Showing subjective bias against one side in a trial is a transgression of the judiciary role. In this instance, Judge Walker was grandstanding probably out of his own desire for attention; but it prepped the courtroom for unfair treatment.

Even people in favor of SSM, and hoping for a good result for the anti-8 side, have criticized the rule breaking (talk about due process!) and bias (talk about equal protection!) and agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning. Maybe you'd accuse those SSMers of hiding something, too.

* * *

Jonathan, unsurprisingly, your comments are still confused -- by your own choice.

* * *

The "gotchya" was in reference to your comment @ January 15, 2010 at 9:44 am.

I'll leave you the last word, if you'd not abuse it.

That is incorrect, it can be both.. Gotcha!

re: solemnization.. Can be a civil function (the act of performing the ceremony) but can also be a religious function:
"Mormon Marriages can be solemized in the Salt Lake LDS Temple."

Seems that it, along with marriage, is optional and not fundamental, according to Olson and his fellow SSMers.

The wedding ceremony has an solemnizer. This is a civil role, not a religious role. The basic duty is to be present when the couple give themselves as husband and wife.

California's statutory code (Section 400-402):

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=50995015398+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

In addition to "authorized person of a religious denonmination", about thirteen other kinds of functionaries are listed who may solemnize a marriage.

You mistakenly split the required solemnization from the "getting" the union okayed by the state. One and the same thing.

Maybe you meant "blessing" after the fact of solemnization.

Chairm wrote: "Did you all notice — Ted Olsen said that if The State gets out of the marriage business, then the problem would be solved constituaionally? So if government can possibly get out of the marriage business. How is marriage a fundamental right?"

* * *
My take here...
Religions would perform marriages, and the state would only perform civil unions. Marriages would no longer fall under equal application of law and due process. Civil unions would become a fundamental right. Homosexual and heterosexual couples would get their civil unions from the state and could get married in a church that
solemnized them.

A.W. saud [January 13, 2010 at 6:32 pm]:

Here’s my question… doesn’t this set up both sides to disqualify judge walker, now. the court pretty much said, that the process was slanted toward broadcasting it. is it fair to wonder how else the process might have been slanted. and further by blocking this overreach, might the judge be now in danger of retaliatory bias? i mean maybe this judge hoped to be famous and these darn defendants screwed that up? So shouldn’t they disqualify him now?

* * *

All good questions.

SSMers are invited to try to answer. If you remain silent on this question, then, you concede very much indeed.

Adam said [January 13, 2010 at 6:38 pm]:

Did you all notice -- Ted Olsen said that if The State gets out of the marriage business, then the problem would be solved constituaionally? So if government can possibly get out of the marriage business. How is marriage a fundamental right?

* * *

Cue the crickets.

You said: "You’re working to outlaw marriage between two men or two women. It’s quite possible to do the first without doing the second."

First of all, whatever you'd call SSM is not marriage but neither is it outlawed.

Not like, say, polygamy which is a felony. Not like underaged marriage, also criminalized. Not like incestuous marriage, certainly void but also subject to criminal charges.

As SSMers have described it, the one-sexed arrangement they favor is left alone as another subset of nonmarriage. Indeed, it has been accomodated with its own special treatment in the form of Domestic Partnership status. I doubt that such a status can be justified based only on homosexuality, or gay identity, or whatever else SSMers keep on about, however, it goes to show that this "SSM" thing is not outlawed.

"A meeting turned into a shouting match with shouting on both sides. That’s all."

Of course, Marjorie did not shout. She did not intimidate quietly, either. The crowd's behavior was intimidating and you can try to paint lipstick on that pig all you want. It only goes to reinforce the point I made in connecting that scene with the strategy of the anti-8 litigators.