Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

[bytor2112]

Funky: I shouldn't laugh because it's true. He, no doubt, will accomplish the personal advancements - whether intended or not.

I hear he is already selling his story for a made for TV movie :) Josh Brolin or maybe Kevin Bacon to play the Judge.

[omega0401]

... if it were an LDS judge who upheld prop 8, his religion would be blamed as making him biased. How can we not expect the same argument if Judge Walker is gay?

Even if we just leave religion entirely out of it and placed a hetrosexual judge instead of a homosexual judge, would he not be accused of being biased also? It will be the same thing with the 9th circuit court of appeals judges and even with the US Supreme Court judges.

This is going to be very interesting. The majority of this country favors a man and a woman as the definition of marriage but the possibility of being overridden by judges who themselves may be homosexual will be something major.

California's been through this twice. Now the rest of the country will have to be involved.

[GaySaint]

Good point Omega: I think no matter the outcome, SOMEONE is going to get blamed. Currently it is the "activist homosexual judge," but if the decision came out differently, I'm sure you are right - we would then be blaming the "conservative judge" or the "religious judge" or the "homophobic judge."

There is just no way to escape criticism with this issue.

[Hemidakota]

I wonder I could sue to the state and the Attorney General for violating my rights as a voter - twice now. Or now pursue my rights for plural marriage.

[Soulsearcher]

I'm sure if you look long enough you can find any number of extreme comments on either side. I rather thought the "Feed the Christians to the Lions" routine was more vitrolic than what the religious right was stating.

The individuals I know and I have talked to have no intention for this to be a first step for anything. I am certainly content for the Civil Unions to be employed by the gay community to award them the same advantages they are seeking in marriage.

Which leads me to wonder what this is the first step for the gay community - since it seems from your argument that there must be one.

:)

The fact that a page or two back you already have a person saying they want Civil unions gone is enough for me to say, hmmmm.

I notice you use a different set of terms - depending on which argument you are presenting. Here you talk about straight people as if ALL straight people oppose gay marriage or the gays themselves. I understand by changing this from the real concern (the religous right) that you make it an either or situation. Either a gay judge hears the case or a straight judge hears the case. Which allows you to ignore the fact that it possible to have a judge that is very much in the middle of the road on the topic. I see enough of that on the discussion forums to know that there are moderates on the subject. That is what Melissa has suggested and it is entirely reasonable.

The entire fight for the pro 8 faction was the damage that would be done to marriage for straight people. The fact is there are gay people who really don't care about the marriage debate, but we've assumed that gay means they can't be middle of the road either. If we eliminate the middle of the road on one side why assume it exists on the other?

That would pretty much sum up my feelings as to several of the statements you've made.

Show me anything I said that implied hate for religious people. Disagreement and disappointment yes, but really nothing any different than religious people say against me or my lifestyle, and we are told daily that they don't hate.

[Hemidakota]

Judge Vaughn Walker's sexual orientation sparks ire over fairness on Prop 8, same-sex marriage case

[jayanna]

I cannot speculate on what that judge was thinking, perhaps th judge was truly reading the Constitution and pondering the rights described therein, I don't know. I don't need to know..I need to forgive, and ask myself what the Lord wants me to do.

Concerning the definition of marriage. I did not define it. The dictionary is only parroting somebody's definition of it. God wrote a definition of it. It is in the Proclamation, which was quoted earlier. I do not believe that it was written and distributed throughout the world to cause hate, but rather to give to the world information about how to receive true joy.

I, personally, would not wish to redefine something that was created by our loving Heavenly Father, nor do I believe that a group of people, whatever kind of group that is, has the right to assume authority over Him. He wants us to have joy, eternal joy. He has shown us how to receive that joy. Fortunately he has given us a road map. A union described as a 'marriage' between two people of the same gender is not on that road map. Sometimes following that path means that we have to let go of things that we thought we wanted.

I don't know if their sins are greater than mine. I am only worried about mine. This is not a temptation that I have had to cope with myself. But, I do have a testimony of true marriage, and wish to shine my light.

[RanMan]

The fact that a page or two back you already have a person saying they want Civil unions gone is enough for me to say, hmmmm.

Oh, I'm sure it is enough for you to say hmmmmm.

It doesn't really address what I said though.

The entire fight for the pro 8 faction was the damage that would be done to marriage for straight people. The fact is there are gay people who really don't care about the marriage debate, but we've assumed that gay means they can't be middle of the road either. If we eliminate the middle of the road on one side why assume it exists on the other?

I made no comment indicating that gays couldn't be in the middle of the road. I merely pointed out your tactic of placing everyone into two camps. Gay and straight - without any regard as to how they might view the topic.

I get it, by doing so you can set up a false division, making it seem reasonable that a straight is just as unlikely to be impartial in this as a gay judge. Of course it is totally false, as there are many straights who are supportive of the measure.

It's a broken argument. The fact is that there are probably a fairly decent number of straight judges who's minds are somewhere in the middle of this issue who would be ideal to hear it. I can see you are ignoring that in preferrence to defending a gay judge.

Show me anything I said that implied hate for religious people. Disagreement and disappointment yes, but really nothing any different than religious people say against me or my lifestyle, and we are told daily that they don't hate.

Am I understanding this correctly. You complained about the comments others have made here. I posted that I felt the same sort of reaction to yours. Then you follow up with - its no different that what people say against you.

Which is it? Are you following in the footsteps of others or were their posts really not that objectionable in the first place?

[omega0401]

Judge Vaughn Walker's sexual orientation sparks ire over fairness on Prop 8, same-sex marriage case

How can a judge be gay and not let that affect him? Can you imagine the reaction he would get from his own homosexual community throughout this nation if he had voted to support Prop 8? He would never hear the end of it. And I think it would be a little contradicting of him to be gay and to then vote for in favor of Prop 8. So I think he voted the only way he had to vote.

