Thistle (thistle_chaser) wrote,
Thistle
thistle_chaser

  • Mood:

Thank you for being sane, courts

The logic of this might get painful, so brace yourself.

The anti-same sex marriage folks in California say that same sex marriage should be banned because it hurts traditional marriage (somehow hurts it, they never were able to define how and thus lost).

The judge who heard the case is gay. After the case ended, it came out that he was in a ten year relationship. These anti folks argued that he might benefit from allowing gay marriages, that only a straight judge should decide on the case.

So now here's the thing. The anti folks are arguing that somehow same sex marriage hurts traditional marriage. So, if same sex marriage is banned then heterosexual people would benefit... thus by their logic there should not be a heterosexual judge, since deciding on the case would benefit his own side of this.

Judge rejects bid to set aside Proposition 8 ruling.

We don't use only black or white judges in racial cases. We don't use only male or female judges in sexual harassment cases. In those cases, we trust that judges will put aside their personal interest and decide things fairly. Why does that logic elude the anti-same sex marriage group?
Tags: political, rl
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments