce or marry others with kids. Some also think that gays can’t raise kids. > > Try to keep your responses a little on-topic and not so…irrational and emotional. > > This is not about whether or not Walker should _be_ a judge. It is about _conflict of interest._ Seriously? You don’t get that? LOL, you are blathering on about pedophiles and rapists and sexual practices and you are admonishing me for being irrational and to stay on topic. :smack: All my posts have been addressing judicial bias. Maybe I need to type slower and use smaller words. There … isn’t … any. Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware agrees with me. The End. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/87 "2011-06-16T05:09:19Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What you said was literally incorrect, which was why I mentioned Rustin. It was also metaphorically incorrect, which is why I pointed out that there are some obvious comparisons between the civil rights movement. You were objecting to that comparison. Yellow has nothing to do with blue. _But they’re both colors!! ! ! !_ Dr. King has _nothing_ to do with same sex marriage. I did not say that he, has a person, would have nothing to do with gays. I’m saying his quest had nothing to do with gay rights…nor was he on a cruise for relaxed immigration laws or any other cause that has taken up his I Have a Dream speech. > [@](#): > > And if Romney were a judge, he would not have to recuse himself from all cases involving Mormonism. (Actually, Romney does have a role in the Mormon Church, but I’m not sure how big of a deal it is.) _Influence_ isn’t relevant and doesn’t create a conflict of interest. If the ruling is solid based on the law and the case, the influence doesn’t matter. If the ruling doesn’t apply or is bad law, then it’s bad law. It should be judged on those merits, not the identification of the judge. That’s been cited in depth by now. So why couldn’t this damn case have been decided by another judge? > [@](#): > > If the judge stands something to gain personally and not by implication, then that’s a real issue. :dubious: Again, in a ruling that affects 1-3 per cent - hell, even 5 per cent - of the population, that’s a smidge more significant than asking judges to live in a vacuum. > [@](#): > > So Walker is part of a protected class. And the Obama administration has stopped defending DOMA in court, which makes it likely the law’s days are numbered. He’s part of a protected class re: hate crimes. Obama did not say, “No federal law will _ever_ discriminate on a basis of sexual orientation and _all_ states must recognize gays as protected members in all of their legal affairs.” ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/88 "2011-06-16T05:11:27Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Using your logic, since I want to marry 10 people, I should be able to, right? Well, first you have to find consenting, adult, mentally competent people willing to marry _you_. Frankly, I can not imagine that happening. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/89 "2011-06-16T05:16:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > \*\*The government has no obligation to offer formal recognition to religious practices. \*\*These people are still free to practice religious polygamy, but they aren’t entitled to government benefits for it. No, actually, they are not. It is illegal in all 50 states and there are some Christian fundamentalists and Muslims that do it quietly. (Or not quietly…) The government _is_ under obligation to allow freedom of practice. It has its limits, but in something like marriage, I find it extremely ridiculous that a practice that hurts no one is banned. > [@](#): > > Miscegenation laws didn’t stop black people and white people from getting married either. This angle is as sophist as it gets. No, actually, you’re talking about sexual orientation and the bucking of medical norms. People who are attracted to members of the same sex (especially exclusively) are medical anomalies. Abnormal. Grossly abnormal, considering that humans are biologically meant to reproduce. > [@](#): > > If the thought of same-sex marriage bothers you so much, maybe you’d be more comfortable someplace like Saudi Arabia. Since you hate Jews so much, maybe _you_ should move to ‘Palestine’. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/90 "2011-06-16T05:17:33Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Well, first you have to find consenting, adult, mentally competent people willing to marry _you_. > > Frankly, I can not imagine that happening. Ever. Reported for unnecessary insult. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/91 "2011-06-16T05:22:36Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Dr. King has _nothing_ to do with same sex marriage. I did not say that he, has a person, would have nothing to do with gays. I’m saying his quest had nothing to do with gay rights…nor was he on a cruise for relaxed immigration laws or any other cause that has taken up his I Have a Dream speech. No one said King fought for gay rights. It was a comparison, and you were the one who brought King into it. You wrote that Prop 8 does not affect most people in California (that is, straight people), and **Diogenes the Cynic** said Jim Crow laws didn’t apply to most Southerners (the ones who weren’t black), but they were discriminatory nonetheless. He was absolutely right. > [@](#): > > So why couldn’t this damn case have been decided by another judge? Why should it have been decided by another judge? Walker got the case through whatever process they have, there was nothing that disqualified him, neither side objected to him as a judge before or during the case, and an appeals court has confirmed that there was no reason for him to recuse himself. > [@](#): > > :dubious: Again, in a ruling that affects 1-3 per cent - hell, even 5 per cent - of the population, that’s a smidge more significant than asking judges to live in a vacuum. The implication is the same: if a judge can’t rule on any case that could conceivably affect them, who can we get to serve as judges? > [@](#): > > He’s part of a protected class re: hate crimes. I think that’s good enough for the purpose of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/92 "2011-06-16T05:25:53Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Well, first you have to find consenting, adult, mentally competent people willing to marry _you_. > > Frankly, I can not imagine that happening. Ever. You’re being personally insulting, and this response contributes nothing to the thread. Don’t do it again. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Try to keep your responses a little on-topic and not so…irrational and emotional. > [@Implicit](#): > > LOL, you are blathering on about pedophiles and rapists and sexual practices and you are admonishing me for being irrational and to stay on topic. :smack: > > All my posts have been addressing judicial bias. Maybe I need to type slower and use smaller words. Both of you need to cool it here. Be civil or take it to the BBQ Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/93 "2011-06-16T05:27:32Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > No, actually, they are not. It is illegal in all 50 states and there are some Christian fundamentalists and Muslims that do it quietly. (Or not quietly…) The religious ceremonies and recognition are not illegal. > [@](#): > > No, actually, you’re talking about sexual orientation and the bucking of medical norms. > > People who are attracted to members of the same sex (especially exclusively) are medical anomalies. Abnormal. Grossly abnormal, considering that humans are biologically meant to reproduce. Ok. Thanks for showing me what you are. You’re not worth wasting any more time on. Goodbye. I hope that bigotry thing works out for you. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/94 "2011-06-16T05:30:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think that’s good enough for the purpose of this discussion. For _you_. Obama’s ruling had nothing to do with judges, and this is what the thread was about. But just because I’m a protected class as a religious minority does not mean that I can practice however I wish. This was about if Walker [had something to gain](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0615-gay-judge-20110616,0,3968778.story) from his decisions. (And clearly he does, because when you’re arguing federal law that is likely to be appealed to SCOTUS, this is going to extend to a whole lot more than just marriage, ffs.) > [@](#): > > …“the subtleties of a judge’s personal, and likely ever-changing, subjective states on such intimate matters,” Ware said. Walker’s sexual orientation is not something that is ever-changing or whimsical. I have no problems with same sex marriage. I’ve said that dozens of times. I’ve advocated for that in my home state - IOWA, of all places - until I was breathless (and later, we actually _won_. gtfo!). I do have a problem when gay rights advocates prefer rulings that are in their favor over matters of law. This particular case was one of the eyebrow-raising but no complaint types, whereas forcing a Christian city employee to march in a gay pride parade or withdrawing funding from Catholic adoptions charities is just ridiculous (and is precisely what anti-marriage advocates were fearing for decades). ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/95 "2011-06-16T05:34:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The religious ceremonies and recognition are not illegal. Likewise, ceremonies recognizing homosexual couples are not illegal. What’s your point again? Somehow discriminating against polygamous marriages is OK but discriminating against same-sex marriage is not? WHY do you care if 4 consenting adults want to get married!? > [@](#): > > Ok. Thanks for showing me what you are. You’re not worth wasting any more time on. Goodbye. I hope that bigotry thing works out for you. _Wave_ Have fun being an anti-Semitic woman hater slash baby killer!\* \*or whatever weird insult you’ll pull out of your ass next. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/96 "2011-06-16T05:34:03Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I’m not arguing that there was a conflict of interest. I was asking about precedent - and, as a side, how could it not be? If you get all freaked out because someone is asking questions, it says you have a weak argument. Both decisions are publicly available they’ve even been linked for you. You keep insisting that there is grounds for a conflict of interest. Read the dam decisions and come back to us and tell us once more there must be a conflict of interest. People aren’t getting freaked out because you’re asking questions. We’re getting freaked out because looking at the objective answers is apparently beyond your ability. Once again where do you think this mythical bias you keep insisting Judge Walker must have had in his decision take place? Then even if you argue he benifits from the decision it doesn’t really matter he spelled out perfectly a way anyone gay or straight could come to the same conclusion. His argument stands on it’s own regardless of his sexual orientation. Say you borrow 2 dollars from me on Monday then you borrow 2 dollars on Wednesday. Friday I tell you ‘you owe me 4 dollars’. I may have financial interest in fudging the numbers, sure, but my conclusion you owe me 4 dollars is still correct. You don’t like that conclusion so you go to a third person and say ‘hey I think he’s too biased to give me the correct total, can you check his math and tell me if it adds up right’. The third person who has no financial interest tells you ‘yes 2+2=4 you owe him 4 dollars.’ Now you have 2 different people looking at the same data and agreeing with the conclusion. Insisting I’m wrong just because I may have something to gain doesn’t make your case. Prove my financial incentive caused me to fudge the numbers or go home. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/97 "2011-06-16T05:38:34Z")
**boy** , matters of law are not like mathematical principles. There are _clearly_ people who (rather unsuccessfully as of late) have argued _against_ what Walker ruled. There are people who _argue_ to this day AGAINST the SCOTUS’s ruling in Bush v. Gore. (Admittedly, I’m one of them.) I am sure there’s a Dope archive somewhere on the issue. The courts have rejected the very premise that gay advocates often put forth…kind of like how the courts rejected ‘separate is unequal’ a few times, or rulings prior to Lawrence v. Texas. If law was so easy, what would people argue about? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/98 "2011-06-16T05:39:02Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > For _you_. Obama’s ruling had nothing to do with judges, and this is what the thread was about. Regardless of whether or not Walker is part of a protected class, I asked a question that I think you should consider: can members of protected classes only be trusted if they rule “against” their own groups? [We can expand the question to include minority groups that are not federally recognized if that make it easier.] The problem with this is that it creates an unfair standard: all rulings by a gay judge w/r/t gay issues are suspect unless he rules “against” gays. Any ruling by a female judge that concerns any women’s issue is suspect unless she rules “against” women. And on it goes. The logic you are applying creates an endless series of challenges. > [@](#): > > This was about if Walker [had something to gain](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0615-gay-judge-20110616,0,3968778.story) from his decisions. The question is whether or not Walker had a conflict of interest that made him unfit to rule on the lawsuit. The law is very clear on that point: he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/99 "2011-06-16T05:39:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re being personally insulting, and this response contributes nothing to the thread. Don’t do it again. > > Both of you need to cool it here. Be civil or take it to the BBQ Pit. Are people allowed to call me a bigot? Because I’m not allowed to call people that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/100 "2011-06-16T05:41:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Ok. Thanks for showing me what you are. You’re not worth wasting any more time on. Goodbye. I hope that bigotry thing works out for you. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > _Wave_ Have fun being an anti-Semitic woman hater slash baby killer!\* > > \*or whatever weird insult you’ll pull out of your ass next. Both of you will stop this immediately or a lot of warnings will follow. Everyone else is advised to stay well within the lines of acceptable posting in GD. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500.md?page=6)