PDA

View Full Version : Judge in Prop 8 Trial: "Yup, I'm Gay"


BenPanced
02-09-2010, 06:53 AM
Columnists mention it in op-ed piece, stating his sexual orientation really shouldn't matter in the final decision. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL)

Another columnist mentions it in another op-ed piece, stating his sexual orientation, no, really, it really shouldn't matter in the final decision. (http://sfist.com/2010/02/08/prop_8_trial_judge_is_gay_should_th.php)

Blogger posts meltdown by National Organization for Marriage's chairperson...excuse me...chairman, where he says it's obvious bias working against his cause. (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/15156/nom-loses-its-cookies-over-news-prop-8-trial-judge-is-gay)

Gretad08
02-09-2010, 06:58 AM
It would be biased either way...if it's a straight judge it's biased one way, a homosexual judge it's biased another. Everyone has biases, it's just a matter of who can ignore them the best and give the most honest judgement.

Maybe we need an asexual judge...then everybody can be happy :)

Dommo
02-09-2010, 07:34 AM
We need a Eunuch!

benbradley
02-09-2010, 07:39 AM
"I must recuse myself from this case between a corporation and a human being because, I admit it, I myself am a human being..."

veinglory
02-09-2010, 09:00 PM
I agree. Orientation is a bias no matter what it is. And being ignorant of sexuality probably wouldn't help either.

Roger J Carlson
02-09-2010, 09:06 PM
All judicial rulings have bias. There's always the appeal process if it is blatant or there's some error of law.

Snowstorm
02-09-2010, 10:18 PM
And ya never know, the judge might have no bias and actually, you know, follows the law.

astonwest
02-10-2010, 03:06 AM
It would be biased either way...if it's a straight judge it's biased one way, a homosexual judge it's biased another.
That's making an assumption on which way a "straight judge" would be biased.

jodiodi
02-10-2010, 08:31 AM
And this is news, why?

It makes no difference the race, gender, religious preference or sexual orientation of the judge. All judges are required to make rulings based on the law. Appeals will be made regardless of the outcome because somebody will be pissed off.

To question the judge's impartiality based on his/her sexual orientation is an insult to that judge's ability to perform his/her duties.

Zoombie
02-10-2010, 08:33 AM
To question the judge's impartiality based on his/her sexual orientation is an insult to that judge's ability to perform his/her duties.

.

AyJay
02-10-2010, 09:48 PM
Gee - as a gay person, I'm actually relieved that finally someone gay is deciding whether or not I deserve civil rights.

StephanieFox
02-10-2010, 10:37 PM
I'm looking forward to the day where this wouldn't be an issue because everyone had equal rights under the law and no one would ask a judge his or her race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation or anything else that had nothing to do with being a judge.

Chasing the Horizon
02-11-2010, 11:20 AM
Of course it shouldn't matter that the judge is gay. But I'm snickering inside anyway. If I believed in god, I'd have to think this was his/her way of telling the anti-gay-marriage people something.

Roger J Carlson
02-11-2010, 05:20 PM
Of course it shouldn't matter that the judge is gay. But I'm snickering inside anyway. If I believed in god, I'd have to think this was his/her way of telling the anti-gay-marriage people something.Why? Because you assume he'll rule a certain way?

Gretad08
02-11-2010, 05:48 PM
That's making an assumption on which way a "straight judge" would be biased.

An assumption is being made that the homosexual judge in the OP is biased one way, so if the judge was hetero. I'm assuming that same assumption would be made about his bias...

geez, I'm getting confused with all of this assuming :)

Roger J Carlson
02-11-2010, 06:19 PM
Gee - as a gay person, I'm actually relieved that finally someone gay is deciding whether or not I deserve civil rights.What if he rules against?

veinglory
02-11-2010, 09:05 PM
An assumption is being made that the homosexual judge in the OP is biased one way, so if the judge was hetero. I'm assuming that same assumption would be made about his bias...:)

Exactly. You either assume there is bias based on sexuality, or you don't--either way, it doesn't matter. The illogical, and indeed prejudiced, thing would be to assume a judge is biassed if he is gay and not biassed if he is straight.

mscelina
02-11-2010, 09:14 PM
The real bias in the case is displayed by the fact that the judge's sexual orientation has even been mentioned. It's an assumption on the part of the people making a big deal about it that somehow the judge's sexuality automatically creates a bias in favor of same sex marriage, which (if the judge does his job the way he's supposed to) is not necessarily the case. The judge will decide the case based upon the point of law, not who's waiting for him at home.

To assume he'll do otherwise is not only insulting but ultimately condescending as well.

not_HarryS
02-12-2010, 04:58 AM
Passing Prop Eight was not only insulting but ultimately condescending as well.

The only people who give two shits about this Judge's sexual preference in the first place are the ones who would own his appointment to that amoebous yet malignant fiend, the gay agenda. I hope that, after the defendants lose this case (and they will), Vaughn Walker, who can obviously do nothing outside the realm of his faggotry, forcefully bends them over the bench and sodomizes the lot of 'em.

Because that, apparently, is what homosexuals do.

ETA: And I hope somebody tweets about it live in the courtroom, too.