Californians voted twice to successfully define what marriage is and one gay judge overturns what the majority voted for. You would think you would get the same reaction from homosexuals had it been a heterosexual judge.

[Soulsearcher]

Oh, I'm sure it is enough for you to say hmmmmm.

It doesn't really address what I said though.

It addresses what i was talking about when you quoted me though. You said people you've talked to are just fine accepting it, though there's proof even in this thread, never mind others, that not only is marriage unacceptable, civil unions must go as well. To the best of my knowledge there is no major plot, we are looking for one thing. The fact either side fears that there might be more doesn't means there is, but try really convincing either side.

I made no comment indicating that gays couldn't be in the middle of the road. I merely pointed out your tactic of placing everyone into two camps. Gay and straight - without any regard as to how they might view the topic.

I get it, by doing so you can set up a false division, making it seem reasonable that a straight is just as unlikely to be impartial in this as a gay judge. Of course it is totally false, as there are many straights who are supportive of the measure.

It's a broken argument. The fact is that there are probably a fairly decent number of straight judges who's minds are somewhere in the middle of this issue who would be ideal to hear it. I can see you are ignoring that in preferrence to defending a gay judge.

The entire reason this thread was started to state that it was very unlikely that a gay man could be impartial judging this case. The second post in the thread made it very clear that the thought of a gay judge being impartial was silly.

My question was if no gay can be impartial, which was implied by the very opening of this thread, who can be, because the faulty logic saying no gay can be middle of the road makes it also very unlikely that any straight person can be impartial by applying the same logic the original posters applied to the situation. The implied meaning of this thread, which was rather obvious and admitted to early on was that an entire side of this argument was not able to vote anyother way, i do not support that, and asked if can not accept that one side be unbiased, how can we accept the other side must be unbiased. The meaning of the thread made the original blanket statement of everyone in one camp can't be impartial, i didn't, i just expanded the question.

I have no preference to who hears it, my question is how do we prove middle of the road? How do we know they are impartial with no bias? We can't accept their word on the subject, or trust the fact they are judges and supposed to be impartial so how do we find the right judge?

Am I understanding this correctly. You complained about the comments others have made here. I posted that I felt the same sort of reaction to yours. Then you follow up with - its no different that what people say against you.

Which is it? Are you following in the footsteps of others or were their posts really not that objectionable in the first place?

See i said i do not HATE religious people. You could not find a single example of hate. I did say i disagreed and was disappointed, but that's far from hate. The fact i find things objectionable does not in any way mean i hate them. However if you take the comments i have made as hate, then the comments made toward me must be hate as well because they are objectionable, and the church has made it clear it does not hate gay people, so the people using and fanning the word hate on both sides are just looking for reaction and over stating as a way to divert from what's really being said.

And to be clear you did not post that you felt the same. You clearly took a quote using the word hate. I said clearly that i do not hate anyone and you have not proven that the quote about me was right.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Just_A_Guy]

Pam's suggestion may wind up being more than a hypothetical.

It's been pointed out elsewhere that at least four judges on the 9th Circuit are LDS, and it's very likely that at least one of them will be on the panel that hears the appeal from this case.

[Soulsearcher]

Pam's suggestion may wind up being more than a hypothetical.

It's been pointed out elsewhere that at least four judges on the 9th Circuit are LDS, and it's very likely that at least one of them will be on the panel that hears the appeal from this case.

Which leads me to wonder. I don't want to assume they can't do their jobs and stick to the facts of the case. I want to have faith in them. Am i just being naive or is it possible? Are people hoping all the lds judges recuse themselves to avoid the same backlash? This is honest asking by the way. This isn't being snotty or trying to be clever in any way. I would have preferred a straight judge hearing this case in the first place, so none of this backlash would have happened and the focus would have stayed on the findings, not how much the bias played on the verdict. At what point do we accept people at their word and what point do we toss them all out because we find reasons not to trust them?

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't have any good answers, SoulSearcher.

I know, for example, that the majority of the US Supreme Court are Catholics (five or seven of them, I think). I've never heard of them recusing themselves from cases involving the Catholic Church or a diocese thereof--but then, I haven't heard of the Court hearing any such cases lately, anyways.

My gut reaction would be that, yes, these LDS judges should recuse themselves for the same reason you were uncomfortable with Walker deciding the case at the district level: this decision is going to be so revolutionary (either way it goes) that the court's integrity needs to be beyond reproach.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

I don't have any good answers, SoulSearcher.

I know, for example, that the majority of the US Supreme Court are Catholics (five or seven of them, I think). I've never heard of them recusing themselves from cases involving the Catholic Church or a diocese thereof--but then, I haven't heard of the Court hearing any such cases lately, anyways.

My gut reaction would be that, yes, these LDS judges should recuse themselves for the same reason you were uncomfortable with Walker deciding the case at the district level: this decision is going to be so revolutionary (either way it goes) that the court's integrity needs to be beyond reproach.

In cases like this would it be better to have Judges polled like they do juries for jury duty? Try and establish the ability to be impartial? Again, not a joke just curious as the best way to limit the personal effect on cases.

[Just_A_Guy]

Deleted - meant to "quote" my post in linking to a new story (here), but accidentally hit "edit" and inadvertently deleted the whole shebang. Sorry!

Edited August 7, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Its not that this judge can't be fair just because he's gay...

Plus, he was a Republican appointee...

[GaySaint]

JAG: Doesn't the 9th District court currently have 4 vacancies and only 3 active judges? I thought I read that somewhere... but that would make it rather hard to have 4 LDS judges in the court.