E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jeff Herrera/NBC San Diego
A group of protesters attempted to enter the clerk's office in San Diego, August 19, 2010, but they were told they would only be allowed inside if they had an appointment.
A judge in San Diego has dismissed an entire jury panel in a case involving same-sex marriage activists, saying the prosecutors’ rejection of a possible juror because of his sexual orientation violated the defendants’ rights to a representative jury, local media reports say.
Superior Court Judge Joan Weber issued the ruling Tuesday after lawyers for the group of activists, known as the “Equality 9,” challenged the rejection of the juror, who was gay and had protested in support of gay rights in the past, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
Defense attorneys said the juror’s dismissal violated their clients’ rights to a fair trial. But prosecutors said answers given on a questionnaire by the potential juror, including the past protest, were the reasons why he was let go, according to the Tribune. Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jones said the case was focused on the actions of the activists.
“That's all that this is about,” Jones said. “It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.”
The judge said the prosecutors’ actions were “shocking” and she was “heartbroken,” according to the Tribune and NBCSanDiego.com.
Weber's decision to dismiss an entire jury panel was "fairly rare" and "doesn't happen every day," Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, told msnbc.com.
He thought the prosecutors did not overstep their bounds.
"People get removed from juries all the time for all kinds of reasons," he said. "There was nothing shocking about them removing somebody who they believed could not be fair and impartial.”
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Herndon Graddick disagreed.
"Attempting to exclude a group of people from participating in the legal process is un-American," he said, adding that many states -- though not California -- lack protections for gay jurors.
David Loy, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, said “the judge clearly did the right thing.”
“Jurors should not be excluded from service because of their sexual orientation any more so than they can be excluded because of race or gender,” he told msnbc.com.
The group of defendants -- originally nine, but now six -- were charged with refusing to disperse and interfering with the business of a public agency for holding a long, sit-down protest in a hallway outside the county clerk's office on August 19, 2010, according to NBCSanDiego.com.
They had been protesting in support of a couple who had made an appointment to marry after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop. 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, and said the marriages could begin Aug. 18 of that year.
However, the county clerk would not certify same-sex marriages because Walker’s ruling was set aside pending appellate review.
Of the nine protesters, three accepted a deal from the city attorney’s office to plead no contest to an infraction, according to the Tribune. The lawyers will be in court early Wednesday to talk about the next steps in the case of the remaining six.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- George Zimmerman's old Myspace page includes slurs against Mexicans
- Chicago pays $45 million in 3 years to settle complaints against cops
- Maryland court finds pit bulls are 'inherently dangerous'
- Video: Obama describes raid that killed bin Laden
- NJ mom arrested after allegedly taking daughter, 5, tanning
Leave a Comment:
Cudos to this judge for making the right decision! If a member of the Black Panthers was on trial and a juror was dismissed because he was black and marched in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, something tells me there would be a considerable amount of outcry. So why should it be different if the victim of this discrimination happens to be gay? The defendant has the right to a representative jury.
Or reverse that as a White Person who was vocally anti-war, etc., etc.
I mean the judge did what he was suppose to do. Umm, good job for doing your job.
Or a woman who was vocally feminist.
Just because the juror happens to be gay does not mean that he was discriminated against because he was gay. It is quite possible that they overall demeanor of the potential juror's responses led the prosecutor to believe that he would not be truly objective. This kind of thing happens all the time when screening for juries: people with a grudge are screened out so that the accused can have a fair trial.
Nice try, but this HAS NOTHING to do with race. It has to do with an out of control judge that overstepped their bounds.
The judge is correct. jury of your piers.
Kris, I agree to a point. But I'm not convinced the juror was released simply because he/she is gay. Since the defendants are on trial for infractions caused by protesting and the juror in question had taken part in similar protests he/she could be considered already biased. I would hope the prosecutor would also release any jurors who actively protested against gay marriage as their own agenda may cloud their judgement.
That said, it's ridiculous that gay marriage is still an issue when the only arguments people who are against it have are religious. I believe in the separation of church and state, this is a democracy not a theocracy. Law abiding tax paying citizens deserve the same rights as everybody else.
EXACTLY! You can't tell me that there weren't any jurors on there that had strong views against gay marriage... they just let them stay because they didn't say anything. You can't have a jury without having your peers on there. It's no different than an all white jury deciding the fate of a black or latino person. The prosecutor was cherry picking the jury. The judge did the right thing. Of course you're not going to find a gay person who doesn't agree with gay marriage. It's a basic civil right you're talking about, but that doesn't mean they can't be objective when deciding matters of law.
Actually it would be more like having a Black Panther juror in a case against the Black Panthers.
Juror dismissed. Gasp! RACISM!!
The point overall of a Jury if for them to be unbiased, just being gay isn't a reason for them to be bias, but if they were active in demonstrations that relate to "gay-rights", they would be bias and actually could cause the case to in a mistrial wasting everyone's time and tax payer's money just to do it all over again. I just don't get why this is even an issue, "Pursuit of Happiness" is all they are looking for.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Personally, I believe that gays should have every right to be just as miserable as heterosexuals. That said, the juror wasn't dismissed for being gay, but for openly protesting and supporting the very thing that is on trial.
I was dismissed from a jury several years ago because I was white and they wanted to have an African-American on the jury to provide balance. I had no problem with it. Was it discriminatory? Sure. Attorneys always discriminate during voir dire. As long as that discrimination is applied to further JUSTICE, I'm fine with it. But that is certainly not the case here because it is apparent that prosecutors believed a gay juror could not administer an unbiased decision -- which is absurd.
I read this more as the potential juror could have had a bias because he has participated in protests himself and could have been biased in the defendants' favor because of that.
I've been dismissed from jury pools twice. The last time was for a trial about the robbery of a convenience store, and my sister was the victim of a robbery a few years earlier (in the same town, coincidentally), and my cousin was a state trooper that was killed in the line of duty. The defendant's lawyer saw that on my questionaire and immediately said he wanted to reject me as a candidate.
It happens. Everyone goes into these trials with their own experiences, and if those experiences can put your objectivity into question, it's best that you're dismissed.
I guess some of you have never heard of the word "Bias". Obviously someone who is gay is going to be in favor of the same sex marriage activists. In a jury you want to have people who have neutral opinions of the subject of the trial in order to have a fair trial. Guess that's a bit over of some peoples heads.
But just because the juror had protested in similar protests before does not mean that they can be excused. All Americans are endowed with the liberty of peaceable gatherings (i.e., protests) and, as long as the juror had not been convicted previously of going beyond what is considered peaceful protest, their opinions cannot be regarded as biased.
I see a lot of opinions on here that are biased against the freedom to protest (note I didn't say right...Americans have liberty to do as they please, so long as they do not violate another person's ability to do the same...our laws have been warped to make us think we are only granted what rights the lawmakers grant us). Anyone who would raise misgivings about the freedom of any American to peaceably assembly is biased and should be dismissed from a jury pool.
Sorry, jpeyton76 -- I have to disagree with you. It's one thing to be in favor of a cause. It's quite another to be in favor of breaking the law. I might agree with what the protestors believed in, but if they broke the LAW while attempting to promote that cause, as a juror, the question isn't whether you believe in gay marriage, but instead whether or not the protestors damaged property while demonstrating that position. Two completely separate issues. And I believe this gay juror would also be able to differentiate between the two.
One cannot be biased because of who they are. There are no formative opinions that are pre-programmed into us gay folk that mandates we always agree with anything that has a gay label. It is bias however to indicate that you have a problem with gay people or LGBT concerns because human rights are not debatable.
Example A:
I do not like Pride parades very much because I think that people who have lost their sense of morality dominate those affairs by running around in their underwear.
I am not biased because while I think Pride parades are important, I still think it's a matter of public decency for all participants to be fully clothed.
Example B:
You do not like Pride parades because it's a gay event.
You are biased because you believe that it is not an inherent freedom for the Pride revelers to publicly and peaceably assemble to demonstrate for their cause.
---
Further, any attendee of a gay Pride event (basically every gay person to walk this earth over the past 20 years) would be considered a protester. So where's your or the DA's point?
I would accept this if any one who is homophobic is also dismissed.
Dustin,
So apparently you would have no problem with someone who was videotaped carrying an "Abortion is Murder" sign in front of a clinic being on the jury that tried someone else for bombing an abortion clinic. (P.S. A person is not biased for who they are, but for how and what they think. I'm sure there are KKK members who are good fathers.)
I think I have to go with the prosecuter on this one. If the dismissal was based SOLELY on the potential juror's homosexuality, THAT would be illegal and wrong, but this looks more like a challange for cause.
The difficulty here, would be finding a gay person, who amidst the ever increasing momentum of gay rights, ISN'T biased in favor of them. Does their sexuality alone create a bias? If it does, then it doesn't seem right to strike all gay people from any cases involving gay rights or gay rights activists.
Both sides have uncontested challenges. Did anyone check to see if the defense challenged someone because they were a homophobe? Or maybe because of their religion?
If prosecution rejected in a racially charged case a KKK member, everyone would applaud that rejection. The difference? KKK is not politically correct, and homosexuality apparently is.
And, you know, the KKK is a terrorist hate group, and homosexuality isn't.
Did you not read what I wrote?
So you just regurgitate what I say, then try to use it to argue against me...that's classic.
