SF Questions Judge's Impartiality In Gay Marriage Case

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122804sfMarry.htm

A lawyer for the City of San Francisco has sounded an alarm that a decision by the judge in the suit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage could impair its ability to appeal.

Legal arguments in the case wrapped up last Thursday, (story) but San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer has asked to see additional written arguments by January 14th. But, Kramer has told the city it cannot include arguments countering the assertions made by conservative groups opposing same-sex marriage that gays can be cured and that children are better off with opposite-sex parents.

Among the documents submitted by the Alliance Defense Fund are statements by Princeton University psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover that gays misled the American Psychiatric Association into removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. Satinover regularly promotes so-called reparative or aversion therapy' for gays.

I'll bet he could also change heteros into gays just as easy or peaceful people into war mongers or change people's favorite colors or what ever.

If you change the paradigm that people see the world through you can change a lot about them.

people will make a fake change.

Reparative therapy is the most destructive thing this retired social worker has seen in years. Those pushing it - it is amazing that they sleep at night. If there is a Hell, they will rot in it.

(Not.) While it's nowhere as core to a person's privacy, I'm reminded of the tail-end of the era of forcing left-handed kids to write with their right hands. The notion of the 'sinister' hand eventually became gauche - but the toll on the victims long-lasting.

'same-sex couples "can't perform the basic functions of marriage."' Hmm, so same-sex couples can't fight and get divorces?

he's leaving it wide open.

that's the problem with knee-jerk stupidity; they're so eager to make a statement by abusing their position of authority they have no thought of the consequences.

"Kramer told the city that he would not accept counter testimony, saying that he will base his ruling on legal arguments, not factual disputes."

(1) He doesn't want to be confused by the facts. And (2) legal arguments have nothing to do with the factual.

... rule on matters of fact, accepting contesting testimony for all such matters. (If a matter of fact is uncontested, it's supposed to be accepted. Refusing to permit a contest seems extremely unjudicial.) It's my impression that courts of appeal are prohibited from overturning on the basis of FACT and, when the facts are put into disrepute, must remand for retrial, No? Is this judge a moron or am I just too unsophisticated? It seems basic.

maybe he just doesn't want to deal with it

FYI--the guy was appointed by Pete Wilson

he's a Repuke

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

It ws probably spelled 'Satanlover' not too long ago. :evilgrin: