Saturday, February 13, 2010

Andrei What do you know - a gay judge presiding over a landmark gay marriage trial

Twice the voters of California have said that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

And in using the usual tactics of the progressives the will of the people is being tested in the courts.

And a circus it has been of course but now the San Fransisco Chronicle has let slip an open secret - the judge presiding over this trial where it is the voters will that is on trial is himself gay.

Is democracy just a joke to these people?

7 comment(s):

Ciaron said...

Is democracy just a joke to these people?

No, just an inconvenient hurdle........

Anonymous said...

Is the judge basing his decision on his own sexuality, or is he asing it on law, constitution and precedent. Until then, how can you judge him and any decision he may make?

Contrast that with a religious judge who gives a lenient sentence to a religious man because "As a religous man you know what you did was wrong". A suspended sentence for a brutal, unprovoked attack wherein the victim's jaw was broken. Not because of remorse, not because of good character, not because of an offer of repartions but because "As a religous man you know what you did was wrong".

It is not necessary to profess a religious faith to know the difference between right and wrong. Would the same consideration be given to an apostate, an agnostic or an atheist?

I am with Abe Lincoln when he said "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad." Morality is quite simple, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

aI guess you need to wait and see. Will the judge decide based on his sexuality, or on law, constitution and precedent? Only when that is known can you comment.

Contrast this with the recent UK case where a religious judge gave a suspended sentence to a violent thug, who in a brutal and unprovked attack broke another man's jaw. The judge suspended the sentence saying "You are a religious amn and know you did wrong". Well, religious he may be, but righteous he is not. Nor is the judge in this case.

Would the same leniency be shown to an agnostic, an atheist or an apostate? One does not need religion to know right from wrong. I am with Lincoln when he said "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad." Morality can be quite simple.

Religion may tell the thug he did wrong, but it did not stay his hand.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for double post, windows crashed and I thought original post was deleted.

Andrei said...

Interesting link LRO the "religious judge" in your link is Cherie Booth, Tony Blair's wife and a Catholic.

And the defendant a Muslim.

Is the claim Female Catholic Judges show favor to followers of the prophet?

Or is it that wives of former Prime Minsters show favor to Muslims?

I'm not quite sure where this one is going?

Anonymous said...

No, the claim is that one religious person shows leniency to another religious person. Just as you are apparently claiming a homosexula judge will make a decision in favour of homosexuals when the decision is yet to be made.

How would you react if an atheist judge was to sentence, say Richard Dawkins, for a similar assualt and the judge said "You are an atheist and so know what you did was wrong."?

But back to the point, the reall offence her is the apparent inability of the religious judge to accept that there is a morality outside religion.

Anonymous said...

the real offence here ...

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.