Sarah - just try convincing some of the bible-thumpers down here in the south of your assertion that homosexuals are not terrorists!
Lady Cat I am sure the defense would have cut them immediately.
Chuck,
I'm sure the south is fantastic, with many wonderful people. That being said, sometimes I think we should have just let them go when we had the chance.
A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of activist gays who may have already decided their opinion prior to the trial. A jury of peers for a murder trial does not mean a jury of convicted murders or those in favor of murder. The judge should recuse herself. Makes one wonder if she is coming up for reelection soon or was influenced by some political consideration. Under the law the prosecution and the defense can disqualify/challenge a certain number of jurors for any reason they wish (peremptory challenge) during voir dire. The judge's subsequent challenge to the jury array was baseless and shows prima facie prejudice on her part. The next step should be recusation of the judge.
@ Gordy
Well it can't be said one way or the other. You may believe that the gay juror would be able to discern between the two but there's no guaranty of that. Hence the possible bias.
@ Dustin
I have several gay friends and do not have any problems with people in the gay community. That being said I have never met a gay person that is not in favor of gay marriage. But you do have a point, I suppose it possible that there are those in the gay community that don't support gay marriage. But how can a person truly discern between someone who does and doesn't? It's safer to remove the possible bias from the jury to achieve a fair trail.
I'm not sure how gay pride parades came into play here but that's not an equivocal example. Were talking about a trial for same sex marriage activists who are accused of unlawfully assembling. Your argument that someone who marches in a gay pride parade is a protester is absurd as a gay pride parade is not a protest, in my opinion, but rather a gathering to celebrate who they are and be proud of it.
So his point, I believe, is to remove any possible bias from the jury in order to get a fair trial.
It seems clear that this juror as not dismissed because they ere gay, but because they had participated in similar protests and would clearly be biased in favor of the defendants. The prosecutor did to right thing to exclude the juror and the judge overstepped in dismissing the jury to start over. There is a difference between being gay and being obviously biased in favor of those who broke the law in their method of protest. Gays should be allowed on juries, militant ones ho break the law to try and get their point across should not be on juries of others on trial for doing the same thing.
I think the judge should recluse herself, there has to be some sort of hidden agenda to that decision. Some folks just read the headline and run with it, the headline was misleading and it brought out the granola (Fruits, nuts & flakes).
I don't see where this is shocking as people are rejected for juries for any number of reasons. A person with a prior DUI was dismissed from a trial involving an accident where the defendant was suspected of driving while impaired. Would anyone question this rejection?
The dismissal of this fellow, an acknowledged "gay rights" activist, was correct. The judge was not.
If the prosecutor feels there is potential for juror bias due to the past actions of this juror he would be remiss if he didn't ask to remove him from the jury pool. It isn't that big of a deal the Judge is the one making something out of this...........I wonder what her real agenda is.
Yes, and yes. If the jury selection were biased, based solely on the questionnaire, well then, that juror could be dismissed. However, by nature the jury should be made up of a broad demographic mix, or any jury decision could be reviewed for dismissal, with a new trial. Homosexuals notwithstanding.
Homosexual folk pay taxes, care for their homes and families, hold respectable jobs, serve their country, and are generally low risk for assault or aggression. They make great neighbors, too; should be treated under the law as any other citizen.
And thank you Sarah for your usual well thought out responses.
This rejection was perfectly valid, and the judge grossly over-reacted. The juror in question is not only gay, but has a history of being involved in protests. While that doesn't guarantee that they would be biased for the defense, it does significantly raise the possibility of it, and that's the important part. We can't confidently know whether someone is biased or not unless they come out and say so, but we reject potential jurors all the time because something in their history or relations indicates they MAY have a bias.
As an example, if an NRA member were charged with murder for shooting a robber who broke into his home, ANYONE with ANY gun-rights history would automatically be rejected from the jury. Heck, I'd bet in many places that anyone who owned a gun would be on the short list to go.
And, for the record, while any homosexual person can be presumed to be in favor of LGBT rights, any heterosexual person can't necessarily be assumed to be against those rights. In fact, a great many heterosexuals openly speak in favor of those rights (many examples of which can be found right here). Therefore, juries on such matters should consist of heterosexuals who have no history of/connections to protests for or against such rights. That is the group you can best assume is unbiassed. And yes, as a God-fearing Christian, I would have no problem with all devout Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, etc.) being rejected from such jurors, as many of us also have a bias.
Dustin,
A little testy are we?
I know (and responded to) exactly what you wrote. My comment was in response to your post 1.15: "But just because the juror had protested in similar protests before does not mean that they can be excused. All Americans are endowed with the liberty of peaceable gatherings..."
My postscript was in response to your post 1.17: "One cannot be biased because of who they are."
I suggest that when you decide to play "Now I've Got You, You S.O.B." you first prepare by knowing what you wrote, instead of what you thought you wrote or what you would like to have written.
Do any of you really believe that if someone said they where anti gay and actively protested against gay rights that person would not have been dismissed. Come on people it was the right thing to do. If your not "fair and balanced" so to speak you should be dismissed.
SilverRob,
"I think the judge should recluse herself, there has to be some sort of hidden agenda to that decision"
and C.,
"This rejection was perfectly valid, and the judge grossly over-reacted. The juror in question is not only gay, but has a history of being involved in protests..."
You are both overreacting. This case is not about gay marriage. And I think that any reasonable person, regardless of whether or not they express an overtly sympathetic opinion to an extraneous issue, coudl decide whether or not the defendants had behaved inappropriately at their sit-in. Being gay doesn't mean that you can't tell the difference.
Good! Exactly what the judge should have done. If the DA doesn't like it, they can always seek to have the action overturned in several ways. Besides, they'll probably get an even better jury pool the next time.
There is clearly some relevant information that is missing from the story. As a general rule (not being familiar with California law regarding this), each side is entitled to so many strikes without "cause." That means that the attorneys can strike anyone who they don't like for whatever reason. The sides can then strike an unlimited number of jurors "for cause." That means that a certain number of jurors can be dismissed for any reason. Any attorney would be negligent in their duties if they permitted an obviously biased juror to sit when it is clear to them that they would rule against their client. Remember, Prosecutors are attorneys who represent their client, the State! If they had used up their free strikes then then could have tried to get the person dismissed for cause. At that stage it would be up to the judge.
The big point is that in no way should the jury or a case be thrown out just because the judge thinks that he could have made a better decision. He should resign the bench and become a prosecutor if that is what interests him.
Don't back down to the Gay and trans-gender crowd !!! They will push and bully anyone who thinks they only get the same rights as anyone else, no more !!! This activist Judge was dead wrong and the gay jurist was a activist and obviously couldn't be impartial !!!! What MAROONS !
Johnny,
You meant "morons", right?
jak - Gay isn't a race. So you're most correct, this has nothing to do with race.
I’m sorry but the judge was way out of line on this one. Both the prosecution and the defense in any case have the right to try to weed out any jurors who they feel might be biased somehow. And since neither side can read minds they have to make an educated guess as to who might be biased based on certain questions. And if you think people of certain races or of a certain sexual orientation are not more prone to being highly biased in certain cases then all I can say is I’ve got some nice swampland I’d like to sell you. It is of course illegal to exclude a juror because or his race or sexual orientation alone, BUT if those factor are likely to lead to him being biased in a particular case then it is should not be illegal. And as I understand it, this case is not even about gay rights, its about illegal activities related to activism, and the dismissed juror was himself an activist. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there is at least a reasonable chance that this guy would be biased in this case. It should also be pointed out again that this trial had nothing to with gay rights or gay marriage, it was about an unlawful demonstration and what prompted the demonstration is irrelevant to the case. So the guy was dismissed because he often engaged in activities sympathetic to the illegal activities of the defendants - case closed.
By the way as long as were on the subject it should also be mentioned that gay marriage is NOT an equal rights issue and never was. Not allowing a person to eat in a public restaurant or to get a certain job because of his race or sexual orientation would be examples of equal rights issues. Marriage on the other hand, despite the fact that it has become primarily a legal institution, is first and foremost an ancient custom, one as old as mankind itself. And that custom is solely concerned with the joining of a man and a women. Practically every society that ever existed has had, or still does have, customs relating specifically to one sex or another (or boht together) and there is nothing wrong with that. For example, if my son wants to go to Japan on his 19 birthday and dress up in a woman’s kimono and be a part of the coming of age ceremony for women there, although that would be fine with me, the Japanese people have a perfect right to not allow him to do so, and they would in no way be violating his civil rights. This is because he would be trying to partake in a customary ceremony the very nature of which relates specifically to Japanese women, and he is neither Japanese nor a woman. And by the same token, if he wanted to join some club here in the States that was set up specifically for women and was related to women’s issues and he was refused membership that would also not be a violation of his civil rights. As I said before, marriage is an anchient tradition celebrating the union of a man and a women. We can change that if we want to of course and we probably should, but to not do so is not violating anyone civil rights. I really don’t know what irritates me more; the intolerant homophobes who are dead set against gay marriage, or people who try to twist their cause into an equal rights issue when it clearly is not simply to get thier way. I personally couldn’t care less about gay marriage as it has absolutely no impact on my life. Heck I don’t even care if people want to marry barnyard animals. I say if it makes them happy and it doesn’t effect me than why not. But the fact remains that whether or not we should allow it is strictly a matter of opinion, like what the speed limit should be for example. It is not and never was a civil rights issue. Of course this has always been a reactive and emotional debate and not a rational intelignet one. In fact I'm sure there are some people out there who are so totally irrational that they will actually mistakenly assume that I am somehow secretly against gay marriage or gays in general simply because I'm looking at the facts of this issue in a completely rational unbiased way. Well I guess thats just the nature ofthe beast (mankind).
