Ironically, when this judge was nominated by Reagan and then GHW Bush, he was opposed by the gay community because they thought he would be anti-gay.
Should Thurgood Marshall have recused himself from civil rights cases?
The problem here is the phrase, ‘the judge is biased’. I’m sure he is. I doubt there is anyone who is not biased. The question is whether his decision was affected by his bias.
Are you a bigot of some kind? Well you don’t seem to have felt that a judge with a different sexual orientation would have been biased in that case. Or that the ‘white’ judges who didn’t abolish slavery in 1850 were biased. So you follow a common pattern, if you have to ask…
However, the fact that you did ask, says something as well. Most bigots would never even consider the question.
What if a black judge decided not to abolish slavery? What is he then?
Probably Clarence Thomas.
So for those of you saying he is biased, why? Because of how he voted? By that rationale, the only way he might not be biased is if he was voting against gay marriage? I don’t think we can know he was biased unless we know why he was voting as he did.
Who isn’t biased? It’s the decision that matters.
We’re saying he was biased because all human beings are bias to some degree. Assuming he’s human he qualifies.
Had he come out yet? I hear a lot of folks in the Bush admin are/were closet gays.
Well, since you’ve been so swell as to support our getting married, maybe you can take that next step and presume that the lawyers and judges among our number are actually capable of performing the job we’ve been trained to do.
This reminds me of the time I got into a yell-at-the-top-of-my-lungs argument with my father. We were talking about talkativeness in males and females, and he took the common stance that women talk more than men. I said there was research out that demonstrating otherwise. I googled and presented him with a cite. It took him two seconds to disregard the whole thing as “biased” because the scientist who did the study, it turns out, was a woman.
A “woman scientist” can’t be objective, you see. He would have believed a male scientist, but not a woman.
And as a woman scientist, I was appalled.
Yes, he was already out. He was opposed by the gay community because as a trial attorney he represented the US Olympic Committee in suit against the organizers of the “Gay Olympics”.
That’s just more evidence of your feminine bias. 
The reason the bias even comes up is that legal ruling do actually have a degree of latitude. Different judges seeing the same laws will have different interpretations.
There’s a reason the Supreme Court doesn’t have just one judge decide anything, and why criminals have the right to a trial by their peers. We want to cancel out that bias that’s inherent in a legal system that requires interpretation.
Do I think the judge should have been recused? I don’t know. But I don’t think merely looking at his ruling can tell us anything. It’s easy to come up with seemingly unbiased reasons for reaching a forgone conclusion.
Ultimately, I don’t think it matters much, as it would have taken further up the judicial chain either way, so I do admit I don’t understand anyone caring. There’s no good way to know that a judge is actually ruling impartially, especially not from a single ruling. And yet that hasn’t stopped the judicial system from working.
Every judge has a vested interest in the outcome of a ruling he makes. If he locks up a murderer, he’s safer; if it’s a child molester, then his children are safer. If he upholds a defendant’s 4th amendment rights, he’s protecting his own.
A vested interest in the case’s outcome is not, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate bias, even if the interest is fairly obvious–and even then, obvious may be misleading. Walker might not care about gay marriage because he’s too old to marry in his own mind; he might be philosophically opposed to gay marriage, as some gay people are. Maybe he’s just not the marrying kind or is too busy to date.
It’s unfair to say he’s biased because he’s gay. Whether or not he’s gay is not the issue, the issue is whether or not he used his homosexuality to influence his decsion.
OK look at the ruling. Was this based on sound facts? If so then it wasn’t a biased decision. Ask yourself this, would a heterosexual come to the same conclusion. Or could one come to that conclusion. If so there was no bias.
In the law there are always two sides, this is why the Supreme Court votes. It’s rarely unanimous.
We’re all a bit biased in some things and and I’d like to think that we can set aside that bias but not everyone can. If the judge felt he couldn’t he has an ethical obligation to remove himself from the case.
“Jurisprudence fetishist gets off on technicality” – the Onion
It’s said the law must not just avoid evil, but also the appearance of evil.
Where it could be reasoanbly said that a judge has a vested interest in the outcome of a case they should not sit on that cased.
Even if they’re capable of giving an unbiased judgement or even if they don’t actually have a vested interest and only the appearance of one they should still not sit on the case. The reason for this is that it can undermine confidence in the law.
I understand in the politicized US legal system though such a situation is all too common. In the UK where the judicary are meant to be independent of politics generally speaking a judge will disqualify themselves when such a situation arises. If the connection is only very tangential they will usually ask both parties if they are happy for them to try the case.
That’s true in the US too.
But, again, would you ask a black judge to recuse himself if a civil rights case comes before him? Would you ask a female judge to recuse herself if an equal pay case came before her? And why is it that only the minority is expected to do so? I’d say that a white judge may have a vested interest in a civil rights case, or a male judge in an equal pay case, also. Where do you draw the line?
Why?
It’s a classic argument against Prop 8: gay marriages won’t affect straight marriages one bit. The opposite claim, that gay marriage will somehow diminsh “traditioonal” marriage, is roundly mocked.
So why would a straight judge be biased?