Analytics Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 You people really can't say anything at all about this issue without loaded language, can you?He seems to me like a pretty smart guy, too. Which is why I expect he'll see right through the rhetoric and recognise that same-sex "marriage" has nothing whatsoever to do with "marriage equality."Regards,PahoranI thought the "loaded language" side were the people who called the people they disagree "immoralists." Are you confused about which side is which?Given that Judge Smith already asked the fundamental question, Link to comment
Confidential Informant Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 If he votes the other way, we Link to comment
Pahoran Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 I thought the "loaded language" side were the people who called the people they disagree "immoralists."You thought wrong. The term "immoralist" was coined by Friedrich Neitsche -- who was a homosexual opposed to Christian morality -- and applied to his own views. If you imagine that you can demonstrate that it is not a valid descriptor for those who are campaigning for state sanction of gross immorality, then by all means, knock yourself out.Are you confused about which side is which?No.Given that Judge Smith already asked the fundamental question, Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 You really believe this? Then you haven't really read Judge Walker's ruling and the many, many legal and logical problems it has. Though I'd wager that Analytics agrees with Walker's ruling, I understood his post to be a comment specifically about the Defense's "struggle to defend its position with rational argumentation," not necessarily an endorsement of Walker's ruling.Darin Link to comment
Analytics Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 You really believe this? Then you haven't really read Judge Walker's ruling and the many, many legal and logical problems it has. C.I.Logical problems? Here is what I said:If he votes the other way, we Link to comment
Analytics Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 You thought wrong. The term "immoralist" was coined by Friedrich Neitsche -- who was a homosexual opposed to Christian morality -- and applied to his own views. If you imagine that you can demonstrate that it is not a valid descriptor for those who are campaigning for state sanction of gross immorality, then by all means, knock yourself out."State sanction of gross immorality"? Way to demonstrate restraint from using loaded language, lol. Link to comment
krose Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 ... Judge Smith already asked the fundamental question, Link to comment
Nathair/|\ Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Two weeks ago, when this thread was started, I shared my opinion that it was:It was my hope and belief that a judge, despite having an LDS religious affiliation, would maintain professional impartiality on this case, and any resulting decision he would take part in (even one I might personally disagree with or be disappointed in) would be beneficial, specifically because of the fact that a Mormon judge sat on the panel.Today, I came across the following commentary on the hearing of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--including some fascinating comments on the LDS judge's potential viewpoint (though, of course, we're all still waiting to hear what their ruling will be, and no one can say for sure about their decision). Mormonism plays quite prominently (and, frankly, quite favorably) in the article. I'm bolding the portions I feel are relevant:If Smith turns out to rule in favor of marriage equality in the state of California (even on a limited, narrow ruling) as this article seems to imply, I wonder how much (if at all) such a ruling will lessen Prop 8 Supporters' claims of judicial bias against Judge Walker due to his sexual orientation....?DarinP.S. I don't like the authors cavalier use of the word "hate"... But, as a post-Mormon Unitarian who's pastor drives a Prius herself, I had to chuckle at the jab at the "Prius-driving Unitarian set." Hilarious! What is one thing you never have to worry about? Your airplane being hijacked by a group of radical Unitarians. Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 What is one thing you never have to worry about? Your airplane being hijacked by a group of radical Unitarians. Darin Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.