No, Laguna_greg,,, I'm pretty sure he meant Maroons. Never watched Bugs Bunny? Get a sense of humor and quit being such a spelling and grammar Nazi. Try adding something to the conversation rather than picking on inconsequential crap.
With that said. It is only expected that those who polarize themselves with either the far left or right in this matter are going to be the ones who refuse to budge and see the reality of how this situation should play out. Now, if you have shown or exhibited ANY (again, I'll say ANY) inclination in your past behavior or statements of bias toward either side of a dispute, then you are ineligible to sit as a juror. That does not preclude you from sitting on other cases. THAT is why there is a pool to choose from. The legal system is not interested in the feelings of a prospective juror or the public, but ONLY in seeing justice meted out fairly. Ergo; a murderer CAN NOT sit on a murder trial, a thief CAN NOT sit on a theft trial, and a person who has shown themselves to be part of a protest group for a given subject CAN NOT sit as a juror on a trial of someone who has protested the same subject. The risk of being partial and biased is just TOO GREAT. It's a good thing that our legal system is designed to rise above bias and partiality. It's too bad that some people (both groups and individuals) can't rise to the same levels and have to let their prejudices and hatreds taint this system.
All of you make me want to puke. Get a life and learn what it truly means to be American
And shame on this judge for not upholding the system.
Well said, Ken. We need to wake up and stop letting every SELF-IDENTIFYING group seize the mantle of civil rights -- it's ludicrous. The best analogy would be a group of people who want to marry their siblings -- are we going to accept their movement and claim of discrimination as legitimate ... and then radically change society for them? I think not.
wrt this case, the prosecutor was correct to dismiss the juror, because the juror was an activist in this area, and had likely already made up his mind, no matter what was to be presented at trial.
Ken,
Your argument is a good one. Marriage is an ancient custom and should not be tampered with to suit someones legal needs. A social contract is the way to give all the same rights as marriage to a homosexual couple, while still keeping it separate from the age old institution of marriage. The debate is all about rights, right? It should be, but I have a sneaking suspicion that for many activists, they will settle for nothing short of changing the definition of marriage to suit their purposes. If it is that way, it is not about rights anymore and becomes about sticking it to society and that is not okay. Activists, please make the fight about rights associated with marriage, and not about fundamentally changing society. Thank you.
WTF!!!! that's why its called jury selection and the prosecution and the defense get to "cherry pick " the jury. Jury of your peers does NOT mean if your gay that you get gay jurors; are you kidding me. No more than black man expecting a black jury or whites a white jury.
Jurors are supposedly picked based on whether they can be unbiased or not. I would find a protester/activist to have a hard time being impartial in a case against someone for protesting and activism....regardless of your sexual orientation.
If you were a lawyer; doing your job would you let a guy who is known to enjoy dog fighting to be juror in the Michael Vick case for instance.
Thanks Ken - when will common sense reign supreme
This as stated has nothing to do with the fact that the juror is gay or believes in same sex marriage but rather that he has been part of protest (the very thing they are trying in court). The state acted correctly and all we have is a activist judge and of course the news trying to make this into something it isn't. But that anyone is surprised is more disturbing because the news has shown again and again a total disregard to far and impartial reporting and instead just sensationalize and props up the news to garner more attention rather then let us have a truthful reporting.
WRONG. As the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a basic civil right under the 14th Amendment, and in cases challenging anti-gay marriage laws (like Prop H8), judges have applied that same precedent. Do some research before you post, for once.
WRONG AGAIN. Same-sex marriage was legal in several ancient civilizations, such as China, Greece, and Rome. Do some research before you post.
WRONG YET AGAIN. The coming-of-age ceremony in Japan is when a woman reaches age 20, not 19, as 20 is the age of majority in Japan.
I really don't know what irritates me more, people who pretend to know things and post them on the Internet for others to read (and perhaps believe what they read), or people who don't do research before they post. I GUESS IT'S BOTH, and you're both of those people.
MARRIAGE IS AN EQUAL RIGHTS/CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE, ACCORDING TO THE US SUPREME COURT.
Hardly rational, or unbiased. And overwhelmingly uninformed.
But as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, "separate" is not "equal". And since gays are taxpaying citizens just like the rest of us, they deserve nothing less than full equality, and the law must stop treating them as second-class citizens.
I fully agree
I don't see what the fuss is about. Voir dire has been around since common law. I could care less about whether or not he supports gay marriage, or whether he protested for or against LGBT issues.
Voir dire happens in all jury cases, there are legal people who specialize in NOTHING BUT Voir dire. People can protest this all they want but lawyers can question and eliminate whom ever they want from a potential jury pool. It's the way the law works......
Lawyers Voir dire every case you can think of. O.J., Casey Anthony, Hauptmann, Miranda, Scopes, and even your Uncle Joey when he robbed that bank.....
Get over it. Not news......
@tron9997999
It happens every day. Just go down to your local courthouse on any given jury trial day and see for yourself...
Where does it say she's a lesbian? Or are you just pulling "facts" out of your ass?
Lots of nuances here..... This is why change of venue is important to attorneys.
For example:
Lets say there was a high visibility case, where a white defendant is charged with shooting a black man.... The town that this happens in is 60% black. You can't Voir dire 60% of a jury pool from that town out of the jury so.......you file for change of venue to a place where black population is around 8-10%. Now your chance to get an all white jury is increased as well as your chance for acquittal.
Simple. Sad, factually, but simple..
Because voir dire applies to everyone except homosexuals. And a gay protester/activist can guarantee their impartiality when the defendants are gay protesters/activists. Why not have federal prisoners be jurors for federal cases, rapists be jurors for accused rapists, domestic terrorists jurors for accused domestic terrorists, etc. But then, it must be awfully close to the judge's election. It wasn't even a question of doing the right thing, or making courageous decisions. If a homosexual judge tosses out entire juries because the defendants are gay, then they need to be recused.
Yeah, but only in boating cases.
Yet more proof that these miscreants and their protectors on the bench are pimping special rights for those that embrace this decadent proclivity as their own.
Ken-F,
The major problem with your argument is that when we are talking about legalizing same-sex marriage we are in fact talking about the legal institution of marriage. Because marriage IS a legal institution (regardless of the custom or tradition), then it is a civil rights issue. As it stands, the law states that Bob and Tom are legally allowed to enter into a marriage. However, because they both happen to be men they can't enter into a marriage with each other. It's arbitrary. If they are both considered individuals capable of entering into a marriage contract, why then can they not enter into that contract with each other? I have yet to see a reason, outside of religion or traditionalism, that can make a case for that. And neither religion nor traditionalism have anything to do with the legal institution of marriage.
Regardless of the many arguments I could easily make on why religion should have nothing to do with the civil institution of marriage, I will just point to just one. As it stands now, churches and other religious organization are not required to marry anyone. A preacher can deny marrying two people for whatever reason they want. So, legalizing gay marriage will not require any religious establishments to do anything they don't believe in. Thus, legalizing gay marriage takes away no one's right. However, continuing to ban same-sex marriage does -- it prevents two people who we have already established as being capable of entering into a marriage contract from entering into that contract with one another -- for no discernible reason.
The problems with the traditionalism argument are also manifold. And I could list several of them (the most obvious one being that 'fallacy of tradition'). However, again, I'll just stick to one. Which is that, marriage between one man and one woman is not as traditional as you would like to pretend. Countries the world over have many different marriage customs. In some cultures, men can marry men dressed as women. In some cultures, women marry ghosts of dead warriors. Polygymy has been practiced in the vast majority of cultures over the course of human history -- even in American history. And to be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating for or against these different types of marriages -- I'm merely pointing out that the claim that marriage is and always has been between one man and one woman is false.
Look, I very much support gay marriage, but this judge was overreacting. For instance, if you were trying someone for illegally protesting a football game, and it turned out in the past I had protested a football game, you would exclude me. Sexual orientation and gay marriage is really a red herring here.
"Procreation is a rational basis for limiting marriage to one man one women pairings"; as verified in four separate Supreme Court of the United States rulings dating back to 1853.
Marriage corruption supporters may not wish to acknowledge the laws of nature, but fortunately for society the founding fathers of this nation did.
Randy,
I was unaware of that. I'd be interested in reading about those cases. Would you mind pointing me to those cases?
I will withhold further comment on those cases until I read them -- except for one. If that is the case, then that would imply that we could create laws to prevent heterosexual couples who are incapable of reproduction from marrying. I'm curious if that is something you support.
But while we're talking about laws and founding fathers, DOMA actually violates the 10th amendment and also causes a conflict with the Full Faith and Credit clause under Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that any legal documents of one state must be recognize by all other states (which would include marriage certificates). Furthermore, any state that refuses to recognize the legal marriage of same sex couples from another state are also violating the Full Faith and Credit clause. So, there's that.
