Again, because he’s human and humans are.
Yes. This.
And really, can I make it any more clear? I do not think he made the “wrong” decision. Just because I asked this question doesn’t mean I am a closet homophobe. I’m a freaking activist for gay rights and human rights ffs. If you spend your time making flyers about gay rights, supporting events for gay rights, donate money to the gay right movements and actively try to push through policy advancing human rights, you’re probably not a gay basher. I’m just trying to wrap my head around how someone who is part of a minority can not reasonably be assumed to be biased when it comes to granting that minority rights. And no, I would not consider a straight judge to be biased just because he’s straight, since straight people as a group are not affected by this (although some retarded ones may think they are, but hey, fuck them).
To me, it sounds like essentially you’re looking at your fellow humans and assuming them to be like you. If you were in a position to choose something that impacted people like yourself, you would have a tendency to slant your answer in favor.
Not everyone is like that (though a high percentage probably is to at least some extent).
It’s also worth noting that the judge may have no personal interest in ever getting married or may even have been predisposed against gay marriage. There are such homosexual people.
So bias is based on the effect (imagined or otherwise) on people like the person in question? I had foolishly believed bias was based on an individuals inability to be objective. Well, live an learn.
You seem to be saying that IYO he can’t help but be far to biased simply because he’s a member of the minority involved, and, because of that inevitable bias he should recuse himself from the case, or the judgment he rendered should be thrown out.
Admittedly I don’t know exactly how our judiciary works in that regard but IMO it’s been explained to you several times. I think you’d need quite a bit more to establish unacceptable bias. I think the assumption of unacceptable bias based on his sexual orientation is over the line.
I think it’s worth mentioning that attorneys for the state could have filed an affidavit and motion alleging bias on the part of Judge Walker under U.S.C. 28 § 144 and had a hearing in front of a separate judge regarding Judge Walker’s impartiality, and to my knowledge no such affidavit and motion was filed (possibly because the defendants didn’t want to answer questions from the bench like “should black judges then recuse themselves from civil rights cases? Should Republican judges recuse themsleves from cases involving the Republican party?”). If Judge Walker didn’t believe his sexual orientation justified recusal and there was no such allegation from either party, where’s the controversy?
Look, there’s no need to be snarky. English isn’t my first language. I’m not saying he’s unable to deliver a fair verdict because of his gayness overpowering his intellect, if that is what biased means.
I am saying that it is likely that there will be a perception that he is unfit by those opposed to gay rights.
I am also saying that from my view there’s a reasonable case to be made that he has a preferred outcome, ie: he’s not a neutral part since he is affected by the decision.
The point is we can’t expect judges to be completely neutral. They interpret the letter of the law through their personal lens of opinion and preference.
If you claim that he is to biased with no evidence at all, just based on his sexual orientation , you set a dangerous precedent. Courts and law have a lot to do with precedent.
Then anyone could be questioned for a host of reasons. I believe you have to have much stronger evidence of the man’s bias actually influencing his ruling to throw it out, or to force him to recuse himself.
I’m just naturally snarky, so don’t take it personally. How do you know he is affected? That’s where the problem lies. You are assuming he has the interests of someone else without any evidence of that. Why would a heterosexual judge be unaffected? He might be one of the Palins who think his marriage is dimished because, well I don’t know why, but some people think that. And it still doesn’t matter, because I am sure he and every other judge is biased. The question is why you think a judge who calls himself homosexual (if indeed he does) is any less objective than one who calls themself heterosexual. How do you know he doesn’t share my belief that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, but he has ruled based on an objective interpretation of the law anyway?
Should all Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republican presidents have recused themselves from the 2000 case about the election results in Florida?
That assertion is utter bullshit. Moreover it is so breathtakingly stupid that is is hardly worth refuting. But I will anyway, if only so that I can rein in the impulse to insult you personally rather than the comment. Acting in one’s person self-interest need not be indicative of bias, because one’s self-interest can coincide with what is morally and ethically correct.
I think something pretty telling in this case is the defending council new he was gay at the start of the trial. It was discussed briefly and they felt no need to ask he recuse himself. So the party most interested in preventing gay marriage for the state didn’t think he had sufficient bias to effect the outcome of the case. Nor have I heard any of the defense team accusing him of bias. The people claiming bias now are just morons who are upset he didn’t find against the plaintiffs.
Not true. I would think that a straight judge would be UNBIASED and would be able to make the ruling based strictly on the legality of the matter. They are unbiased because the decision doesn’t affect them one way or another (theoretically). They gay judge stands to benefit from the results of the ruling.
Now this is all ideal, so it doesn’t account for peoples religion or prejudices which they all have. Strictly sexuality.
I think you are failing to look at the specifics of the case. The defense was that allowing gay marriage would be harmful to straight marriage. How would a straight judge be any less bias? If they based their decision on the fact of the case they would need to conclude that indeed gay marriage does harm them in order to side with the defense. So would a straight judge be accused of the same bias should they have found in favor of the defense.
Either a straight or gay judge in my opinion could have weighed the same facts and came to the same conclusion. The mere evidence of possessing a sexuality is not proof of bias.
We did not have the luxury of an asexual judge to hear the case maybe in the future we can build one just so people stop this ridiculous argument towards bias.
Most straight people in this country are opposed to gay marriage. I confess, I don’t really understand why, but it’s apparent that most straight Americans feel that the decision does effect them in some way. So, it seems to me, the perception of bias applies equally well to a straight judge as it would to a gay judge.
Only if Democrat-appointees did, too, in the interest of fairness.
How can a religious judge ever rule on questions of SOCAS? They’re all biased. And obviously no Catholic judge can rule on abortion or same-sex marriage because their religion controls their minds and makes them unable to make unbiased decisions on the law.
I won’t say the OP is bigoted, but I will say his conclusion is not very thoughtful or defensible, and it’s a little insulting to say that a gay man is incapable of making an objective decision on the law.
Perhaps when there’s a racial dispute in court, we can get those half-black/half-white dudes from Star Trek to be the judges.
I still disagree. I would say you are more apt to encounter a totally unbiased straight judge for this case than a gay judge. Every gay person (judges included) would benefit from the ruling. Though MOST straight people are probably biased, not all are.
I’m not disagreeing with you though that most people who are against gay marriage are straight, though most straight people are not against gay marriage.
Similarly, we should only trust white judges to make decisions in civil rights cases. Can’t trust those niggers.:rolleyes: