KnightofNi

Here's an interest article found on CNN.com, according to the report, Senator Sam Browback of Kansas wishes to question a federal judge in front of the senate on her impartiality of Gay and Civil Unions only because she attended a lesbian civil union. What the hell type of double standard is that, the senate is log jammed with federal nominations due to this and this senator will only allow her to go through if she recuses herself from all civil union cases.

This article comes down to this sentence, so by this standard, as a senator I should drag all federal judges onto the senate floor in order to question them about their impartiality only because they attended a traditional wedding.

Man, I feel sorry for kansas to have this idiot.

Senator questions judge's role in lesbian wedding - CNN.com

__________________

Clan orders: Wear the signature of defeat with pride.

nocturnal_heart

*sigh* this isn't right. Well, hopefully the rest of congress thinks differently, because it doesn't make any sense. Or we could just say that anyone who's attended heterosexual unions are biased as well.

__________________
Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears.
~Edgar Allan Poe

Arrianna

Well I can see both sides of things there. I can see why it could be considered comprimising but simply attending a wedding does not necessarily show partiality. Now if she had presided or sponsered the wedding then it would. As is he seems to be overreacting.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

nocturnal_heart

why is it that sponsoring a homosexual wedding shows partiality, but sponsoring a heterosexual wedding does not?

__________________
Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears.
~Edgar Allan Poe

Arrianna

Because it is not heterosexual marriages that are on "trial" currently. A judge is not supposed to have partiality over a case he or she presides over. Making flamming statements against homosexual marriages or civil unions would require the same reclusion.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

gren

The article states that Brownback is an opponent of gay marriage. I'd like to know what he bases his opposition on. If it's religion, then he has no right to call Neff's partiality into question, since the separation of church and state was outlined a very long time ago.

__________________

Gren's Music

Arrianna

False. The seperation of church and state only means that the state cannot make laws concerning religion. In fact the Constitution forbids "litmas tests" of political position based on religious beliefs or lack thereof. So even if his opposition is based on religion he still has every right to it. You or anyone else, on the other hand, have no right to question his religion as pertaining to his duties.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

gren

Cleary, I misunderstood the concept of church/state separation, but I didn't say he doesn't have a right to his opinion, religious or not. My concern is that he calls her biased due to having merely attended a same sex union ceremony. As was stated earlier, doesn't that make him biased if he ever attended a traditional marriage ceremony? In that light, I still ask what right he has to call her partiality into question.

__________________

Gren's Music

Arrianna

Because it doesnt work that way. Attending a heterosexual wedding does not make a statement about homosexual weddings and visa versa. Only statements on homosexual marriages, for or against, are pertainant. Its a good emotional blurb to say that it does but in the end that is all it is. An emotional reaction that has no corelation to the actual issue.

As for his right, reviewing appointments is part of his job as Senator. (So he has the right to overreact. )

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

gren

Exactly my point. Her attendance at the homosexual ceremony doesn't mean that she is for or against gay marriage. She even states that the union "had no legal effect"; in essence it wasn't a marriage but a sort of commitment ceremony, so Brownbeck's logic that she may be partial to gay marriage is a bit flawed. He may be doing his job, but Neff was already approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It seems to me that Brownbeck is more interested in building a judicial system that follows his beliefs than the partiality of one judge.

__________________

Gren's Music