Randy, there are NO Supreme Court ruling that say that, unless you can provide the exact cases -- but I've searched already, and there are none. The only ones who tried to use that argument were NOM and their supporters, and they LOST.
Furthermore, the Founding Fathers said nothing about marriage at all in the Constitution; it was left to the Supreme Court to find that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment.
The laws of nature also support same-sex marriage, since homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans).
Siobhan, don't confuse Randy with facts -- they just get in the way of his ignorance and bigotry.
In 1853 SCOTUS ruled that procreation was a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one women pairing in a case that addressed the legality of polygamy. in 1972 Baker v. Nelson the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a constitutional question:
"Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12] On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."
The 1972 Baker V ruling in many ways carries more weight than a full court hearing in that all avenues for appeal had been exauhsted.
In Loving v. Virgin SCOTUS Opined "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Nobody in their right mind would ever contend that "our very existence and survival" will ever be dependent upon sexual deviants rubbing their reporductive organs against each other.
Erin; enough with your lies about the Animal kingdom. The word "homosexual" was coined in 1887 by one individual as a discriptive of a new concept of exclusive same-gendered pairings. The word has yet to recieve a universallly accepted definition to the extent that in a November 2011 1st court finding the jurists noted that plaintiffs experts cannot even agree upon the definitions of the words Homosexual, Gay, Lesbian, Identity, and Orientation.
You folks are going to have to come to the table with a lot more than blatant lies and false hoods in defense of your proclivity - "No it isn't" "So What" and "Prove it" just is not going to be enough to carry the day anymore.
At a trial of skinheads for assault, the prosecutor would automatically deny a self proclaimed skinhead as a juror. He would be prejudiced in favor of the skinheads on trial. I once was called for jury duty and was "EXCUSED" 7 times because my store had been robbed. After a week, I went to the clerk and said, "Look I am wasting my time, every time they knock me out of consideration for being a juror!" He agreed and said I could go home. So yes, just as judges have to excuse themselves, choosing a jury is a very complicated matter.
Yes Erin has been told many times that she is wrong and not only wrong but guilty of trying to influence people with outright lies, when she knows, as she says she works in a school, that lesbianism and homsexuality is an evolutionary dead end and a mistake of nature. Yes the people can ask for a civil contract to live together with rights but marriage is for the generation, production and betterment of the species. That she refuses to admit and brings up her lies and deliberate mistruths only sets back homosexuality. She misses on the correct arguments on behalf of lesbians and homosexuals. They were not meant to be and as such Erin's lies have to be discarded.
I see you're still as ignorant as you ever were, Randy.
Baker v. Nelson was dismissed by the US Supreme Court for "want of a substantial federal question" -- without any ruling on the merits of the case. It has been interpreted differently by different state and federal courts, Randy.
Loving v. Virginia is the case in which the Supreme Court established that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, and is the precedent that has been applied in challenges to anti-gay marriage laws, as well as challenges to DOMA -- and ALL of those challenges to date have been successful. The Supreme Court did not, and still has not, specified that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman.
As far as my "lies about the animal kingdom" are concerned, there is ample proof to support what I've said:
Mammals
Birds
Fish
Reptiles
Amphibians
Insects and other invertebrates
In addition, you can check out these articles:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all
You bigots are going to have to come to the table with a lot more than your blatant lies and fears, but you will still LOSE -- as you are losing now.
Your response reeks of desperation Erin. ;)
So you can list animals; and that proves what exactly? Baker v. Evans has been ruled consistently in every court that has accepted it as governing precedence as it relates the the respective cases under review. In the most recent prop 8 findings each of the federal courts went to extreme lengths to avoid acknowledging the relevance of Baker to the case they were reviewing; instead attempting to pen personnel love letters to Justice Kennedy with the hope that he may pull them from the fire - that won't happen and now they know it.
Face it Erin; you Can't Understand Normal thinking.
Randy,
Yeah -- I'm agree with Erin here. I looked up the information on the 1972 ruling and you are referring to the ruling made by the Minnesota Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court. The United State Supreme Court made no rulings about the merits of the case. I also couldn't find the 1853 case you are talking about. As such, you have thus far not supported your claim that the US Supreme Court ruled that procreation was a legitimate means of limiting marriage to one man and one woman. I await better more references from you.
Also, Randy, regardless of your hair splitting -- we do know that several animal species engage in sexual activities with same sex conspecifics. Furthermore, there's a great deal of research showing that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality among humans.
On top of that, using the claim of homosexuality "not being natural" as a reason to make same sex marriage, relies on fallacy -- it's called the naturalistic fallacy. What is natural is neither inherently good nor bad. If you'd like a really easy example to grasp onto, the flu virus is natural. But I assume you don't find it to be inherently good, do you? In fact, I would venture to say you do all you can to kill the flu virus when you contract it.
And as yet, no one has answered my question above as to why same sex marriage between two adults who are otherwise considered capable of entering into a marriage contract be prevented.
Also, on a side note, in the Prop 8 case with Judge Walker, he did in fact address Baker v. Nelson and claimed that the case was not applicable. Whether or not you agree with it, is another issue. But again, it's false to claim that in the Prop 8 appeals trials they have ignored Baker V. Nelson.
Dictionary,
Actually, research is being done on homosexuality and it's implications from an evolutionary perspective. Several theories on why homosexuality might be selected for have been proposed. Several theories suggests that homosexuality was selected for via inclusive fitness (the idea that you can propagate your genes not just by directly reproducing, but also by helping your genetic relatives). One theory suggests that homosexuality was selected for when populations were too large and resources were too scarce. The idea goes that by not having their own children and instead investing in the children of their brothers and sisters, their genes were more likely to be passed on because they would not be creating more mouths to feed that are not likely to survive and instead investing resources in those who are genetically related to them. Some evidence which supports this theory is that homosexuality in males tends to be more common among children born later to the same woman (i.e. the more children a woman has, the more likely she is to produce a homosexual male child).
This research has only really just begun to gain ground in psychology and biology, so it's a bit early to say that any one theory is definitely correct. However, the idea that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end is unlikely and not based on evidence.
Siobhan27,
Baker V. Nelson -procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage - included concurrence from SCOTUS with an acknowledgement that the plaintiffs appeal on 10th, 4th, and 14th amendment grounds were not valid - "For Want Of a Constitutional Question."
"Homosexual" is not defined consistently and therefore cannot be applied generally.
And to answer your question again:
Procreation is rational basis to limit marriage to one man one women pairings.
You really should not waste your time arguing over what the definition of what "is" is when you cannot even agree on the definitions of the words you use as self descriptives - homosexual, gay, lesbian, identity, orientation.
You might as well call yourselves goony-ga-ga's for all the good it does.
On Walker's now disgarded findings I noted:
"went to extreme lengths to avoid acknowledging the relevance of Baker to the case they were reviewing"
Which lies would those be?
Homosexuality is only an "evolutionary dead end" if everyone were to become homosexual, which is hardly likely, since homosexuals have existed in humans in approximately the same percentage since humankind has existed -- yet the human race continues to survive.
Furthermore, it is hardly a "mistake of nature;" it is considered that it could perhaps be part of evolutionary design to prevent overpopulation of the species. Medical science does not consider it a "mistake" or "defect" in any way, shape, or form; it is considered a normal variant of one of the four naturally-occurring sexual orientations (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual).
As the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, "separate" is not "equal".
In the first place, YOU are not the one who decides what the purpose of marriage is. Second, procreation is not required for marriage, and vice versa. NO state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, which is why the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children are allowed to marry. Marriage has always been (since ancient times) a civil contract, and legal marriage in this country is just that: it has nothing to do with procreation.
And you have no factual evidence to present that refutes anything I've posted -- as usual.
Randy, if you weren't so pathetic you'd be funny. You're confusing Baker v. Nelson with Romer v. Evans.
Baker v. Nelson has been interpreted differently by different courts, both federal and state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Romer v. Evans was a case in which the Supreme Court overturned a Colorado law that attempted to keep homosexuals from being declared a protected class; it effectively criminalized discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, and set up the Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
Just what lengths did the federal courts go to in the Prop H8 case to avoid acknowledging Baker, Randy? It wasn't even mentioned in the rulings, and apparently was not applied as precedent in that case -- even by the supporters of Prop H8.
WRONG, Randy. There was no "concurrence" from the Supreme Court about procreation being a "rational basis to limit marriage" -- they have never ruled on limiting marriage to opposite sexes. If that were the case, there would not be all of these challenges in the lower courts, as the attorneys and judges could simply refer to Baker and be done with it. However, since there is still too much that is open to interpretation because the Supreme Court did not rule on the specific merits of the case -- they refused to grant certiorari because of the "want of a substantial federal question," which does not mean they concur with the lower court -- there are still many questions to be answered.
Gee, Randy, you Don't Interpret Common Knowledge.
Siobhan27 If you experiment with having sex with another man does that make you a homosexual? ERIN is an outright liar. She has been told and explained to that homosexual behavior in animals is common but not to the exclusion of procreation. When the specie engages in homosexual behavior it does not "EXCLUDE" reproductive behavior. Erin is either the least intelligent person on the planet, or refuses to understand what is meant by having homosexual behavior and being a homosexual. Humans who are true lesbians or homosexuals will not mate to have children. They will be an evolutionary dead end. Erin does not understand the word evolution or why there is such a thing and why men want children that are theirs and not children that come from other families. Erin needs education on so many different topics, but most of all Erin needs education on understanding the ENGLISH LANGUAGE! If her school knew what she was saying on the net, I doubt that they would appreciate her point of view. Especially as it has been explained to her several times and she rejects the theory of why animals indulge in homosexual behavior except during the mating season.
If Erin is typical of liberals Obummer is in real trouble. Anyone and everyone who is rational understand evolution and why there is homosexual behavior in animals but not homosexuality in animals. For example, how long would crows live in nature if they tomorrow became all homosexuals and decided not to breed, make nests and lay eggs, care for the young and teach them to fly. In less than five years there would be one crow in the world. Same with humans. A lot of humans experiment with homosexuality, but when it comes to mating, JESUS! We have 7 Billion on the earth.
Now ERIN IS EITHER DELIBERATELY LYING OR TO INTENSE AND NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND. DEFINITELY SHE IS SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION. THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO HER SEVERAL TIMES IN DETAIL AND SHE CONTINUES TO SPREAD LIES TO TRY AND MAKE HER POINT.
Randy --
When talking about evidence for animals, I in fact did not use the terms homosexual. I used the term sexual behavior. You can continue to split hairs, but I'm going to guess that you would call two men rubbing their genitals together "sexual behavior with someone of the same sex". And if so, then, you should also recognize that behavior is well documented in bonobos. You can call whatever you want -- but sexual behavior between individuals of the same sex are seen in many species.
And while we're on the topic of defining things.. how exactly does one define marriage? Is it the legal institution? The customs? Is it based on Supreme Court rulings and laws? If it is based on laws (which I'm going to guess is the answer you're going to give), then I have a hypothetical question for you. If they change the laws such that same sex marriage is legal, will you call that marriage?
Dictionary--
First, no one is claiming that homosexuality occurs in every member of a species. While the estimates are rough, most estimates claim that homosexuality is found in about 10% of the human population. I presume the other 90% will do plenty of breeding and we won't die out.
More to the point, you completely ignored my post about theories of why homosexuality might actually be selected for via natural selection. Your assumption that homosexuality is a dead end is not supported by evidence. Inclusive fitness is a fundamental concept in evolution by natural selection. While the theories on how or why homosexuality might have been selected for is still up for debate, evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists are quite certain that people pass on their genes, in part, by helping their biological kin. Thus, we know that people can pass on their genes without direct reproduction. Thus, the claim that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end is an assumption and is not supported by any evidence.
Of course it is a mistake of nature. You need to take a course in genetics, biology and evolutionary science to understand why?
Come on folks; your arguments in support of your depravity amount to nothing more than "no it isn't" and "so what."
You are completely dependent upon excuses.
"how exactly does one define marriage"
As an engineer I know that in order to marry two parts one part MUST have a male connector and the other part MUST have a female connector; if you would like to connect two parts with similar surfaces you must BOND said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incapable of ever becoming a marriage - the joining opposites.
When you expand the definition of the word marriage from the joining of opposites to include a reference to the joining of likes you have changed the very meaning of the word.
Siobhan27 You are mistaking homsexual behavior with homosexuality, two different things. Kinsey and other scientists say that less than 5% of the male population are true homosexuals and less than 2% of the female population are true lesbians. Further scientific studies have not differed significantly from those figures.
You make no sense what is "for via natural selection."? Homosexuality prohibits natural selection as there are no children for the natural selection to occur. Explain to me how homosexuality is not an evolutionary dead end, since homosexuals do not breed and any physical or mental factors cannot be passed on as there are no children from homosexuals. First there has never been stated that homosexuality is a selected process. It is a mistaken process like albinism. In nature the animals which are albinos are quickly destroyed. They stand out in the food chain and quickly eaten or destroyed. Look homosexuals do not pass on their genes as they do not procreate. Your examples are so insignificant that your argument is ludicrous.
Dictionary -- do us both a favor and read up on inclusive fitness. Then get back to me.
Randy -- I have made every attempt to actually have a conversation with you. I looked up the evidence you provided and responded. Erin has also responded with more links and evidence to back up her claims. The fact that you disregard these things as excuses, rather than putting any effort into actually holding a conversation, makes clear that you have no intention of having a debate or learning anything from it, but have merely decided that anyone who disagrees with you is not worth your while. In that case, I'm sorry that you have decided you have nothing to gain from others. You should probably spend less time talking on threads in which people are going to disagree with you and just join a group that nods along with everything you say.
Dictionary, you need to change your name -- again (because I smell a re-reg of a previous troll); you certainly don't have the knowledge contained in a dictionary.
Many homosexual animals mate for life; they may turn to opposite-sex partners temporarily for mating purposes, but return to their same-sex partners. This has been demonstrated in many mammalian species (not just humans).
That is irrelevant to the discussion; as I have pointed out before, procreation is not required for marriage, and vice versa. Furthermore, people (and animals) do not engage in sex for the sole purpose of procreating; there are also emotional and physical needs attached to having sex.
And again you are basing this on the ASSumption that everyone -- humans and animals -- will "turn" homosexual, which is hardly the case. In addition, homosexual humans do not suddenly "become" heterosexual in order to have children (although there are some who will force themselves to have sex with someone of the opposite gender in order to have a child); they explore options including adoption, IVF, or surrogacy if they want to have families.
I'd really like to see things from your point of view (and Randy's), but I can't get my head that far up your ass (or Randy's) -- and your heads are wedged too tightly in your own asses. That's obviously where your "facts" come from.
BTW, Siobhan, you should know that Randy has been banned from Newsvine at least once before -- and I think Dictionary has, too.
Erin I do decide what marriage is not you. With some time it will be adopted as a constitutional amendment. Erin, lets do this. Set up an appointment with your school principal. Get your science teacher to sit in and a biologist from a local university and we will give you all the time you want to present your arguments to the rest of us, and we will not interrupt you, except for clarification. You can bring in documents, books etc. Then I will talk and show my documents, texts, and what you have said on the net and let your principal, science teacher and college biologist discuss this and tell us what they think. DEAL?
Erin has been at this for years on the net. Just check her comments on her newsvine pages and you will see that she is a fanatic. Refuses to let facts and logical arguments sway or teach her. She is a stalwart with nothing to back her up. She has confused the facts, with her deliriums and desires. There is no reasoning with her but on the other hand, one can't let her state such .....garbage....uncontested as that would amount to accepting it.
ROFLMAO! You flatter yourself -- you certainly don't decide what MY marriage is abouve.
ROFLMAO! That has been tried in Congress several times already, and support has decreased each time, so don't hold your breath (or do, I don't care).
Why? Do you enjoy being ridiculed? I have discussed this with others -- including many in the biological sciences -- and they all laugh at YOUR inanities.
As if you have any idea what "facts and logical arguments" are.
Apparently you have not read any of my posts; there are citations in nearly every one.
Last time I'm going to explain it to you, Dictionary --
A child shares roughly 50% of its genes with it's parent. A brother also shares 50% of his genes with his siblings. A person can pass on these shared genes by having their own children and/or by helping a brother/sister (i.e. giving resources to that sibling, helping that sibling raise their children, etc.). Thus, a person can NOT have children and still aid the passing of their genes by helping their genetic kin. The idea is called inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness is a seminal and fundamental aspect of evolution by natural selection. Direct reproduction is not required to pass on genes. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you.
Now, let's say there are two brothers living in an environment in which resources are scarce. Brother 1 has children. Brother 2 can decide to have his own child OR he could instead invest in helping his brother and his brother's children. If he makes the latter decision, he may be MORE likely to pass on his genes -- the reason being, resources are scarce. If he also has children, then both his children and his brother's children might not get enough resources and they might all die (i.e. no one gets to pass on their genes). If, however, Brother 2 does not have children and instead helps his brother and his brother's children, they will be more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing on genes.
I can't spell this out anymore simply. At this point, you either 1) have finally gotten it, 2) need to go read up on inclusive fitness to understand it, or 3) are being intentionally dense so that you can continue to support your claim (which is not based in evidence).
Also, I understand what you're trying to say about the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior. However, both Erin and I brought up the point that homosexual behavior occurs in other animals to dispute the idea that homosexual behavior is not natural. If homosexual behavior was a social construct (and not "natural" as some claim), then we would NOT see homosexual behavior in animals. Thus, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual behavior is not relevant to address the point.
Erin you are vulgar, evil, profane and disgusting. You turned an argument and discussion into something filthy and disgusting. The minute you did that you lost standing, ability to be taken serious and demeaned yourself into human trash.
You want someone to stick there heads up their rectum and fill their faces, eyes, ears, mouths and noses with human feces. You are sick!
If you have discussed this with other people than one more discussion should not bother you. Unless of course you are afraid to sit down and let someone with a different viewpoint have his say.
Can't stand being proven wrong, can you? It was actually a metaphor, but if you think you can really get your head in there, you're welcome to try. The fact that you didn't get that is yet more proof of your inability to process information, or to interpret and comprehend simple language.
If you're so sure you're right, then give us your proof -- all of your "documents and texts" that you claim to have. Cite them, or STFU.
To..dictionary'''
Randy.."""""
I said it before on here I'll say it again....Bacteria multiplies.. Viruses reproduce .. Cockroaches pro-create ....whats your point..
And boy am I glad "normal thinking people "...aren't like you two ..
