Prop 8: The Battle continues...

[R/T Hemi]

No, R/T, that's not reasonable.

And I'm not convinced that the Arizona judges were required to do anything of the sort. Permitted and required are two completely different things.

Again. I disagree. The key word in my previous comment is that the judges "shall" do so. Shall is mandatory. It's all about projecting the appearance of a fair and impartial judiciary.

[bigbadberry3]

Still when this thing hits the SCOTUS, aren't they biased if they are married, or if they are single, or if they are gay, or if they're straight?

[stebo0728]

Still when this thing hits the SCOTUS, aren't they biased if they are married, or if they are single, or if they are gay, or if they're straight?

They might be biased if they are in a gay relationship that seeks to become a marriage someday.

[AppleBonker]

Seriously, this argument that the judge has a bias in the case is complete garbage. Supporters of Prop 8 claim that gay marriage is "destroying, or will destroy, the institution of marriage" (paraphrasing in my own terms). Given that argument against gay marriage, a straight person (who may or may not plan to wed someday) is equally biased when deciding this case. Therefore no judge will ever be unbiased in this ruling.

Or, the judge is biased because he ruled against you. If he were a straight judge ruling in favor of Prop 8 (to protect the sanctity of HIS relationship), I'm sure these folks wouldn't think he was biased.

People who want to push their beliefs on others need to be kicked in the nuts. Hard.

[bigbadberry3]

Still when this thing hits the SCOTUS, aren't they biased if they are married, or if they are single, or if they are gay, or if they're straight?

They might be biased if they are in a gay relationship that seeks to become a marriage someday.

Valid but what if the judges who are already married want the club to remain exclusive, biased?

[stebo0728]

I can see grounds to call that biased as well. Having a bias is human. Being able to make a decision without employing your bias is whats required to do the job. Until a judge proves unable to make that distinction, I suppose there are no grounds to force their recusal. However, one point I'd like to make, coming from the "above reproach" angle. If I were the ones fighting this proposition, I'd want to be sure that any sort of things such as this that could cause doubt to be cast on a ruling, were removed from the equation, that way when the victory comes down, there's no grounds to fight it afterwards.

[AppleBonker]

If I were the ones fighting this proposition, I'd want to be sure that any sort of things such as this that could cause doubt to be cast on a ruling, were removed from the equation, that way when the victory comes down, there's no grounds to fight it afterwards.

So if you were opposed to Prop 8 you'd be upset this judge got this case? It was randomly assigned to him. So you want to completely overhaul the system so we pick and choose which judges hear which cases? Sounds like that would have the opposite effect of what you're arguing for. Am I missing something?

[stebo0728]

I would be upset that he didnt at least disclose, because now whether right or wrong, people are making a stink about it, which could have possible been avoided. Im not saying overhaul anything, or set a pick and choose precedent. If no one had ever found out, then I'd have nothing to be upset about, but since it came out, I'd be upset that the judge caused the problems, especially if the victory could have come either way.

[AppleBonker]

I would be upset that he didnt at least disclose, because now whether right or wrong, people are making a stink about it, which could have possible been avoided.

What do you want him to disclose? How much personal information does he need to put out there?

Also,

He said Walker's silence deprived Prop. 8's advocates of information they could have used to ask him to step down from the case. That should invalidate all his subsequent decisions in a lawsuit challenging Prop. 8, including his August 2010 ruling declaring the measure unconstitutional, Cooper argued.

[...]

The Chronicle first disclosed Walker's sexual orientation in February 2010 and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his partner several months later, while the trial was still under way.

His sexual orientation was seemingly public information during the hearing and BEFORE the ruling in question. Why has it become a problem now, and not during the hearings?

Edit: rhetorical question. I know why it is a problem now: because he ruled against Prop 8...

[bigbadberry3]

BTW, do we know the sexual orientation and marital status of the judge who upheld the ruling?

[IBCoupe]

No, R/T, that's not reasonable.

And I'm not convinced that the Arizona judges were required to do anything of the sort. Permitted and required are two completely different things.

Again. I disagree. The key word in my previous comment is that the judges "shall" do so. Shall is mandatory. It's all about projecting the appearance of a fair and impartial judiciary.

Okay, I feel like I need to break this down for you:

1. Judges must recuse themselves when the appearance of impartiality can be REASONABLY questioned.

It wasn't reasonable to infer that a gay judge would not be impartial in a trial about the Constitutionality of a proposition related to gay marriage. Another, nongay judge has said this.

2. That the judges in Arizona recused themselves does not suggest that they were required to do so by the rule you cited. It suggests that they chose to do so, because perhaps they were required by the rule you pointed to or because perhaps they were permitted by another rule.

Clear?

[Encryptshun]

If we say this judge should recuse himself, then who on the SCOTUS would be left in a case where a black person was suing a white person for racial discrimination? It would be Sotomayor sitting all by herself?

[R/T Hemi]

BTW, do we know the sexual orientation and marital status of the judge who upheld the ruling?

Many, if not most, bio pages for judges do state things like married, father of 3 or whatever. That's pretty much a disclosure. However, we're talking about the 9th District here and that's never been known as a, well, .............. let's leave it at that.

