Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge presiding over the California Proposition 8 case, is a homosexual. Prop 8 proponents have suggested that he is therefore biased and must recuse himself. Unfortunately for that line of thinking, if a homosexual can’t preside over a case involving sexual orientation on account of his sexual orientation, then neither can a heterosexual. It would just mean bias in the opposite direction. And without heterosexuals or homosexuals able to act as judge we would have to appoint either a computer or a hyper-intelligent dolphin. Neither of which is a great option, because the computer can be hacked and hyper-intelligent dolphins would still probably just keep asking for fish or trying to do flips.
If a person’s inherent trait is enough to disqualify them from making judgments in cases where said trait is involved, then no one with a gender could decide cases involving gender, no one could judge cases involving race because everyone has a race, and so on–it makes no sense at all.
While it can probably be assumed that Judge Vaughn Walker, being a homosexual and all, doesn’t have an anti-gay agenda, his orientation in no way indicates that he is blind to constitutionality. Unless the pro-Prop 8 contingent can prove that homosexuals are unable to read and/or understand the Constitution they don’t have a lot of ground to stand on.
With all that said, I do have to admit that I’m pro-gay marriage. I’m just generally in favor of equal rights, and also, despite my heterosexual orientation, I do want to at some point marry a man, if only because our arguments will tend to be more solution oriented than if I married a woman.
Exactly! So all cases before this should be thrown out because of a straight bias!
How homophobic can you get?
This is a really good read. Very short but excellent about the Federal Trial of Prop. 8. P.
Since when did gay become mainstream. Propose CA AIP platform to make sodomy illegal again and a paper succession from the fed. Replace fed rent-a-judge with CA supreme’s after they have been replaced for the original fake gay marriage ruling.
In most circumstances I would agree with this opinion. Dominguez has expressed it well. Yet this trial has special circumstances which bring to question weather this judge (if gay) is appropriate to try this case. According to “The Guardsman:”
“Plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 argue the law singles out gays and lesbians, making it “suspect class legislation.” If they are successful, this group of the population would become entitled to special legal protection, and the burden of strict constitutional scrutiny would shift to the defense.
The concept of suspect classification comes from the 1944 Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States concerning the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. The court established that groups entitled to suspect class protections: Must be an obviously distinguishable minority, subject to a history of discrimination that is so politically powerless it needs special assistance.”
http://theguardsman.com/2010/02/wwii-internment-ruling-will-impact-prop-8-judgment/
The fact that “the alleged minority” is a judge on the case shows that the plaintiffs are NOT politically powerless. I would have imagined there would have been an uproar in 1944 if a Japanese court was making the ruling to grant special protections to Japanese. It is wrong for the minority to grant themselves this special legal protection that the plaintiffs are seeking. A ruling would need to come from someone not of that particular minority. Otherwise I see it as a conflict of interest.
hahaha…How can you possibly be saying that ‘straight’ judges who are of the majority should rule on this case with a straight face?
Are you serious? Or have you just stated this nonsense to get some more comments for insight?
It is essential to our democracy that judicial rulings are respected by the general populace and, in this case in particular, there should not be even a trace of suspected bias by the Judge. The problem is, Judge Walker has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. This is the issue, not merely that Judge Walker is gay. Merely the fact that we are discussing Judge Walker’s sexual orientation rather than the merits of the case is very telling. And, should Judge Walker rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional the ensuing discussion will be about his perceived bias rather than the content of his ruling.
Debbie,
If I understand this case correctly it is not about making a minority “equal.” It is about granting “special protections” or something greater than equal. If so, it is imperative (as M Myers says) that the ruling judge or judges do not have a vested interest in the case. If any ruling benefits the one who is making the ruling directly then it would be considered a conflict of interest.
The problem is what if it were black rights and we had a black judge?
Or, about discrimination in pay for women-would a female judge be suspect?
Or a case involving religion and teh judge is religious…
Do you see where this is going?
It doesn’t matter-justice is blind and you have to believe that
Besides, if anyoen has followed the recent prop 8 trial at all, it is very clear that it must be overturned-the only reasons to not have gay marriage are religiosu (irrlevant) and stememd by hatred or lies (proven by witnesses telling tales of gays raping kids, etc)
dk5-the actual case is not about making special protections or special rights (straights currently have special rights that gays do not have-marrying tehir partner the love). It is about granting equal righst in regards to marriage-that’s it
Gays have alreday been ruled a suspect class that needs ot be protected (see latest hate crime stats-highest number of victims were gay…)
Norman,
You’ve given me some things to think about. Thank you. I do appreciate intelligent civil conversation on this subject and I am appalled at the garbage thrown from either side (ie kf). I am a prop-8 supporter and I know that gives some people reason to hate me or think I am a homophobic. Yet those who lump all pro-8 supporters as homophobic/hate mongers are doing the same as the folks who lump all gays/lesbians as evil/crazy/whatever. Personally I was disgusted with the defense for prop 8 at this trial (at least the parts I heard) I felt they were piling garbage onto what is a serious conversation. They did not even come close to the concerns I have about changing the meaning of marriage. Perhaps some day there will be a conversation that will seek to understand each side. We need it in this country even if we never fully agree.
“Judge Walker has a vested interest in the outcome of the case…”
By the reasoning of the opponents, so would a straight judge have a vested interest, since the decision in this case could lead to special rights for gay people and the end of straight marriage and civilization as we know it.
This is sick! I saw something great posted on line the other day…if God wanted us to follow a homosexual lifestyle he would have created Adam & Steve rather than Adam & Eve. We need an amendment to the constitution that prohibits homosexual marriage so it is no longer rammed down our conservative throats. I’d hate for us to go the way of the Roman Empire and start seeing bestiality & child porn legalized as well. If Prop 8 is overturned by this homo judge our nation will begin a downward spiral to something none of us will want to live in. Australia is beginning to look mighty good.
I have never had a civil conversation with any proponent of same sex marriage. There is something wrong with their thinking. Perhaps their parents did too many drugs or something!
“It is essential to our democracy that judicial rulings are respected by the general populace” Are you kidding me?! The purpose of the court system isn’t to make popular decisions. It’s to make the right, i.e. constitutional, decision.
Mary, I cried when I read your post. In no way is homosexuality related to bestiality and child porn. If you have never witnessed the love that two people of the same gender can have for each other then you shouldn’t be talking about something you don’t understand. Homosexual hookups are no more common than heterosexual ones. And in any case, homosexuality has always been legal, and it hasn’t destroyed this country yet.
Yes Mary! I think you are absolutely correct on one of your points: you should move to Australia.
If you don’t think you have a family member or friend that is gay, you should try removing that cloak of fear and hatred. You will be surprised! Unfortunately gay people don’t have to show themselves to you: it’s not like skin color. And unlike other minority groups, most gay people are born to two straight parents, so for every ‘out’ gay person there are several who grew up surrounded by homophobes and who hide their identity. Homophobes should ask themselves why everybody they know wears the same cloak of hatred, and why all the creative people they meet seem to stay at a distance. They should outlaw marriage between haters.
“More solution-oriented”, Daniel? Ooh, sexism based on pop psychology. Funny.
Violation of the 14th Amendment. I’m not gay but I believe in democracy.
Hey, Mary- 60% of Australians believe same sex marriage should be legal, and 71% support civil unions. In Australia, even though gay marriage isn’t legal yet, homosexual couples have more rights equivalent to straight couples than they do in the US. You could always move to Pakistan, where gays can be stoned to death and women are total property of their husband. Since you’re so against societal progress you might as well return to a Bible-times lifestyle.