I don't mean to be cruel ...but freaks come to mind
Erin loves to deliberately misrepresent court decision the brown case does not refer to homosexuality and has never been used in a homosexuality court case. Most of her cases that she presented as legal objections against same sex unions have been held up. The first one in Nebraska was upheld and marriage was declared as one man and one woman. Erin can lie all she wants, and give false witness and testimony but she is basically a liar and she has to be brought forth as a person who perverts positions, leaves out, the appeals, leaves out the voters wish and rights just so she can claim some basis for her lies. In Nebraska 70% of the voters voted for marriage to be one man and one woman. Where does Erin show that?
Brown v Loving is a case in which it was stated that marriage is a civil right. That is why Erin brought it up. No one claimed that it was about same sex marriage. It was in response to the claim that marriage is not a civil right. Just as the argument about homosexual behavior in animals is about disputing the point that homosexual behavior is not natural. It's interesting that you are accusing Erin of lies and misdirection when you are doing the same.
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Dictionary, but it's becoming increasingly clear that you are a troll. And I'm done feeding you. However, if you're ever interested in educating yourself about evolution by natural selection and inclusive fitness, please read up on W. D. Hamilton's work.
You want to stick your head up your rectum and take it out and taste your feces, wipe it out of your eyes, clean it out of your mouth and nose? No wonder you are on the net so often. You probably have offended so many of your family that they don't want to have anything to do with you. Of course you violated all the rules of decorum, behavior and rules of discussion and debate. But then you should be very grateful, we are not meeting in person. I would not be so mild mannered with such a filthy minded ignorant, disgusting individual. You are afraid to discuss this with your principal and anyone who has two neurons. In the few minutes I reviewed Brown and Nebraska law decisions, I found you used them perversely and they contradict you 100%. But then you are one of the mutants that nature has mistakenly allowed to be conceived and like the people who cannot control their language, are incapable of mature decision making. You have to lie as you have nothing of substance to prove any of your fairy tales.
Yet again, Dictionary, you prove that you know nothing about government. It doesn't matter what the voters want, since civil rights cannot be put to a vote; we are not a country of majority rule, so that the tyranny of the majority cannot deny rights to the minority -- which is exactly what happens in votes like the one in Nebraska; it was struck down in 2005, restored in 2006, and is being challenged again.
So prove me wrong -- with evidence to back it up. So far, you have done NOTHING except insult and harass me. You claim to have "documents and texts" that prove your claims, but you provide NOTHING. I provide quotations and links to sources to prove my claims, but you do not. And you have the nerve to say that I have "lost standing"? Your credibility was low to start, and you have only pushed it farther down the scale. You make claims that you cannot prove, yet you insist that I am wrong and that I am a liar. That is libel, Dictionary, and I can and will pursue all legal avenues against you unless and until you provide evidence to prove that I have lied.
Which cases have been "held up"? All of the ones I have heard of are currently in the appeals process, awaiting their court dates.
I see that metaphor is wasted on the likes of you. And if I "violated all the rules of decorum, behavior and rules of discussion and debate," it's because I learned how to do it from you.
It's so easy to be "brave" from behind a computer screen, isn't it? I'm sure you'd be doing nothing short of running away with your tail between your legs, like the cur you've proven yourself to be.
Actually, I've discussed this with my principal and other educators many times, and they only laugh at the misinformation and lies you, Randy, and others like you try to spread.
So show us how I was "contradicted" -- but as usual, you're all talk.
Like I said before, if you continue with your slander, I will pursue all of my legal options against you. If you make a claim about me, you'd better be prepared to prove it.
I was investigating Erin's behavior on the net and the best or most obvious disorder is Tourette's Disorder. It is interesting in that the person is unable to resist saying/writng the most ridiculous, untenable and patently false statements just to justify their positions. They absolutely lose control of their emotions and thought processes. If anyone else has a reason why Erin would make such ridiculous remarks that can so easily be proven false and insult people so freely and without reason, I would gladly like to hear their thoughts and reasoning.
To..dic""""
Wow I don't know but reading your posts ...Twisted Sister comes to mind
Erin..Siobhan..you have the patience of saints...I don't
I'm outta here
Ciao
It doesn't matter what the voter's want?????? You mean we should not have elections for public officials, governors, senators, congressmen and presidents? You do need intense medical and psychiatric treatment.
Erin, I offered to sit in your principal's office and let you have the floor and bring in experts to listen to you and then listen to me and state their opinions and facts. You don't want to do that.
Another skill you lack: reading comprehension. Apparently you missed the part where I said "civil rights cannot be voted on".
If you sit in my principal's office, it won't be to state "opinions and facts". But you're welcome to try -- if you know any facts, that is.
I have stated that you are a liar. That is 100% true. You have demonstrated that many times with your statements. The Nebraska law was revised in favor of the majority vote in 2010 and you used its ruling of 2006. You knew about the new ruling and stated the old ruling. That is a form of lying. You used Brown as it referred to homosexuality. Show me one case where Brown was used in any form about homosexuality. Stating misleading information is a form of lying. I can go down the list and make a litany of your fairy tales. I can include where you said that more states have voted in favor of homosexual "marriage" when you know that the states are getting closer to getting the vote necessary to vote for a constitutional amendment to make marriage one man/one woman. You really ought to not discuss the things that can prove you wrong with intelligent people who take the time to look up the lies your print and the exceptions. You shouldn't converse with people who know legalese and can quickly cut to the heart of the matter. You are so obnoxious, ignorant and ridiculous that one has to take you apart on the net so you don't infect the minds of people you want to influence.
Erin, the civil rights busing laws have been overturned. The boy scouts rules have been defended by the supreme court. The rights of religious institutions to fire and dismiss have been confirmed. And there are many more to come. The pendulum is swinging the other way. The school laws on having equal quotas of minorities has been overturned. There are schools 100% black and that is illegal. It goes on and on. Illinois has overturned their laws on firing teachers. $$$$ won out. And it will go on and on. The coffee shop Starbucks won on hiring midgets and disabled people. Commonsense is back on the table. There have been a number of disability lawsuits thrown out. Quotas for minorities have been eliminated although Obummer tried to bring them back. Many state and city governments have been sued for trying to bring in minorities over better qualified people. NYC just paid millions to people who were not allowed promotions on merit to allow more minorities gain stature.
There have been a whole host of lawsuits that for economic reasons have not complied with federal regulations because of $$ and they have brought them to court and won. There is just not enough money to do what the stupid federal government orders. Or do you have $15 trillion dollars to dole out.
Like I said, lets call your principal up, your science teacher and a biologist from a famous institution and a lawyer and have it out face to face. You present your written documents, I present my written documents beforehand and you have the chance to review them and I have a chance to review all of yours and then you make your statements and I make my statements. You lose points if you insult, swear or defame me, or have you never held a formal debate in your life?
Really simple then, give my your principal's name and telephone number your name and I will ask him if you discussed these issues with him. You made a concrete statement. Now lets see if it is true.
Your statement is that heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality and bisexuality are naturally occurring sexual orientations. The only naturally occurring sexually occurring sexual orientation is heterosexuality. The other three are unnaturally occurring sexual orientations. You have to use the English language correctly. Naturally occurring refers to the normally occurring forms of nature. Asexuality is abnormal. Bisexuality is abnormal. Homosexuality is abnormal. You take the three add them up and they are not normal. what is normal and designed by nature is heterosexuality. You have to be precise. I see so many errors in your writing, that your principal would demote you. No wonder you don't want him to see what you write.
Homosexuality is homosexual behavior to the exclusion of reproduction. That does not happen in nature. You have a severe problem in understanding the English language and this has been brought to your attention many times. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. That means that there is only homosexual activity between the organism to the preclusion of reproduction. That does not happen in animals and I know from reading the comments addressed to you that you have been told that many times. Yet you still lie about it. There is homosexual activity in animals. That means that in species of animals two animals of the same sex will indulge in sexual activity but not to the exclusion of mating. When mating time comes around, they will mate to produce offspring. That is evolution. You have been told that many times. As far as the articles they are not written by scientist and that has been told and sent to you. So you are lying again stating that those articles are proof that there is homosexuality in animals. Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition. states that there is homosexuality in animals but his work was translated from Norwegian! Did the translator know what he was translating and does Petter Boeckman know what is the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior? Since it is in a guide book and not an official scientific publication, it is a worthless article. Can we show that to your principal and can we call up Petter Boeckman with a person who speaks perfect Norwegian and ask him? Personally, since you refuse to learn, you are a prime example of how evolution has stopped. You no longer learn and you lie when you repeat falsehoods such as above stating that all those animals are hoosexuals, when you know that they engage in homosexual behavior but engage in heterosexual behavior during mating season. At worse they are bisexuals. If you would evolve and transcend into a higher plane of learning, you would not be shown as such a fool.
When the United States Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage, about TWO-THIRDS of the population of the US thought that interracial marriage is "immoral".
Ring a bell?
This "Juror" should have been excused. The possibility for a mistrial rest on the one juror. A case could hve been made for a "Conflict of Interest". Judges and Attorneys have to excuse themselves all the time because of thier believes or a group they may belong too. And if a gay Activist is on trial, I sure wouldn't want a gay person on the panel where a mistrial could be declared.
Where did I ever post that?
