Reader comments · Federal court upholds gay judge’s ruling on California gay marriage ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Federal court upholds gay judge’s ruling on California gay marriage ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Seems like the only sensible decision.

    If a judge in a gay relationship has a “vested interest” then either:

    (a) heterosexual judges would also have a vested interest – in maintaining the current exclusively heterosexual status of marriage or:

    (b) the anti same sex marriage brigade would have to admit that same sex marriage does NOt actually impact on heterosexual marriage, which would undermine their central claim (which is already a somewhat ludicrous one) that they are “defending marriage.

    If anything gay marriage strengthens marriage by making it even more the norm.

    1. Absolutely, Caspar

      If a homosexual judge has a vested interest then it must be linked to his sexuality otherwise there would not be a reason to mention his sexuality. So, on the opposite side one would suspect a heterosexual judge would have the opposite vested interest. So, did they want a bisexual or transgender judge? Somehow, I suspect not.

      Correct decision by the federal court.

  2. There’s alot of straight judges who regularly put in anti-gay legislation on a bias so why should we not have a turn.

    1. gladiatorkid 15 Jun 2011, 1:14pm

      Sounds only fair.

  3. Of course the Federal Court upholds gay judges ruling.

  4. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 12:40pm

    He’s probably religious and therefore evil. He should be fired for his religious beliefs.

    1. Is that really you Jock? I suspect its an imposter – because if it is you then, unusually, you havent read the story

      1. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 3:03pm

        No it isn’t me Stu it’s an imposter.
        Still so long as PinkNews carries agreeing with name hijacking I doubt there’s a lot we can do.

      2. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 3:04pm

        With the treatment I’ve undergone again this morning, I can’t be assed to fight it.

        1. @Jock
          Hope you feeling on better form soon, would offer you a chocolate hob nob but hey Im a long way away …

          This name hijacking is juvenile and ridiculous

        2. Galadriel1010 15 Jun 2011, 3:31pm

          Feel better soon.

          1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 9:09am

            Thank you Stu and Galadriel1010, it’ll take a few days then I guess another round.
            Still hopefully for the best.

    2. If you’re gonna try and troll jocks name, at least download a flag like jocks avatar and try and do a good impersonation. Some people have got serious issues if they’ll waste their time pretending to be someone else.

      1. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 3:09pm

        Maybe they should be forced to have an avatar and maybe we can see who this imposter is finally!

    3. Dan Filson 15 Jun 2011, 1:37pm

      Maybe Pink News should review registration of apparently identical IDs. Personation seems the vogue these days. I can tell apart James and James! but really the answer is for people to register under real names

      1. Or at least unique ID’s linked to a real email address, the current farce is, like most farces, laughable. There are several third party discussion ID management systems which could be linked (with a far better forum experience as well).

        This is the original Dave G, not the other one with different views than me.

        1. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 3:07pm

          Must admit thats what I’d prefer.

        2. I think I would say with real email addresses and additional information that is held by PN but not published …

          1. Sounds like a good way to drive away people that don’t know/trust pink news and can’t risk being outed…

          2. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 9:11am

            I doubt it Carka.
            just as it won’t stop the bigots at least we know who we’re dealing with rather than one person, twenty different names including other peoples.

            One person, one name/nickname.
            End of.

  5. Yet another victory for marriage equality in California, now on to New York.

    I wish we could be saying the same thing in the UK.

    1. Dan Filson 15 Jun 2011, 1:33pm

      It’s not actually a victory for marriage equality, it’s a victory against bias against a gay judge

  6. What a pity that no one in California or any other American state gets or will get any tax or pension benefits from marriage as they are all federal.

    1. Dan Filson 15 Jun 2011, 1:34pm

      But does that mean the Federal government is not recognising, where they exist, gay marriages authorised in the few states that have them?

      1. Correct. The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing state issued marriages to same-sex couples.

  7. Dan Filson 15 Jun 2011, 1:32pm

    This is not anything more than a sensible decision that Judge Walker was not biased by a vested interest. The key decisions will be those of the Court of Appeals one on the constitutionality of the California ban, and of the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act

  8. TheGreatSpaces 15 Jun 2011, 1:40pm

    Why does Pink News use the term ‘Gay Marriage’? Of all places this should be one where it is referred to as Marriage Equality. Is this place run straight people? (Like how lesbian p0rn is made mostly by men??)

  9. de Villiers 15 Jun 2011, 2:40pm

    What a hopeless point of appeal – given that a judge is supposed to fulfil his role without fear or favour. Would it be as appropriate to have said that a black judge could not have ruled upon the constitutionality of anti-discrimination legislation?

    1. They wouldn’t have dared say that, de Villiers. I used to think that equal marriage opponents were uninformed or hadn’t taken all the evidence into account, but more and more I think they’re really very cunning – and definitely persistent!

