Not every gay person wants to get married.
To the people claiming bias was his decision to stay the ruling until the appeals court reviewed the case further evidence of bias? What’s the argument their he needed time to plan his own wedding? Has he even stated anywhere on the record he ever intends to get married himself?
Can we really take a chance on “most?” Sure, most gay people are probably going to be biased, too, but not all are. As the OP points out, the problem isn’t simply being biased, but the perception of bias. If most straight people are probably biased, then we simply can’t have a straight judge on a case like this, because regardless of how the judge finds, or the reasoning he uses, it might *look *like bias, and that’s nearly as bad as the real thing.
OK, well what about a white male judge hearing a challenge to an organization’s affirmative action policy? Should he recuse himself? Suppose it’s a college and he has a son who is applying to schools (although not the school in the case at bar).
Or suppose it’s a shareholder suit and the judge owns stock, but in the company at issue. However, his/her ruling will effect the legal landscape with respect to sharholder rights. Is recusal required here?
I know a firm that is litigating a matter regarding a reservist who was fired unlawfully because of his military service. Should any judge who is a veteran decline to hear the case. What about judges who are reservists?
Since most of our law is made by straight white upper-class men, and much of it operates to their benefit, what if we just kicked all of them out of the federal judiciary (which would be a substantial purge)? And since we’re discussing bias, isn’t it weird that our federal judiciary has such a demographic slant? And does it really make sense to make it whiter, straighter, maler, and richer?
Because a judge is gay, his decision is due to bias when ruling about gay marriage.
If a judge is not gay, he is being fair? What if he is a religious nut who thinks gay marriage is evil? We are all biased in some ways. But to suggest because a judge is gay he can not rule on the law impartially damns the whole system.
Yes, I’d say that your opinion is bigoted if you think that the judge being gay caused him to favor one side rather than the other. There are a number of judges who have ruled on this issue in favor of gay rights who are not gay. Are they biased for other reasons? There are also judges who have ruled against gay marriage who are not gay. Are they biased? You have to read their opinions to find out who is biased and who isn’t by what they say directly, indirectly, what parts of the record they emphasize and ignore and examine their logic.
10 years ago I was against gay marriage, even though I was even then a liberal. I examined my logic and found it flawed. I was bigoted on the subject. I changed my position.
Incidentally, my change in position applies to polygamous marriages too. I have no problem with people being married to more than one person. Gov’t and job benefits is another problem.
You’re not really helping your cause, unless your cause is to make people not want to listen to you.
Stoneburg?
Retarded?
Ok, my analysis is that it’s mainly a matter of me not having the same understanding of the word bias as others (ie: english-speaking people).
What I mean with the word (and I obviously do not propose that this is the correct meaning, just what I thought it meant) is more akin to “having a vested interest”, not “being unable to make correct decisions”.
I do believe (well, I think it is obvious really) that the judge has a vested interest in the outcome. I don’t necessarily think this influences his decision (I have no information at all about this judge other than the fact that he is gay). But I do think it is a case where there will be an appearance of bias.
If I were the gay judge I would probably have recused myself. Not because of actual bias but because of the appearance of bias. I think it would have been MUCH better to leave this decision to someone who has no vested interest, to avoid the appearance of bias. Frankly, the way it turned out plays completely into the hands of bigots who are against gay rights. Which irks me.
Even taking your definition, I am not sure what might have been the point of the debate. (Although I see a possible point, below.)
And if it had been handed to a judge with the views of Roy Moore, we would clearly have been given a different outcome, but any complaint against the judge would have been dismissed by the supporters of Prop 8 as sour grapes.
There is no perfect solution and I would say that if you encounter a homophobe who whines that the decision was rendered by a gay judge, you need only point to the judgment he rendered and tell them to get back to you when they have found the flaw in his legal arguments. If he had not been accused of pandering to those of his own sexual orientation, he would be accused of pandering to fellow liberals or to some other demographic.
You can’t win; you can’t break even; you can’t quit the game. Read and understand his actual decision and beat down the doubters with his arguments. Those who will not listen would not have listened if he was unchallengeably straight.
By that logic, every judge who owns a gun needs to recuse him/herself from any case involving gun rights. Every female judge should recuse herself from any case involving women’s rights. Any judge who is a parent should recuse themselves from cases involving parental rights. And so on.
And as I have explained, to not much avail so far, I have not said that. I actually do kind of like how people get all worked up at any sign of anti-gay tendencies, because I think it shows an emotional engagement to human rights. Which is awesome. But it IS getting a bit frustrating handling the lack of “actually-reading-and-trying-to-understand-what-the-guy-is-saying”.
Should a judge who owns a weapons factory recuse themself on a proposition to ban guns?
Should a pregnant judge who wants to have an abortion recuse herself on abortion rights?
Should a judge who is the parent of a child recuse himself/herself in a custody case regarding his or her child?
I don’t think this is a clear cut black and white thing, which is why I feel I need to discuss it. And I’m not here to tell you what is right, because I don’t know.
Do you really not see a difference between the 3 items you’ve outlined here?
People are “getting worked up” because you are applying one standard to gay people and another standard to straight people, and then declaring that straight people have no vested interests in the outcome of the case.
I don’t think that is why people are getting worked up. I think my use of the word bias, combined with a general passion for gay and human rights is why people get worked up. The cultural context of course applies as well, the US culture is very polarized on this issue which means there is harder to discuss it without people getting worked up. People will look for reasons to label someone anti or pro, then argue from assumptions on what they are trying to say, rather than try to figure out what they’re trying to say.
In my culture this is not a controversial issue and there is hardly any polarization. Out of our 7 major parties only one* was against same sex marriage and they didn’t really even put their heart in it. 2/3:s of Swedish priests were for same sex marriage and the headline was “A third of Swedish priests are against same sex marriage!”. When we were handing out fliers with the text “WE WANT TO STOP GAY MARRIAGE” most people gave us dirty looks, some got downright angry with us. Until they read that what we were against was calling it gay marriage, or in any other way separating it from traditional" marriage.
The only standard I am applying is that of vested interest.
- The Christian Democrats (6.5%), big surprise… but even a few of them voted for it IIRC
Now your lumping everybody who has a difference opinion with you about this subject into one group. My opinions on the matter don’t have anything to do with that. I haven’t seen any indication that this judge would be more biased than any other on this subject. It has been my consistent opinion that the government should not be in the marriage business at all. Using your ‘logic’, I would have to consider almost all judges to be biased and disqualified from ruling on issues of marriage. In addition, you have not presented any evidence that this judge has a ‘vested interest’ in this case.
But every judge has at least some vested interest in the outcome of every case s/he rules on. There are no judges completely without vested interests. You’ve set an absurdly low bar for the appearance of impropriety.
Oh my fucking god… I am really, really, really trying to make this discussion constructive. Is there any way we could get past the uber-confrontational aggressive style before I start crying or rip what is left of my hair from my scalp?