Oh, don't forget that it will not be because he is a left wing nut job it will be because he is one of those them fags who sin against the lord and make their skin crawl

Anytime there is a vote that doesn't go in favor of the lunatic left, they run to the courts to reverse the peoples vote. 

Sorry, does it not matter when a state tries to do something against federal law?

The decision of one judge negates the votes of more than 7 million California voters!

Is this America..the land of "We the People"?

 2 points on Professionalism and ethics....As an open homosexual, he should have not ever accepted this case to begin with.

Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

Does that mean a judge who pays taxes should not rule on tax cases, or a judge who drives a car rule on matters affecting car drivers?  Or an openly christian judge rule on matters concerning the church?

And well the ruling was that it did have something to do with the constition and that the prop was wrong.  If 53.8% of people who voted voted on a ruling that christian should not marry would that make it legal?

Public authorities from judges to town councilors and school board members who in one way or another have a stake in the matter, must  recuse themselves.

If a town councilor has stock in GE and a case concerning GE comes before the town council, then he must then recuse himself.

As a practicing homosexual, Walker should have recused himself from taking this case becasue his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity and his decision besides being wrong was biased in favor of granting homosexuals "super rights" and against the political will of over 7 million voters. 

The judge needs to be impeached.

.......................

No, not well the ruling because Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. All Walker did with the Constitution is trample it.

The people went by the letter of the law and amended the California Constitution limiting marriage between one man and one woman. On two separate occasions, California voters declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. How was Prop 8 wrong?

Marriage isn't something that can be manipulated and played with. Marriage, the real deal,  has always been between a man and a woman. No amount of people can ever change or redefine marriage.  They can think they change it but what they end up with is counterfeit marriage.

That doesn't answer the point.  If 53.8% of people in CA voted that it is ok to shoot the french on sight it doesn't stop it breaking the constiution.

The judges decision was that the 14th trumped the 10th.  If he was wrong then it will get turned over.

So do you therefore agree that any christian judge can not sit on cases that impact on the church?  Eg was a church is allowed to do?  What about a judge that pays tax?  Or is being gay a different case?  Has the judge said in any way shape or form what his personal views on gay marriage are?  Or is it just that he is gay that you think that?

I like how----based on lula's other perfectly rational opinions like 'feminism is trying to make a gender neutral society' and "making the SPLC hate list twice doesn't make somebody a hate monger", she's also an expert in jurisprudence up to and including under what circumstances a federal judge should recuse himself. 

I also wonder, Lula: 

Could a Christian rule on this case?  No doubt, Christians have a stake in 'protecting marriage'.  So can you have a Christian judge?  Or would you prefer an atheist one? 

Why not? The case concerns the practice of homosexuality not the practice of religion.

We don't know what religion, if any, Judge Walker practices. Judge Walker's ruling was not about religion but about furthering the homosexual agenda to equate homosexuality with married heterosexuality. 

My comments that Walker should have recused himself stand.

........................

All of society has a stake in protecting marriage between one man and one woman for it is after all, the very thing that undergirds it for the reproduction of the human race.

------

Why not? The case concerns the practice of homosexuality not the practice of religion.

We don't know what religion, if any, Judge Walker practices. Judge Walker's ruling was not about religion but about furthering the homosexual agenda to equate homosexuality with married heterosexuality.

-----

So really:  by your logic a straight person couldn't really rule on this case either?  Do we need asexual judges? 

And actually, it really is about the practice of religion.  It's not the atheists who are against gay marriage Lula.