But I don’t have the option of becoming a lesbian.
Dude, I get discrimination is discrimination, but let’s not conflate lynchings with the Holocaust with gays wanting to marry. Dr. King has nothing to do with gay men.
So you’re okay with a little discrimination? Say not allowing gingers to have library cards or people with brown skin to get contractor licenses?
I’m okay with solid legal reasoning.
What is this thread about exactly? You will only feel validated if a straight religious right wing judge rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Every argument on this subject I’ve seen you make on this board has been from the “other” perspective. I’m really trying to understand where you’re “I’m gay, but I don’t want nice things if any other people think I shouldn’t have them” viewpoint is coming from. Help me out.
Bayard Rustin. And yes, discrimination is discrimination. The comparison is pretty directly on point.
There’s no legitimate grounds for saying Walker had to recuse himself, and the fact that all the parties knew he was gay before the trial proves it. It was a last ditch appeal and it failed with good cause. If you think he did need to recuse himself*, I’d say the implications are troubling. Do female judges have to recuse themselves from abortion cases? Where does that chain of logic end? Or to put it another way, if Walker had ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional, would his involvement still be questionable? Or can members of protected classes only be trusted if they rule “against” their own groups? Maybe we should appoint a special circuit of judges to handle all civil rights and protected classes cases - and all the judges have to be straight white men so there are no conflicts of interest.
*If necessary, I’ll argue that Walker did recuse himself- not from judging, but from being gay. You see, we all know that being gay is a choice. Walker chose to be gay before the trial, but during the trial, he saw the conflict of interest and chose to stop being gay so no one could question his impartiality. Once the case was over, he chose to be gay again. So there’s no conflict of interest. 
The hell he doesn’t. How is banning same-sex marriage any different from banning interracial marriage?
Then you should have no problem pointing out what is unsound about either of these rulings.
Ok, here’s some for you:
You’re kidding, right? Are you going to try to demonize me or are you going to participate in the discussion?
It took me a long time to concede that health care may be a right and not a privilege. You’re talking about a philosophy of personal liberties, not law. Not even American law, really, as no such provisions for gender or sexual orientation were considered circa 1700s.
And Dr. K having a gay friend says nothing about what he felt on same-sex marriage. Nothing. There are people who are ‘fine’ with gays and ‘not fine’ with ‘gay marriage’, kind of like there are people who are fine with same sex marriage and not comfortable with the public sexualization of the gay pride movement. (Jah, that’d be me!)
It doesn’t prove anything.
Now that I agree with.
I think I’ve covered this. Female judges aren’t always ‘pro-choice’, but it’s safe to say that 100 per cent of gay couples want to be recognized as partners in legitimate relationships where there is no psychosomatic homosexuality or mental illness or sexual deviancy at play.
My uterus has nothing to do with your skin color or another man’s penis. Sorry.
Actually, Walker is not a member of a protected class.
How is banning same-sex marriage any different than banning polygamous marriage?
That is a matter of personal philosophy on liberty. Not law.
Yes, but there was no mention of sexual orientation.
Finally:
Gay rights advocates still can’t seem to decide if being gay is a ‘choice’ or something you’re ‘born’ with…or how many people are actually gay.*
So when I say, 'Walker belongs to a group that is about 1.5-3 per cent of the population", understand that pedophiles and rapists are at higher percentages, and polygamists are lower. So when we say everbody, do we really mean everybody? Because a significant portion of people think that pedophiles should be castrated.
*Stemming from the ‘let whatever people do in the bedroom remain their own business’ argument and the fact that the GLBT movement includes people who aren’t gay, thus making the GLBT group about 10-12 per cent instead of 3.
You’re kidding, right?
A ban on polygamous marriage is not discriminatory. That was easy. Polygamy is not an innate orientation, and banning it does not give any group special rights.
This is factually incorrect. It was found to have violated Equal Protection and Due Process under the 14th Amendment. The only way you can argue that it does not violate the 14th Amendment is to explain why the state has a rational basis for treating same-sex relationships differently from hetero relationships. Philosphy doesn’t play into it. You should probably make an effort to read up on the decision before you spout about it.
Cite for any gay advocates saying it’s a choice? It most certainly is not, as every bit of research and medical literature will tell you.
I think you may be confusing “nature/nurture” arguments with “choice.” While the extent of the genetic role may still be undetemined, there is still no question that the orientation (however acquired) is fixed, immutable and unchosen.
I was not opining on King’s views about gay marriage. They’re not relevant. You said Kind had nothing to do with gays. My specific response was that Rustin was gay and he played a major role in King’s life and in the civil rights movement, and that more on point, there is an obvious comparison to be drawn between the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s and the gay rights movement in the last couple of decades. It’s true that gays today are not facing the kind of discrimination black people faced half a century ago, but they’re both civil rights issues. The comparison of gay marriage and interracial marriage couldn’t be more obvious.
If the Prop 8 supporters felt his orientation made him biased and incapable of returning a fair decision, they would have asked him to recuse himself. They wouldn’t have waited for a decision and then asked another court to overturn it when he went against them.
I think we’ve already seen posts indicating that’s not so. But it still does not mean Walker stood to gain personally from the ruling.
I would love to see anyone with a brain arguing that it’s a choice.
But Skald said that being a lesbian was part of one’s identity. 
No, actually, I said that based on statistics they use.
No one was banning homosexuality. They were banning the practice of same-sex marriage.
How is a ban on polygamous marriage not discriminatory?!
Which ‘it’?
What does that have to do with it being a choice? Skin color and gender are parts of people’s identities too. That doesn’t make them choices.
What statistics would those be?
I fail to see a point here. They are offering unequal access to a government benefit without a rational basis. That’s a violation of Equal Protection. They don’t have to ban homosexuality for it to violate the 14th Amendment.
Because it doesn’t discriminate against anybody. It applies equally to everybody. Who do you think it discriminates against?
Which is what? What the fuck are you asking me?
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.
Yeah, that’s your view, but it isn’t 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.
Are you saying that all gay people are part of the civil rights movement? That gays can’t be racist? Because I promise you that straight black males can’t be gay.
What a poster opines is nice, but I was hoping for some solid links.
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.
Likewise, I have nothing to gain in my support for Israel, but you’re welcome to call me biased.
Federal protection regarding hate crimes - but there’s no repeal of DOMA.
I’ve been trying to understand you, but apparently that’s impossible, so I guess I’ll have to content myself with pointing out your bullshit.
Sexual orientation is a protected class in many jurisdictions, including California. The laws of the 1700s apply forever do they, or do they perhaps change re: your above statement?
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.
Bans on polygamous marriage prohibit members of certain religions to practice freely. It is a societal norm.
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.
Gays can get married. No one bans gays from getting married. A law does ban polygamists from getting married, however.
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.