[R/T Hemi]

It wasn't reasonable to infer that a gay judge would not be impartial in a trial about the Constitutionality of a proposition related to gay marriage. Another, nongay judge has said this.

[/quote]

I realize the judge said that. However, case law is full of cases where judges have stated things that are patently wrong. I'm not calling the judge for being gay, I'm calling him for being in a same sex relationship which COULD be affected by his decision. That matter should have been disclosed.

[srellim234]

To serve what purpose and to what end? The subject is so emotionally charged on both sides that if he ruled the way he did he still would have been skewered by the religious right for not stepping down. Only they would have been screaming before the case was even heard. The only verdict they would accept is upholding the initiative.

In the same vein, why aren't you calling for every judge in every case to disclose how he's voted in every election even remotely related to any issue before the court? An actual voting record is a more solid indicator but still does not prevent a judge from setting aside his personal opinion and objectively hearing a case before him/her. It sounds like you are assuming bias where none has been proven.

[IBCoupe]

I realize the judge said that. However, case law is full of cases where judges have stated things that are patently wrong. I'm not calling the judge for being gay, I'm calling him for being in a same sex relationship which COULD be affected by his decision. That matter should have been disclosed.

How would the relationship be affected? Ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional doesn't affect the relationship. If Prop 8 were to try to ban homosexual relationships altogether, you might maybe have a point, but as it stands, you don't.

The Judge shouldn't have to disclose this crap just because most Americans aren't capable of understanding how impartiality works.

[R/T Hemi]

I realize the judge said that. However, case law is full of cases where judges have stated things that are patently wrong. I'm not calling the judge for being gay, I'm calling him for being in a same sex relationship which COULD be affected by his decision. That matter should have been disclosed.

How would the relationship be affected? Ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional doesn't affect the relationship. If Prop 8 were to try to ban homosexual relationships altogether, you might maybe have a point, but as it stands, you don't.

The Judge shouldn't have to disclose this crap just because most Americans aren't capable of understanding how impartiality works.

It's pretty clear I believe. Judge A is a member of a class targeted by both the law he's ruling on and the potential outcome of his ruling. Let's assume the judge was a secret member of the "Increase Offshore Drilling" club. He's asked to sit in judgment of a case that seeks to overturn a voter approved ban on offshore drilling. Would not his ruling to overturn the ban be reasonably suspect in that matter? Step 2. Substitute "Same sex marriages" for "Increase Offshore Drilling" in the above example and tell me why there's a difference in the logic?

No one has accused the judge of impartiality, instead, I'm stating he's tainting the appearance of a fair and impartial bench. He clearly knew he was ruling on a matter in which he had a potential interest in the outcome.

[R/T Hemi]

I realize the judge said that. However, case law is full of cases where judges have stated things that are patently wrong. I'm not calling the judge for being gay, I'm calling him for being in a same sex relationship which COULD be affected by his decision. That matter should have been disclosed.

How would the relationship be affected? Ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional doesn't affect the relationship. If Prop 8 were to try to ban homosexual relationships altogether, you might maybe have a point, but as it stands, you don't.

The Judge shouldn't have to disclose this crap just because most Americans aren't capable of understanding how impartiality works.

It's pretty clear I believe. Judge A is a member of a class targeted by both the law he's ruling on and the potential outcome of his ruling. Let's assume the judge was a secret member of the "Increase Offshore Drilling" club. He's asked to sit in judgment of a case that seeks to overturn a voter approved ban on offshore drilling. Would not his ruling to overturn the ban be reasonably suspect in that matter? Step 2. Substitute "Same sex marriages" for "Increase Offshore Drilling" in the above example and tell me why there's a difference in the logic?

No one has accused the judge of impartiality, instead, I'm stating he's tainting the appearance of a fair and impartial bench. He clearly knew he was ruling on a matter in which he had a potential interest in the outcome.

[IBCoupe]

The judge is in favor of gay marriage?

[AppleBonker]

He clearly knew he was ruling on a matter in which he had a potential interest in the outcome.

And I'll state it again... Based on the argument made by the Prop 8 supporters (that same-sex marriage has a negative impact on the institution of marriage), who doesn't have a potential interest in the outcome? Hell, even if I was asexual and didn't care about a relationship with anyone, if I care about equality and fairness to all I, too, have an interest in this outcome (albeit indirectly). This argument you are presenting doesn't make sense. According to the arguments presented by both sides (for or against Prop 8), ALL people in/desiring a relationship have an interest in this ruling.

It's pretty clear I believe. Judge A is a member of a class targeted by both the law he's ruling on and the potential outcome of his ruling. Let's assume the judge was a secret member of the "Increase Offshore Drilling" club. He's asked to sit in judgment of a case that seeks to overturn a voter approved ban on offshore drilling. Would not his ruling to overturn the ban be reasonably suspect in that matter? Step 2. Substitute "Same sex marriages" for "Increase Offshore Drilling" in the above example and tell me why there's a difference in the logic?