You have no ability to do research; you make up information as you go along. You still have not shown that I have lied in any of my posts, nor have you shown that my information is wrong. At the same time, you have provided NOTHING to support your claims.
ROFLMAO! "Intelligent people"? I guess that excludes you. You have printed NOTHING that refutes anything I say; you only find totally irrelevant "information" to post (BTW, everything you have posted regarding busing, hiring practices, etc., is false).
I'm not "conversing" with anyone who "knows" legalese, least of all you.
ROFLMAO! And you claim to be an expert in the English language? You prove yourself a liar with every sentence you post.
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
[hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee, or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
noun
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality?s=t
Nothing in there about the "exclusion of reproduction".
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
noun \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1: the quality or state of being homosexual
2: erotic activity with another of the same sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality
Nope, nothing there about the "exclusion of reproduction," either. NOW you're making up your own definitions for English words!
I'm glad to see that you don't let your "education" get in the way of your ignorance.
When you learn to use the English language, you can comment. When you pervert the language to your own special requirements as you wish to pervert the word marriage and have perverted the word gay and homophobe, then you are indeed in need of remedial education in the use of the English language. You can't use the word two different ways and say "SEE I KNOW!" I still want the name of your principal and see if you actually talked with him about these subjects. You made serious statements about your openness and how you have backup by people at your school. Time to put up or shut up!
Being a homosexual and experimenting with homosexuality are two different things. But then why let the facts bother you.
Erin you have said you are not a teacher or a secretary at the school, exactly what are your qualifications to expound on the subject and have so many talks with the principal of the school, that he would listen to you?
Wow, interesting comments this morning. Thank you Siobhan and Erin for consistantly, intellegently and factually proving dictionary and Randy wrong time after time (althought neither one of them (especially dictionary) was apparently able to figure out that out. It is just not worth the time or energy arguing with people like that, because as you notice with dictionary, he truly believes that if he says something it must be true, and your facts (with references) are irrelevant. That is a sociopathic and a person with this type of mental illness can not accept that they can be wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that they are in fact wrong.
I have never understood how a marriage between two people of the same sex could have any effect on my marriage. All you hear are people standing on their pulpit and waving what ever version of the bible, and there are many versions, they follow. No one as asked for a church to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that goes against what ever their church's teachings are.
I think dictionary72 and ErinNJ need to chill and let it be. Or get a room....
You can't tell someone what to believe anymore than you can make a donkey fly (and please, no examples of flying donkeys......)
I see ErinNJ is at it again.....there is one word she still does not understand and that is anthropomorphic she continues to confuse the instinctive behaviour of animals with the intelligent choice of humans.
But you gotta admit she is persistent, an expert on nothing with an out of context legal opinion for everything.
Sally Lu....please do not use ErinNJ and the word "factual" in the same sentence....they are mutually exclusive one never has anything to do with the other!
It's my understanding that the defense or prosecution has the option of dismissing up to 2 jurors (No questions asked) during the pre-trial phase.
Shhhhhhh. Your supposed to find it "shocking" because another person said it was and the liberal media liked the quote so they printed it. Ignore the 99% of people with enough common sense to realize that is not even news, much less "shocking" news.
Prosecutor and Defense lawyers have the right to screen for those potential jurors that would help and not hender their winning a case, right. Who would have blamed the defense lawyer from rejecting someone who is anti-gay? The writer of this article would have lauded THAT lawyer as a hero. The judge, on the other hand, sounds like she has an interest other than seeing justice through. "Heartbroken???"
I would love to be on a Jury some time but I am immediatly cut because I am a former police officer. I believe that I could be a fair and unbiased juror as I have seen the good and bad in both police officers and offenders. But forget it, I will never be chosen. I just waste a couple days out of my life sitting there.
Sarah
I agree with you on this one. Will wonders never end.
Paul,
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. ;)
Sarah
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Sarah
Actually I find your posts enlightning, convincing and educated. I rarely read the long posts since they just seem to make no sense, but yours I do. Not saying I often agree.
Besides that, if that picture is really you, your pretty.
Well Shucks, Paul, thanks! It's nice to know people can disagree without hating each other.
Will you two get a room already? You're interfering with good people hate-mongering.
:p
(p.s. I upped you both, don't worry)
It can be more than two jurors, depending on the size of the pool.
After voir dire you strike those who can't follow the constitutional requirements (would hold it against the defendant if they took the 5th, etc) then there are the discretionary strikes. There are usually more than two and the sides trade off. If there's a pattern, the other side challenges (it's usually after the 3rd woman or whoever) and the attorney has to explain their reason for striking outside of that attribute.
For me, I think there was no reason the prosecution couldn't use a discretionary strike. The person had engaged in similar past activity so there was an articulable reason outside of sexual orientation.
Based on what's in the article, the judge overreached.
Feeling strong enough to marching in any protest is enough cause to be struck from the jury pool because is casts doubt on the objectivity of the potential juror.
Howy - True, and the judges own comments along with her overreaching cast doubt on her objectivity as well.
"The judge said the prosecutors’ actions were “shocking” and she was “heartbroken,”"
Do people who claim to be mentally unstable or unfit for trial also need to have jury's containing mentally unfit jurors, you know, to be "representative"?
It doesn't even say anywhere that the defendants themselves are even gay... only that they were protesting for a gay couple.
At least Howy gets it. You don't seat a juror who's made up their mind before the trial even starts!
pjam09: YEs, abSOLutely! That way I can finally prove to everyone that the CHEESE did it!
Maybe the judge should excuse hereself, sounds like she has an opinion on the verdict already. Who needs a jury when the judge has already decided the case.
The judge should also find the prosecutor in contempt. Or at least contemptible.
Really? So the PROSECUTOR whose job is to PROSECUTE crimes doesn't want a gay person on the jury that will be making a decision regarding a crime stemming from supporting gay marriage.... and that is surprising or "contemptible"?????
The prosecutor did exactly what they should have done, not doing so would be like letting an admitted bank robber sit on the jury of bank roberry trial - stupid.
Courtrooms and trials are not the place to make people feel "special" or to pretend that everybody is identical.
So wrong, pjam; bank robbery is illegal, supporting gay marriage is not. But you have managed to exemplify the contemptible portion of the prosecutor's action.
Turn off the Faux News Pjam and learn some reading comprehension. This juror was dismissed because he or she took part in protests on the gay marriage topic, and the court did not dismiss the other jurors because the Court wanted to make the potential juror feel "special"
That being said, if the juror understood that our society's historic respect for civil diobediance includes arrests for when certain activities cross the line, usually trespassing (which he or she may or may not have done in the protests that the juror took part in), then that potential juror should not have been dismissed.
Removing a person because of possible bias is not contemptible it is required for having a fair trial. A jury needs to consist of people with neutral opinions of the subject of a trial in order to have a fair trial.
Then if that is how you feel take away both the prosecutors and defenses uncontested challenges. They each have two and are mostly used to get the jury each side wants. Often the only reason for being challenged is because the defense wants more women or men on a jury. Because they think women or men will be more sympathetic. Really get with the reality. Both sets of lawyers use those challenges to set a jury by sex or race or religion that they think will see the case their way. It is done daily in every court in the land in civil or criminal trials.
pjam's example is poor. Let's put it another way. How many of you would have no problem having an NRA member on a jury for a man who shot a robber in his home (under questionable circumstances)?
Being in the NRA is perfectly legal, but how many of us may suspect that juror would have a bias?
JXC
YOU ARE WRONG, the juror was dismissed for answer they made on the questionnaire. How about you get some reading comprhension (SIC)
Another activist judge screwing around with the legal system. Jurors can be rejected for virtually any reason and I'm sure the prosecutor did not say it was due to this juror being gay.
"prosecutors said answers given on a questionnaire by the potential juror, including the past protest, were the reasons why he was let go,"
Shhhh! Don't point out reality to the liberals, the liberal media counts on the sheep not comprehending anything past the spun headlines.
Really! If the prosecutor is really worried about prejudice he will have to exclude most Republicans as well.
Zing!
fedup - "If the prosecutor is really worried about prejudice he will have to exclude most Republicans as well"
Thanks for giving us the perfect example of what non-prejudice people such as yourself are like. (sarcasm)
The amount of self-righteousness that must be possessed to become totally oblivious to such obvious hypocrisy is amazing.
What about your own self-righteousness jam? If a gay person can't be unbais with regard to equal marriage, then neither could a straight person. He's just using your own logic. Anyone supporting Republicans is bias against equal marriage.
IOKIYAR strikes again.
There you go Alverant assuming everybody thinks your agenda is the only important thing in the whole country. Guess what I might support a Republican this time but I could care less how you live your life.I am not a one issue voter. I don't give a f--k what you do in your bedroom. I do have other major problems with the current administration. But your sex life isn't one of them. You are just not that important to me.
Alverant, all homosexuals stand to gain from gay marriage. Most heterosexuals don't have anything to lose if it comes. Heterosexuals should be assumed unbiased unless there is some other evidence toward their bias (pro or con).
And there are a TON of reasons people vote Republican besides one hot-button issue. Maybe I'm anti-abortion, or anti-union, or I like having a balanced budget, or I support term limits for Congress, or I'm a military man, or...
None of those have anything to do with gay marriage rights.
If being liberal means every time someone with a different opinion disagrees with me means I have to call them by racist or bigot I'll pass.
