This I do not agree with. I think there is an obvious case for appearance of bias, to the extent that I now think that only a reluctance to give a fraction of an inch away to the anti-gay-rights crowd is preventing people to admit it.
I don’t want to give a fraction of an inch away to the anti-gay-rights crowd either, but I don’t think that admitting there is an appearance of bias here constitutes doing that.
And I am always worried that I will be blinded by my own partisanship, because I sometimes actually find myself being blinded by my own partisanship.
I don’t think you’re being constructive at all. Your style of argumentation is simply to hand-wave away everyone else’s arguments. But I’ll try again:
A “vested” interest means that the interest has already come into being. A vested interest is not a theoretical interest or an emotional interest. It is a concrete existing interest. You cannot have a “vested” interest in the outcome of a gay marriage case, unless you are already in a homosexual marriage (not a civil union or another type of institution). Since the judge in this case is not in a same-sex marriage, he had no “vested” interest in the outcome of the case. Period.
Now, there is another non-legal usage of vested interest from communication theory. In that, a vested interest is basically a high personal interest. This type of interest does not have to be concrete, it can be based on personal preferences or values. If you are using that definition, then most people straight or gay will have a vested interest in a gay marriage case. There are some people who won’t care either way, regardless of their orientation, but since there is no way to truly tell ahead of time if someone really doesn’t care either way, then the question of bias is not relevant using this definition.
You are applying different standards to gays and straights, and that’s what makes you bigoted. A straight person may very well have a personal interest in ruling against gay marriage because of social pressure, family issues, career goals, religious or moral values or personal benefit. A straight person may rule in favor of gay marriage because of religious or moral values, social pressure, career goals, personal benefit or family issues. All of the reasons that a gay person may be biased in your definition apply equally to straight people. Yet you just dismiss the straight biases out of hand, while proclaiming the gay biases are relevant.
And frankly, given your behavior in this thread, I have trouble believing that you are an “activist for gay rights.”
Here is my blog showing the latest blog posts on gay rights. These are the six leaflets I produced this year supporting gay rights: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This is the T-shirt I was wearing when I wrote the OP. I also think it is possible to find a picture of me at a love/pride festival on the internet, that would frankly be a bit embarrassing (because of what I am wearing).
At the risk of repeating what other folks have said, there’s an interesting catch-22 here.
That is, the defense says that SSM harms straight people. The plaintiffs say that’s nonsense.
If the plaintiffs are right, then SSM doesn’t harm straight people, and so the case for the plaintiffs is much, much stronger, almost overwhelming–and a gay person is uniquely biased, because a straight person has no interest in the case.
Indeed, the only way a straight person would be biased is if the defense has a case. So what this means is that, if you believe that the defense has a case, then a gay judge is no more biased than a straight judge in deciding it.
If you adopt the plaintiff’s position, as Stoneburg does, then yeah, gay folks have more of a vested interest in the case than straight people. But the folks complaining about the judge’s bias are almost universally people adopting the defense’s position–a position that completely undercuts the claim of bias.
Stoneburg, I wonder if it’s not the meaning of “bias” that eludes you so much as it is the threshold of vested interest that a judge must meet before needing to recuse herself in the US system. Would any of our resident lawyers care to lay out the specifics of this branch of law?
I seriously felt a need to kiss you (in a non-gay way!) when I read your post.
You both managed to describe what I think, and also managed to explain why I think it in a way that actually made me realize why I think it.
In Swedish there are two words: partisk and jäv, I am trying to use “partisk” which Google translator gives “biased” for, but I would say that people here use the word to mean “jäv” which is translated to “disqualification (due to self interest)”.
Can you be “a bit biased”? Because you can be less or more “partisk” but you when it comes to “jäv” you either are or you aren’t.
In US law, “vested” means that the interest is real and current (layman’s definition). You can’t have a vested interest in a possibility that something may or may not be beneficial to you at an unspecified point in the future. If Stoneberg is using that definition, then the judge in this case has no vested interest, since he’s not currently in a same-sex marriage.
Now, if he’s using a broader definition, then any judge, gay or straight, will have all sorts of conflicting personal theoretical interests. Here’s a sample one: any judge appointed by a Republican (gay or straight) is less likely to be promoted to an appeals court or the Supreme Court by a Democratic President (because of the way our current political dialogue is). So, that means his best chance for career advancement comes from the Republican Party, and a pro-SSM ruling pretty much derails that for years to come. So, a Republican appointee has a theoretical interest against SSM based on career advancement goals. And really, in our current political environment, any judge who makes a pro-SSM ruling has probably killed his chances for advancement for the forseeable future even with a Democratic President. This is currently such a hot-button legal issue, that any judge who makes a pro-SSM ruling is probably going to have his chances for promotion derailed for the forseeable future. I can keep listing these sorts of theoretical interests all day (and a couple have already been listed in this thread).
How am I supposed to address the statement that I am hand-waving? I’ve done everything I can to be intellectually honest, but I don’t see what the point of me claiming that is. If you don’t believe I am debating honestly I don’t think I can convince you by just saying that I am.
Regarding “vested interest”, I thought it ment something else, closer to self-interest, now that I look it up I realise I used it wrong. It actually doesn’t mean what I thought it did at all. I thought it was “vested” as in “invested”, ie: has something personal to gain (or lose) from the result. You describe it pretty accurately in #2:
I guess “not neutral” would be a much better way of describing what I mean since it hasn’t got the same potential for misunderstanding.
I don’t see how they are different standards. One person is going to gain or lose from a decision, the other isn’t. The standard is “are you going to personally gain/lose something from the decision”, the standard is the same, it’s the results that are different. A gay person will directly gain/lose from this decision, a straight person will not be affected.
Ok,I think I figured out how to explain it…
When Jon Stewart insinuated that it was ridiculous to think the judge was biased, to me it read more like “It’s ridiculous to think the judge is not neutral” or “it is ridiculous to think there is an appearance of non-neutrality or self-interest”.
edit: I’m going to try and find the episode…
Fine, if the standard is a personal gain, as has already been explained to you, a straight judge may personally gain or lose from the decision too. He may be part of a church which will ostracize him if he makes a pro-SSM ruling. That’s an incentive against making the ruling. He may (and probably will) mess up his chance for promotion for a very, very long time. That’s an incentive against a pro-SSM ruling. He may think he’s going to hell if he makes a pro-SSM ruling. That’s an incentive against a pro-SSM ruling. Simply because you place no value on these things, that doesn’t mean that other people place no personal value on these things.
No, a gay person may gain or lose from this decision, just a straight person may gain or lose. I’m gay. I didn’t gain or lose anything from this particular decision, since I have no interest in getting married. Since I place no personal value on getting married, I have nothing to gain or lose from this particular decision. This judge may very well be in the same boat. You are assuming that gay people as a group have the same personal preferences and place the same personal value on every single issue.
Hmm. Ok. I have to admit that some of those caught me off guard. I’ll try to respond:
I did not consider that a judge might be a part of a church that would ostracize him for voting in favor of SSM and that ostracization might be something he cared much about. If that were to be the case I would think he was “biased” in the way I mean it. My other reaction is that I’m not sure he should be a judge if he’s that worried what a church will do.
You seem to insinuate that it actually could lower his chances for professional promotion, which if it is/was true would be horrible. Is this actually possible as in “within the realm of the realistic of happening”? Is so it is messed up.
A judge that “think he’s going to hell if he makes a pro-SSM ruling.” shouldn’t be a judge period. Ok, maybe that’s bit harsh, he could be competent in other areas, but that’s not just grounds for disqualification from the case. If I found out something like that about a judge I’d find someone to report it to regardless of any cases. I’d probably give it to the media and try to get the guy fired.
You directly gained the RIGHT to be married. Whether you use it or not right now isn’t essential. I’m straight and I’m not planning to get married, but I would never accept someone taking that right away from me, why should I accept someone denying it to you?
Nobody, straight or gay is completely non-neutral (well, most people aren’t). I have already given you examples of why straight people may be non-neutral. What I mean by hand-waving is that you haven’t articulated why the examples I gave you do not fit under you definition of “non-neutral.” You have to actually explain why a straight person’s possible career prospects or social prospects or religious beliefs are not included in your definition of neutrality.
EDIT: I didn’t see your previous post when I typed this one. I’ll respond to that one directly.
He’s a Republican judge. Assuming he ever had an eye on a seat on the Court of Appeals, what do you think the chances are now of him ever being appointed to that position by a future Republican president? What sort of position is he going to have in the Republican party if he decides to leave the bench? If he had ruled in favor of the defendants, would that have been evidence of bias in favor of the Republican party?
I would have thought it wouldn’t had any effect on his chances. But the very fact that you ask this seems to reinforce that it could, which I quite frankly hope is paranoia.
I had not considered that. Here judges are strictly apolitical.
edit: By apolitical I mean nobody knows what party they vote for or belong to, and they aren’t appointed politically.
I wish that were true here…there are a lot of jurisdictions where judges are actually ELECTED. There are actually 8 states where SUPREME COURT justices are elected (including my own state of Pennsylvania).
Chill. I think you are trying to say that a ‘gay’ judge would have the appearance of ‘bias’ to some people, and you don’t think you are a ‘bigot’ for pointing that out, right? Ok, but I think there is faulty reasoning by those people, and that should not be a factor in the judicial process. I don’t know the details, but if the parties did not ask the judge to recuse himself, and were not incompetent (no guarantee of that for the State of CA), then legally, ‘bias’ was not a factor. I have no idea if you are bigot, but I will point out, uncritically, that the attribution of perceived characteristics of a group, to individual members of that group, is often associated with bigotry. To some people, that may make you sound like a bigot. I’d be making the same mistake if I tarred you with that brush. I don’t think everyone who shares your opinion is a bigot, I just think they are mistaken. I don’t think the basic suppositions of the question are rational anyway. But that is a whole different diatribe that someone with less interest in reasonable discussion than you have, will motivate me to write someday.
I have a moment, so I’ll tackle this. This new right is not just for gay people. Anyone (gay, straight, transgender) can participate in this new right. We’re not going to investigate if two guys who want to get married are actually homosexual, so straight people can use this new right just the same. If you are going to argue that the extension of this new right is a gain in and of itself, then it’s a gain for straight people as well, and thus nobody can be non-neutral under this definition you are using.
However, you might argue that straight people aren’t likely to use this new right. I’d agree, but if you do argue that, then we’re back to my definition of whether this constitutes personal gain for everyone. A straight person deciding not to engage is same-sex marriage is making the same choice I am, and so either we’re both neutral or we’re both non-neutral.
I hope this makes it clear why I think you’re applying a different standard to gay people. Under either definition I’ve analyzed in the above paragraphs, either both gays and straights are non-neutral or they’re both neutral.
So you’re saying that since straight are also allowed to marry people of the same gender, and since we’re not going to investigate their sexuality, they also gain from SSM? I guess that could make sense at least theoretically. But in reality, if you marry someone of the same gender you are homosexual, bisexual or transgendered by the definition of society.
I have however argued in my blog that the advancement of a minority group of peoples rights and freedoms also increases the majority groups rights and freedoms. Based on it not being a zero sum game with a limited supply of rights and freedoms. But those are more indirect gains. If my friend gets healthcare and is cured of an illness, I too gain (unless I am a sociopath or for some reason hate my friend, I guess).