Again, as I've pointed out above, according to opponents of Prop 8, people not in that class benefit from Prop 8 being upheld. So in your "Increase Offshore Drilling" example, the judge would have to belong to the "targeted class", but members who didn't belong to said class would have to financially benefit from the ban on offshore drilling. Everyone has a stake. No one can be completely impartial.

Edit: As Isaac pointed out above, my argument is only valid IF I concede that the judge being gay means he is in favor of gay marriage (which isn't a fair assumption, but even if that assumption is made his impartiality should not be in question).

[AppleBonker]

Also, assume the roles were reversed: there was a ban on opposite-sex marriage. Would you be this adamant about a gay judge hearing it?

[IBCoupe]

You sound like a lawyer.

"First, opposing counsel is wrong. And even if she weren't wrong, it wouldn't matter. And even if it did matter..."

[AppleBonker]

Damnit, I missed my true calling...

[AppleBonker]

But, in all honesty, I hate positions that aren't thought out.

In this example, why does anyone support Prop 8? Because it would "protect the sanctity of marriage". If one holds that viewpoint, wouldn't any non-homosexual benefit DIRECTLY from it being upheld (again, making the assumption that ALL people, gay or straight, are interested in marriage - as stated, this is just agreeing with the assumption put forward by those crying about this ruling)? It just sucks for them when they're so dumb that their own position and argument against the ruling can be used to destroy itself.

[Encryptshun]

Protection of the right of only heterosexual couples to divorce.

[R/T Hemi]

. . .

This argument you are presenting doesn't make sense. According to the arguments presented by both sides (for or against Prop 8), ALL people in/desiring a relationship have an interest in this ruling.

So, you'd have no problem with a judge hearing a similar case if you found out he had contributed to the prop 8 campaign?

Being gay is NOT an issue here. This judge was in a same sex relationship. The case he ruled on affected ONLY those in same sex relationships. HE had a potential interest in the outcome of that case. His interest in the outcome should have been disclosed, or, if he chose to remain quiet, he should have recused himself.

[AppleBonker]

The case he ruled on affected ONLY those in same sex relationships

False. Opponents of same-sex marriages claim it destroys the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, anyone in an opposite-sex relationship would have interest in the ruling because it supposedly protects THEIR marital status. So a heterosexual judge in a relationship would have an EQUIVALENT amount of bias and therefore would be equally impacted.

Also,

So, you'd have no problem with a judge hearing a similar case if you found out he had contributed to the prop 8 campaign?

You fail in this logic. Being in a same-sex relationship != opposing Prop 8. Being in a heterosexual relationship != supporting Prop 8. These variables are NOT dependent.

So, I would be opposed to a judge who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign hearing this case (REGARDLESS of his/her sexual orientation or relationship status).

[IBCoupe]

Of course I would have an issue if he had espoused an opinion before hearing the case.

But the fact that he's gay and hasn't broken up with his boyfriend really doesn't speak to his lack of impartiality on the constitutionality of Prop 8, and isn't relevant.

Were I a judge, would you suggest that I must disclose my religion before taking on a First Amendment case? That I recuse myself because I'm a Jew and the law seeks to ban the practice of Judaism?

[R/T Hemi]

You fail in this logic. Being in a same-sex relationship != opposing Prop 8. Being in a heterosexual relationship != supporting Prop 8. These variables are NOT dependent.

No one has said that. I said being in a same sex relationship could reasonably be seen as sufficient attachment to the case to color his view of the proceedings. It may also be indicative of a hidden agenda with respect to the outcome of the case. Clear enough?

So, I would be opposed to a judge who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign hearing this case (REGARDLESS of his/her sexual orientation or relationship status).

Once again. I'm NOT opposed to the judge hearing the case. I'm opposed to the judge not disclosing his membership in a class that has a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Had he done so, I'm assuming the parties may have challenged the judge. Maybe not. IF a judge contributed to prob 8, then in all fairness, he should have excused himself.

[AppleBonker]

You fail in this logic. Being in a same-sex relationship != opposing Prop 8. Being in a heterosexual relationship != supporting Prop 8. These variables are NOT dependent.

No one has said that. I said being in a same sex relationship could reasonably be seen as sufficient attachment to the case to color his view of the proceedings. It may also be indicative of a hidden agenda with respect to the outcome of the case. Clear enough?

No, because using the argument presented by supporters of Prop 8, a judge in a heterosexual relationship would have the same attachment to the case. With that said, any judge who is either heterosexual or homosexual will have the same problem. So we would need to find a judge that is neither. Good luck.

So, I would be opposed to a judge who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign hearing this case (REGARDLESS of his/her sexual orientation or relationship status).

Once again. I'm NOT opposed to the judge hearing the case. I'm opposed to the judge not disclosing his membership in a class that has a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Had he done so, I'm assuming the parties may have challenged the judge. Maybe not. IF a judge contributed to prob 8, then in all fairness, he should have excused himself.

As I stated earlier, the judge's sexual preference was common knowledge during the hearings. The fact that he was in a relationship was also common knowledge. No one challenged it until after the ruling had been made.