If being liberal means someone doesn't agree with being gay, but is okay that your gay means I have to call them a phobe I'll pass.
If being liberal means someone doesn't agree with abortion, but respects my point of view means I'll have to call them a right wing Bible thumping nut job I'll pass.
If being liberal means inclusion only applies to my point of view I think I'll pass.
I think I'll just go along being the best person I can be respecting other point of views while expecting others to respect my point of view.
To..Mick """
Isn't that exactly what you're saying and doing..only you call it something else
OHHHH , here we go the Demoidiots striking out at the Republicans. This has nothing to do with what dumb party you belong to. Its about wether a gay person should be able to sit inon a trial of a gay Activist person. Because the article dioesn't really say the person on trial is gay just an activist.
This is way too complicated for me, I'll stick to quantum mechanix
Oh so a jury in a same sex marriage case has to be predominately heterosexual...
Okay I get it now....
No... but in a case involving activist protestors.... yes... its not a good idea to have an admitted activist protestor in the jury if you want to win your case.
Apparently Amunaka thinks trials are about holding hands, giving each other hugs and pretending that all people are the same.
To..pj"""
Well that's what you got out of that ...good for you
NOw everyone join hands and we will now sing KUMBAYA together.....
Apparently the judge did not believe the reason behind letting the juror go and instead thought it was because the prosecutors hate gays. I'm not a mind reader like this judge so I'll take the prosecution at their word. I don't really care about this story because jurors are dismissed all the time for all sorts of reasons. Don't like it change the laws to do away with jury selection. I'm not entirely convinced a gay activist can fairly judge a case like this.
By this judge's "logic", anyone on trial for murder should have murderers on the jury.
The attorneys on both sides have the right to reject jury members for any reason whatsoever. Considering the case is involving activist protestors than not having an activist protestor on the jury makes a lot of sense.
For anyone trying to make this anything other than that... you are likely hypocrits.
If a KKK member was on trial, do you think the prosecutor would dismiss an admitted KKK member from the jury? ABSOLUTELY!
If these people think they will ever be able to find a human being with no political views whatsoever, there's some beachfront property here in Tucson that my Nigerian prince uncle love to sell them.
This is news because the juror was gay. If a juror is rejected because of any other reason, this never makes the news. Quit pushing the homosexual agenda on the public. Poor reporting on a non-issue.
Jesus dude, so are you saying gays can't use the court system either? Quit pushing your bigotry on the rest of the educated world.
No we the peeps but women are rejected from juries every day in this country just because prosecutors think a man will see the case their way better and men are rejected by the defense for the same reason. Have you never heard of jury consultants? I can give you two fun books that tell it like it is. Try Runaway Jury and A Time To Kill. Lawyers want the jury that will see it their way. If you can't read that well just watch the movies.
we the peeps, where in my statement did I say that gay people can't use the court system. Attorneys can reject jurors for whatever reasons they want. Have you never been on a jury? I said the only reason this was news is because he was gay. I stand by that. There were numerous others who were rejected, yet this is the only one that makes the news. Hmm, makes you wonder doesn't it?
None so blind as those who will not see.
It means some people will never accept anyone's views but their own. They have made their minds up before hearing any facts about any case or any circumstances involving the case. That is the kind of jury this "judge" is looking for---the same kind of jury OJ had. Impartial and fair, at least to their own agenda they are pushing.
The Judge is an absolute disgrace. The juror was dismissed for bias. Bias is wrong even when its a bias you agree with. So sick and tired of this left wing site somehow making it ok for Progressive based bigotry.
"The judge said the prosecutors’ actions were “shocking” and she was “heartbroken,”
So dismissing a juror to win a case is "shocking" but dismissing an entire jury because you felt the jury wasn't enough like the criminal is normal?
The judge should be dismissed from the bench for bias as well.
P.S. Nowhere does it say the defendants are even gay, only that they were supporting gay marriage... the same as the gay juror had done. So the judge beleives that there needs to be jurors who believe the same things as the criminals? That will make prosecution slightly difficult don't you think?
Jeff bunch of numbers... what bias? That he had protested before? Because that is what the trial is about(protesting illegally). The prosecutor did not say whether or not the dismissed juror had participated in an illegal protest. So a person can be excluded from jury duty for exercising a constitutional right.
It's my understanding that a lawyer can challenge a certain number of prospective jurors with out cause. If they want to challenge more than that, they have to convince the judge that the prospective juror is not fit to serve on this particular jury. If the person was not allowed because the atty used one of their subjective challenges, so be it. This has been part of our American judicial system for a long time. The judge has no place questioning the dismissal.
Of course a juror can be dismissed for exercising a Constitutional right, as long as the exercise of that right showed that it was connected to the case on which they were summonsed and their actions constituted bias. If a Nazi marched through Skokie, Ill. and later was empaneled on a case involving Nazi defendants the prosecution would have done the same thing. The Judge should be booted from the bench and made to pay the price for her incompetence and obvious bias.
I know that I am going to be bashed but really don't care. I'm from the old school that it is one man and one woman. Judge should have listened to the prosecutor about the reason he was dismissing the prospective juror. He does have two challenges without reason for dismissal. Judge should have listened!!! To me it is not natural for same sex to try and marry. If it were my children, I would disown them. By the way, the #1 selling book (The Holy Bible) says one man and one woman to procreat. You can argue but you don't have a leg to stand on!!!!!!
Okie-2790128 You do know it is a work of Fiction?
Actually, archeologists are having a really pesky time supporting that, Hugh. They keep finding proof that the Bible is TRUE.
Maybe you should read some of the books by Bart D. Erhmann if you think the Bible is true. His works are devastating to the inerrancy of the Bible, but no doubt you Bible-thumpers haven't the guts to read something opposed to your beliefs. The Bible has no standing in the issue of gay marriage because our laws derive from the US Constitution not the Bible. This is an issue of equal protection in a constitution republic, not a theocracy like Iran. In a republic, certain rights do not depend on what the majority want, but are rights guarnteed to the people of that republic. Our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, period.
Judge was wrong, DA was right!
Jurors are supposed to be objective and have no bias. And as for the Black Panther argument, lets turn that around. Would we be equally as outraged if six Klansman were on trial and a jurist who was a white supremacist and had protested in support of white supremacy been booted from the jury pool?
This judge should be censured, she clearly overstepped her authority and shows she has a bias herself!
As for BSNBC, leave it to them to come up with a bias headline!
This is ridiculous jurors get dismissed all the time for different reasons. Maybe they thought that he would not be bias. Since when is it the judges job to pick the jury. Prosecutors dismiss people if they don't think they would vote their way same with defense. If one of these sides thought that this person would lean to one side or the other and not be objective it was their job to dismiss them. Just because he was gay should not matter. I'm black and if I was in the jury pool for a black defendant I wouldn't assume I am automatically in no matter what my views are.
The fact that this judge was "heartbroken" shows that she should recuse herself from this case. She is biased.
And she should be removed from the bench. It is not the judges job to select the jury.
Typical Liberalcrit BS. If you do NOT agree with EVERYTHING Gay people want then you are automatically labeled prejudice and stereotyped by them. People I should add that are up in arms at the slightest hint they are being stereotyped.
Here is a news flash, not everyone who thinks there is a reason every culture on this Planet, for the last 10,000 years, has defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a religious fanatic. Who knows maybe it is time for a change but you cannot discuss it because Liberals, like they do EVERY time someone disagrees with them, just start throwing insults and call you prejudice.
As it should be. A jury should be neutral so what is so shocking? This reporting shows the stupidity of the press. Go find some other rock to look under. How about reporting about the brave men and women fighting for the freedom you have to be stupid.
There is no good way to go about this. If you use all gay jurors, it's possible they will vote in favor of the same sex activists regardless of evidence. If you use all heterosexual jurors, it's possible they will vote against the activists also regardless of evidence. If you fish through the potential jurors to get an even split of gay and straight, in the process you would be discriminating.
Good luck.
All heterosexuals aren't anti-gay and all homosexuals aren't going to automatically let a homosexual off of the hook for a crime. People aren't made from cookie cutters. Perhaps an all bi-sexual jury would satisfy you? I don't think sexual orientation played a role in the jurors dismissal. I think the fact that he/she had protested for the same issue as the defendants did play a role. I was excused from a death penalty case because my Grandfather was murdered. I've never protested for or against the death penalty but being the close family member of a victim was enough for the defense to think I may be biased. Guess what? They were right.
Michelle
I know that. That's why I said "it's possible". I'm looking at it from a realist point of view. That is the state of things as they are. No matter what they do someone will cry foul. I'm personally pointing my finger at no-one. I've had personal friends with varying sexual preferences and so what? They never tried to change me and I never tried to change them. You missed my point completely. Or maybe you're spoiling for a fight. I don't know.
wichasha, I apologize. I didn't intend to come across so bitchy toward you. To be honest some of these comments really pissed me off and I took it out on the wrong person (you).
Forget it Michelle. I've been there. I sincerely hope you have a good day from here out.
Joe
Anybody know if this judge's bias was because she herself was a lesbian?
A more apt adverb than 'shocking' might be: ravaging.
Actually "commonplace"(and rightfully so) most acurately describes the reality of what the prosecution did.
Remember this when they don't release a N a z i from a white power trial; due to this judge's decision.