Friday, May 6, 2011

What if he was a polygamous judge?

Do I have the same right that "gay activists" do when it comes to word-replacement-arguments?

What if Judge Walker believed in polygamy, was in a long term sexual relationship with multiple women, was about to retire, and worked in Salt Lake City, Utah?

If, under the above mentioned conditions, he then threw out a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman... how would his actions be seen? Wouldn't the personal gain of his decision be an obvious disqualifier?

“It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” the group’s attorneys said in their motion, which was submitted to the district court. “Rather, our submission is grounded in the fundamental principle, reiterated in the governing statute, that no judge ‘is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.’ ”

My supporting evidence is here.


  1. The Voice of ReasonMay 6, 2011 at 4:12 PM

    I don't even understand your point. Are you saying a polygamist judge is unable to be impartial in a trial about gay marriage? This is a useless excercise anyways. Given the Mormon Churches official opposition on polygamy and their significant influence within the community, a polygamist would never be elected or appointed to judicial possition in the 1st place. Your hypothetical senario here is not reasonable.

    Answer a few questions for me though: Have you actually read the transcripts and/or ruling for prop 8 trial? If you did, can you HONESTLY say that the defense presented a case that was sufficient for a ruling other than how Judge Walker ruled? Again, HONESTLY?

  2. How can you not understand,"...was in a long term relationship with multiple women..." I thought I clearly showed how a polygamous Judge, with something to GAIN BY HIS OWN RULING, should recuse himself from a case where he could gain by his own ruling. I simply swapped out same-sex marriage for polygamy, and put the Judge in the center of an area where polygamy would be more popular than mostly all other cities in the United States. Don't polygamous sects break away from the Mormons and set camp in/near Salt Lake City? Can't you see the parallels between polygamy in Salt Lake City and same-sex "marriage" in San Francisco?

    Have YOU read the transcripts? I'm just using the common-sense observation that Judge Walker stood to gain personally from his ruling since he was in a 10-year sexual relationship with another man, AND near retirement, AND in the gay Mecca of the World; San Francisco.

  3. The Voice of ReasonMay 6, 2011 at 6:37 PM

    I do my research, and I have read the transcripts and the decision. Despite any misgivings you might have about the impartiality of this particular judge, It is safe to say that even you could not have ruled otherwise presented with the same evidence (provided you took your judicial oath seriously). It would benifit you to read it, at least he judge's opinion.

    My confusion regarding you polygamy issue is the result of your phrasing of the question. In regards why I don't see the parallels between laws baning polygamy and same sex marriage is likely the same reason I suspect that you don't see parallels between laws prohibiting mixed race marriage and same sex marriage.

  4. I have an answer to your questions, but first...
    I feel a grave disturbance in the Force. Are you Rob Tish?

  5. The Voice of ReasonMay 7, 2011 at 1:45 AM

    I don't know who that is.

  6. Then I'll ask... Do you support how some, if not most, of the glbt community, wish to bypass parental consent and tell schoolchildren that the glbt lifestyle is normal? I reiterate, WITHOUT parental consent.

    I'm not talking about anti-bullying classes where gay people are merely mentioned. I'm talking about classes where kids are told that their parents are bigots or intolerant for believing that the glbt lifestyle is sinful. This is one of the prime goals of the gay community. Do you support the glbt community in this effort?

  7. The Voice of ReasonMay 7, 2011 at 12:12 PM

    Your post was about Judge Walker. Why are you changing the topic?

    But, for what it's worth, it would be inappropriate for any teacher to tell a student that their parents are bigots. Is this what you think is actually happening? That there are actual classes that instruct minors that their parents are bigots? Do you actually think that most of the LBGT community thinks it is okay for a teacher to stand in front of a class call the students' parents bigots? I don't know a single person (gay or straight) who thinks that would be appropriate. Where exactly is this happening? It hasn't made the news. You'd think it would be a big story.

  8. I will be happy to answer your questions if you'll humor me one more time. There is some wiggle room in, "I don't know who that is." I'm asking you to deny that you are Rob Tisinai. A clear denial. Then, I will answer your questions in detail.

  9. The Voice of ReasonMay 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM

    I am not, have never been, and have never heard of Rob Tisinai. But why belive me?

  10. Well. If you're not telling the truth, I can use this post in the future. But, since you have answered my question directly, give me some time to but together a detailed response to your post.

  11. @VoR

    Comparing interracial marriage to same-sex marriage is wrong because it is not from God. Interracial marriage is not forbidden by the Word of God; this is revealed in Numbers 12:1-8 when the brother and sister of Moses took exception to him marrying a Cushite (African) woman and God backed Moses.
    A person’s skin color and gender are immutable, morally benign qualities. A person’s sexuality however is NOT immutable and is NOT morally benign; a person who desires sex with a child or sibling or a parent has a perverted and immoral sexuality. A person who desires sex with a person of their same gender is also morally wrong.
    When Judge Walker said...
    “...a child does not need and has no right to a mother.”
    “...Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father.”
    I know then that Judge Walker was crazy. And when you add that to the fact that he stood to gain PERSONALLY from his ruling, he should have recused himself.

  12. The Voice of ReasonMay 8, 2011 at 5:11 PM

    "I know then that Judge Walker was crazy" & " he should have recused himself" - I'm assuming that by "crazy" you don't mean mentally ill, that would require a diagnosis. Not sure what you do for a living, but I suspect you are not a psychiatrist....and if you are, i doubt that you can reasonably diagnose a mental illness from the article you linked in your post. I understand that you feel he should have recused himself. What, however, does any of this have to do with the defense's failure in this particular trial? This was the point of my post. That the defence's position was so lacking in merrit that any judge, presented the same evidence, could not reasonable have ruled otherwise. That is why I suggested that you read the transcripts as well as the verdict.

    "a person who desires sex with a child or sibling or a parent has a perverted and immoral sexuality" - Didn't Lot's daughters have sex with him? Didn't Abraham marry his sister? Must be fine if its in the bible, right? Back to your polygamy example, polygamy is in the bible too. So we should be clear here, biblically, incest and polygamy is ok but gay sex is not?

    "A person who desires sex with a person of their same gender is also morally wrong." - Says who, you? Who appointed you the moral athority for everyone? Granted there are biblical interpretaions of the bible that describe homosexual acts as an abomination. So, what about all of the people that don't belive in the bible (athiests, agnostics, diests, Budhists, Hindus, etc...)? What about the people who belive the translations of the bible are incorrect and that it doesn't actually condemn homosexuality? What about the people who think that the bible should not be taken as litteral but examined under a historical context? These people don't have legitimate and reasonable opinions or beliefs? They have to obey you? Seems a bit absurd doesn't it?

  13. Just as I don’t have to be a meteorologist to accurately say that it’s raining,I don’t have to be a psychiatrist to accurately call someone crazy. If I see man eating feces, that man is (at least temporarily) crazy.

    Whatever you read in the transcripts doesn’t change the fact that Judge Walker stood to gain personally from his own decision. That fact alone should have made him recuse himself.

    The Bible tells the truth about what Lot’s daughters did. It never condones their behavior. Abraham lied when he said that his wife was his sister to the ruling King, he was never actually married to his sister. Also, polygamy was never condoned in the Bible. The Old Testament simply reveals that powerful men of that era tampered with the definition of marriage out of their own desires and peer pressure of that age, and they all suffered the adverse consequences of rebelling against the laws of God.

    I’m not the one who says that wanting sex with one’s child/sibling/parent is morally wrong. God is. I’m just one of his servants. Those who reject the laws of the Word of God, will find out for themselves the penalty of their actions when they stand before Jesus Christ after they die, people are under no obligation to “obey me.”

    Once a person has heard about Jesus Christ, they will be held accountable by Him, for their actions from that point on, after they die. Refusing to accept the reality of Hell doesn’t save a person from its torture.

