A federal judge who ruled against a ban on same-sex marriage in California and later revealed that he is gay showed no evidence he was prejudiced in the case, according to a ruling Tuesday.
U.S. District Court Judge James Ware upheld former colleague's Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on California's Proposition 8. Questions had been raised about Walker's ability to impartially decide the controversial question of same-sex marriage.
"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," ruled Ware, based in San Francisco.
Ware backed the original ruling by Walker that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in the state was unconstitutional. The new order keeps the issue on track to an expected Supreme Court challenge, perhaps by next year.
FULL STORY
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
I am confused by all this. And I am a lawyer.
@ Shadow Man:
You do know that what Rosa Parks did on that bus was against the will of the people, don't you?
@ Shadow Man:
I had not read you post completely when I snapped back about "THE WILL OF THE" f "PEOPLE."
I apologize.
I'm sick of hearing churches' determining the will of the people.
I don't mind gay people.
Bush being handed the Presidency by his brother is NOT the same, being the will of the people was clearly Al Gore via the popular vote.
My wife and I were married in California in July 2008, during the brief period when it was legal. IIt's been a roller coaster ever since. I just want to stop waking up, finding out there's a new court ruling and having to read through 150 pages of legal crap to find out if I'm still married. I just want to be able to quitclaim the house back to ourselves as a married couple. I just want to file joint tax returns. I just want to know that if anything happens to me, she'll get the house and the car and my life insurance without having to go to probate court. That's it. That's all. Can somebody on the Supreme Court please get back to me about all that?