    2. Galadriel1010 15 Jun 2011, 3:35pm

      Better yet, no judge with religious tendencies can rule on any case ever, because they can’t be trusted not to allow their religious beliefs to bias their rulings.

  10. If the decision to repeal the Defence (Defense) of Marriage Act or DOMA as it its sometimes referred to ever reaches the Supreme Court, I doubt if it would be overturned unless at least 50% of the states already allowed same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently stacked with 6 catholic judges five of whom are arguably staunch with one possible liberal and 3 Jews, no protestants interestingly. I don’t see it ever being repealed otherwise.

    Actually, in the five states and in the District of Columbia where same sex marriage is legal, in essence, gay married couples do not have full marriage equality since they are not recognised at the federal level, but are limited to state recognition only and only portable within those states, although New York currently recognises them.

    1. I believe Rhode Island, and Maryland also recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

  11. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 3:16pm

    It’s a step closer but what a battle.
    I still can’t get used to the fact that these opponents just don’t want to see two people together and in love with each other.
    But at the end of the day, if they’re not Gay or Lesbian what the hell has anybodies relationship got to do with them and how exactly does it do it effect them?

    It’s just another case of not wanting to see two men or two women living just like everybody else.
    They don’t want us to be seen as normal.
    But as usual it the “they” not us or we coming into it.
    Threatens them I think into questioning themselves.

    They just want to keep that seperate think intact.

    Stop stalling and give us the damn Marriage Equality already!!

    1. Couldn’t agree with you more, Jock. Of course what makes it all the more frustrating for those of us here in California is that we already had the right to leagally marry until the voters, in their infinite wisdom, decided to take that right away from us. Is this seriously what people are so threatened by:

  12. Jock, its religion-based bigotry at the root of all the resistance. If you ask a same-sex marriage opponent how it affects them or their marriages, they’re hard pressed to come up with one rational answer. They use red herrings such as the procreation nonsense, the end of society, children being confused, you name it. Its just nothing more than religion-based homophobia, centuries of brainwashing by the cults.

  13. Dana, yes, you are correct about that! Thanks for reminding me.

    Isn’t it sad though that a same-sex British couple married outside the country aren’t allowed to have their legal marriage recognised as such? Its beyond offencive and disgusting, but nothing more than discrimination. Sorry, but CPs aren’t marriages under the law. Downgrading a marriage to that is equally offencive and insulting, hurtful and mean spirited to those of us who are married and to any children we may have.

    1. Exactly, Robert. CPs are not marriages and never will be. But I suppose it makes the bigots feel better about themselves. “Look what a nice thing we’ve done for you gay people! We’ve given you some rights and protections, now go away and don’t bother us anymore with all this silly talk about wanting to get married.”

      1. I want true marriage equality – completely

        I do recognise CPs have two positives to them – one, a stepping stone to what we really want – AND some people genuinely want them

  14. jamestoronto 15 Jun 2011, 6:10pm

    The recognition of equal marriage in Canada was done through the courts, beginning with the local (municipal) all the way to the Appeals and then in some cases the provincial Supreme Courts. Once the courts of Québec (2004), Ontario (2003) and British Columbia (2003) had equalised marriages (2/3 of the population), the (federal) government said it would “no longer resist any challenge” to the federal law (2004). It surrendered to the will of the people and after all but two provinces and one territory had made equality in marriage legal, Ottawa made the law federal i.e., in effect everywhere in Canada (2005). The courts may be the way to go.

  15. jamestoronto, thank you for that. Its fascinating to see how it progressed in Canada. However, in the U.S., going through the states’ courts is not always the best way to go since some of them allow referenda to overturn laws which is what happened in California and Maine. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont all achieved it via their states’ legislatures which guaranteed no referenda to overturn it later. Iowa went through the courts but is facing a referendum to overturn it in 2012 and it could well happen.

    Dana, yes, exactly. That was also the attitude of StonewallUK up until recently, not just MPs.

  16. Wendell Ricketts 15 Jun 2011, 7:31pm

    This headline (and the opening of the article) is entirely misleading and seems to misunderstand the US legal system. True, this is a landmark ruling and it’s important for the case, but Judge Ware DID NOT RULE on the merits of the underlying lawsuit, which remains before the 9th Circuit. Rather, he ruled on a SEPARATE motion to dismiss that challenged Walker’s failure to recuse himself because he is (a) a gay man and (b) in a relationship with another man.

  17. You know this is driving the religious fanatics crazy as a bee hive, the Catholic Mormons and Evangelical Christians to name the ring leaders who hoped to stop the love between two people who love each other. When did these Christian lose their minds and want to stop love?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.