I watched a Jon Stewart clip about the gay marriage ban being lifted in California. It had the message that the people who thought the judge was biased, because the judge was gay, were bigoted. The problem is that I am one of those people.
It just seems obvious to me that the judge is biased because of his sexual orientation, just the same way that I would have considered a black man on the court in 1850 deciding to abolish slavery biased.
But I am a big proponent of gay marriage (as well as being firmly against slavery), and I really don’t want Jon Stewart to think I am a bigot. So please explain his reasoning to me.
Ps. I found it funny that while writing this I realized I am actually wearing a “gay rights” t-shirt right now. Either it’s a funny coincidence or it’s what made me think of this, since it was a while back I saw the clip.
If you believe that the judge necessarily perverted his application of the law in ruling the case, due to the fact that gay people can’t possibly resist the temptation to distort american laws to their own selfish benefit, that would seem pretty bigoted to me.
When you say that you think the judge is biased, what do you mean? Do you think he had a preferred outcome and distorted his judgement of the law to favor it, or do you think he had a preferred outcome but nonetheless ruled fairly?
(If you thought he had a preferred outcome and ruled fairly because ruling fairly is the best way to permanently forward the gay cause…I’m not sure if you’re a bigot or not. But if you are, then I am too.)
Judges as human beings have their bias. We still need judges.
Thinking he was biased on one level is just recognizing his humanity
If you think his ruling doesn’t really count because of it that’s another thing.
Every judge is constrained by an oath to try and rule according to law not personal preference but their preference has to have some affect, as well as other elements. It’s being human. If his ruling makes sense and seems reasonable his sexual orientation matter at all.
If people are trying to get his ruling thrown out based solely on his orientation , without finding any glaring flaw in his ruling, then they are bigots.
No… that would obviously be bigotet, and kind of a weird position to have.
I guess when I say biased I mean that I think it is obvious that there would be a perception of bias, which could be enough reason for recusal. But also that it seems reasonable to me that he, being gay, would have a personal interest in advancing gay rights. Just as I, being a balding guy, would consider other balding guys to be biased sitting on an application approving committee handling a an application for more funding for anti-balding creams.
Yeah, I guess that might be what I am saying.
Usually the SDMB is a better source of guidance than an 8 ball but I guess if we don’t get answers any other way…
So, ok - new rule: Only straight judges can make rulings concerning gay marriage and only gay judges can make rulings concerning hetero marriage. That’ll be awesome, right?
So if a straight judge ruled that gay marriage was constitutional/unconstitutional, would that straight judge be biased? After all, he’s straight, and so has a vested interest in the outcome.
And you seem to think that a black guy can’t possibly rule fairly on racial questions, because he’s black, and since black is a race, he’s biased. But you know, white is a race too. Can white people judge racial questions fairly? Can either men or women judge gender issues fairly? Would you want a female judge in your divorce hearing? Or a male judge? They’d obviously be biased either against or for men or women, because they’re either a man or a woman.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any neuter judges who can decide gender cases, and even if we did, don’t you think being neuter would in itself be a bias? After all, what does a neuter person know about the ways of a man and maid?
Every human being has biases. What matters for a judge is whether those biases are so strong that they are unable to rule on an issue fairly. If black people can’t rule fairly on race issues, how can white people? If gay people can’t rule fairly on gay issues, how can straight people?
I don’t think you can mix individuals and groups like that. This is a law granting rights to a minority, is it completely wrong to think that a member of the minority being granted the right is biased?
If I was a judge and I would decide on a law granting bald men a massive wage increase as compensation for their lack of hair, wouldn’t I (being bald) be considered biased judging on that?
To say he is biased implies that his personal feelings on the matter influenced his ruling. We have no way of knowing how he would have ruled if he weren’t gay, so that question is probably unanswerable. But given that he is in fact a professional judge, and presumably competent, it seems fair that the default assumption should be that he is indeed capable of keeping his personal feelings separate from his rulings. It is what they do, after all. Unless we have some kind of evidence to the contrary.
The bigotry comes into play if you believe the only reason he decided the way he did is because he was gay, i.e. it’s impossible otherwise because fags are evil.
Of course it’s okay to assume some bias. The question is any bias a reason to recuse the judge. If any bias at all is the reason then no judge can ever judge anything. Why can’t we assume some bias from any straight judge as well?
The bias has to be very apparent and clearly seen in the ruling. If not then it’s a non issue.
and that would be the kind of very apparent bias I was just talking about.
Judges might be more conservative or liberal, harsher on juveniles, or other races, but unless their bias is very apparent in their rulings theirs no complaint. We can’t possibly expect human judges to not be completely free of bias can we?
So a minority judge can only be considered unbiased if he rules against the minority he’s a member of? Does the same thing apply to majority judges–that they can only be considered unbiased if they rule against the majority group? Or can majority members rule either way without being biased?
If a white judge rules that black people shouldn’t be discriminated against, I guess you’d believe that the white judge isn’t biased. But what if a white judge rules that it’s OK to discriminate against blacks?
See, it’s pretty clear that if a judge rules against the interests of whatever characteristic he has, that he wasn’t acting out of bias. But if he rules in favor of the interests of his group, then he could be biased.
But the problem is, we don’t know which way the judge will decide until after the decision. A gay judge could rule against gay marriage, and prove themselves unbiased, or they could vote for gay marriage, and leave the appearance of bias. But what about the case of a straight judge? A straight judge could rule in favor of gay marriage, and that would be proof of impartiality. But what if the straight judge rules against gay marriage?
See, what you’ve done is create a trap whereby no judge is qualified to rule on any issue, unless we know in advance that they’ll rule against their personal interest. Gay judges siding with gays, black judges siding with blacks, women siding with women. All questionable. But straights siding with straights, whites siding with whites, men siding with men, isn’t that just as questionable?
Or to put it another way, suppose you’re the guy in charge of assigning judges to cases. And one of your jobs to avoid bias. So what sort of judge do you assign in this particular case of a gay marriage case? How would assigning a straight judge to the case insulate you from the appearance of bias? What if the straight judge rules against gay marriage? Why wouldn’t that create the appearance of bias?
More to the point - he laid out the legal reasons for his decision in Full Metal Laywerese. He didn’t just say “Gay Marriage FTW, lulz!” He made a complete and proper argument for his decision. (Proper as in legally complete & competent.) People claiming that he made the decision because of his assumed bias can’t just ignore all his stated reasons, as much as they’d like to. Even if he were biased - it wouldn’t automatically mean that his actual argument is incorrect.
Lemur - clearly, we need more transsexual judges for deciding custody between a man and a woman. Opposite judges are fine if we’re deciding custody between gay couples. Opposite judges of a neutral third party race, of course, but only if they support the opposing political party on the political color wheel and follow a suitably unrelated religion.
But if you are, then I am too.)