    The Holy Spirit of God transforms the heart and mind of a person when they receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Very many unsaved people don’t know some very important details about the Holy Spirit of God.
    It’s like in the movie Matrix. Becoming a servant of Jesus Christ is like taking the red pill. Some take the blue pill and think they know what’s really going on, and some take the red pill and discover a higher level of life-changing knowledge.

  14. The Voice of ReasonMay 9, 2011 at 10:32 AM

    "And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She [is] my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah"...."Now therefore restore the man [his] wife; for he [is] a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore [her] not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that [are] thine"..."And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God [is] not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake."...."And yet indeed [she is] my sister; she [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." :Genesis Chaper 20:1

    Says in the Bible that Lot did tell the king that his wife was his sister, but also notes that this was not exactly a lie, he just ommited the fact that she was his wife as well.

    "The Old Testament simply reveals that powerful men of that era tampered with the definition of marriage out of their own desires and peer pressure of that age" "and they all suffered the adverse consequences of rebelling against the laws of God" - But polygamy was not why they had suffered.

    "I’m not the one who says that wanting sex with one’s child/sibling/parent is morally wrong. God is" - It would seem that God doesn't. He didn't condemn Lot's daughts for getting pregnant from their father and he did not condemn Abraham for marring his sister.

    I didn't come here for a debate on the Bible. I am far from an expert on the subject. The point is that there are numerous interpretations of the bible, and there will always be. This is why there are 3 different Abrahamic religions and thousands of denominatins within each (estimates are as high as 38,000 for Christians alone). It just seems absurd to me that many feel the law of the land should be based upon biblical law, when it clear that there is no concensus on the Bible, and that not every one belives in the Bible, Jesus or even God.

    The pupose for my posting was to find out if you had read any of the transcripts or any of the judges rulling. I am well aware that you feel the judge should have recused himself. I just wanted you to be aware that there actually was no legitimate defense and that given the evidence that was presented, no other judge would have ruled otherwise.

    "I don’t have to be a psychiatrist to accurately call someone crazy" - Actually you kind of do, especially if you trying to be a credible witness. Please read the transcripts and/or judges ruling.

  15. I didn’t know that Abraham was married to his Father’s daughter. This is specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17.

    God condemns sex with blood relatives;

    There are not “thousands” of denominations of Christians. There are not even dozens of denominations of true servants of Christ. Not even Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses are true Christians. There are a lot of sophisticated fakes out there.

    Those who don’t follow God’s laws and those that do voted on prop 8.

    The people of California voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The Judge that threw out those votes stood to gain personally from his own ruling. Those two facts are indisputable.

  16. The Voice of ReasonMay 10, 2011 at 9:32 AM

    "The Judge that threw out those votes stood to gain personally from his own ruling. Those two facts are indisputable." The judge didn't throw out any votes, he made a ruling, which is what judges do. I understand that you feel he should have recused himself, I just wanted to point out that the defense actually did not present a defense, and that really, it would not have mattered who the judge was (which is why I recommended you reading the transcripts/verdict). As far as who is a true Christian, I am unqualified to judge. I will, however, say with confidence that those you describe as not being true Christians have a differing opinion on the matter.

    Interesting about the Abraham thing though. I have read somewhere that the folks back then believed that the blood lines carried though the mother, not the father so Sarah was classified as actually not a real "sister", or something along those lines (don't quote me on that). Again, I am not a biblical scholar by any strech of the imagination. It is easy to imagine, though, given the limited technology/level of scientific discoveries of the time that they would have gotten some things wrong (flat earth, sun orbiting around the earth and all that).

  17. I have a question concerning the law that you may have the answer to. Do you know whether or not a marriage must still be consummated to be legal?

  18. The Voice of ReasonMay 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

    Just as I am not a biblical scholar, I am neither a legal scholar. I wouldn't think so, as an impotent man (I am assuming) can still legally be wed. I've got a pal that is a divorce lawyer, I see what I can find out.

  19. the Voice of ReasonMay 11, 2011 at 8:50 AM

    My friend said that there is a requirement that it be solemenized (presiding over a ceremony) but he said conummation was really an annulment issue.


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.