Cue the crazies. The Proposition 8 case is about to get really, really ugly.

[elfs]

Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge in the current Proposition 8 case, is gay.

There are going to be accusations from just about the entire right-wing world that this was a set-up, that the judge is biased and the processes designed to make them look stupid. Never mind that they did that to themselves. Never mind that not a single person going before the court on behalf of Proposition 8 could actually make a case for there being anything wrong with homosexual marriage, that several of Proposition 8's own presentations made Proposition 8 look bad, that one of the defendants actually wrote in opposition to Prop 8 just two years earlier, and another wrote in opposition to the initiative process being used to take power away from minorities. The first said he "no longer believed" what he had published twelve months prior, and the second argued that homosexuals don't constitute "a minority." (This is why you're hearing the phrase "homosexual acts" so often these days; it's a lawyerly attempt by the right to redefine homosexuality as something you do, rather than an identity.)

Proposition 8 Tracker has an email from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) claiming that the bias is "so big and obvious" that the Supremes will have no choice but to slap it down.

It's sort-of a shame this happened this way. It'll distract from the incredibly poor and ugly arguments that the pro-8 side put up.

Comments

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

Well, that's always their way. Try to distract from the truth with a pile of bullshit. I'd like to know how a straight judge couldn't be argued as being biased in the same way.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

Judge Walker should have recused himself instead of trying to be an activist. I smelled a rat from the first moment he suggested the cameras be allowed in the courtroom... but at that point I just thought he was an idiot for making the suggestion. Now I see it was probably an attempt to bias the case.

I hate activist judges. It's not their job to implement policy, only to rule on legality of policies already implemented, and this is proof!

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

Duh. Easy argument.

Your position that a straight judge would be biased in the other direction assumes (incorrectly) that being straight means being against same-sex marriage... where it's a safe assumption that a gay judge *would* be biased in favor of same-sex marriage.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

And you assume a gay judge would automatically be biased *for* gay marriage, instead of being an impartial judicial observer. In other words, you're still fulla bull.

[(Anonymous)]

It'll be an annoying distraction for a while, but won't really matter one way or another in the long run. This case is guaranteed to go the Ninth Circuit and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court. The lower court shenanigans will be old news by the time this gets to where it's going.

Number 127

[solarbird]

(This is why you're hearing the phrase "homosexual acts" so often these days; it's a lawyerly attempt by the right to redefine homosexuality as something you do, rather than an identity.
This language has been in use for decades, it's not new. They've always tried to define away from identity.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And any heterosexual judge would be biased in favor of Proposition 8, and so should automatically recuse him/herself as well.

Therefore, by definition, the only person who could possibly adjudicate this case properly is a bisexual.

Or an alien.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

I do believe darrelx is biased...yes indeedy I do. Heh.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

How many straight people (not just judges) are in favor of same-sex marriages? Lots.

How many gay, Bi, or other alternative lifestylers do you know who are against same-sex marriage? Probably none.

It has nothing to do with whether he is a judge or not... Being gay is OBVIOUSLY going to bias him. Being straight is not so obvious. That's the criteria that should have been used for recusing himself from the trial.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

See my secondary reply to Doodles. My point was that MANY straight people are also in favor of same-sex marriages, but you will be hard pressed to find ANY gay people who are against it.

Not taking the fact he is a judge into consideration, just being gay means he will obviously be biased in favor of gay marriage and cannot sit impartially. He should have recused himself instead of trying to hide this fact so that he could manipulate the system from behind the bench.

He's a bad judge, not for being gay, but for taking this case instead of passing it on. Judges recuse themselves all the time when they have a vested interest in a particular case. He should have done the same.

I find it ironic that proponents of same-sex marriage would defend this judge's actions, since now no matter what happens, if Pro 8 gets overturned, the case will be sent back on appeal because of obvious judicial misconduct.

I'm looking at this logically and from a legal standpoint... My opinion has no bearing on the arguments I've put forward here.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

I didn't state anything here about my opinion on same-sex marriage... only that the judge acted improperly in not recusing himself.

I was disagreeing with the analogy Doodles put forward that any straight judge would have been just as biased, as the opinions among straight people about same-sex marriage is all over the board, but the opinion among homosexuals is pretty clear and unanimous.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

If Jesus himself ruled in favor of gay marriage, they'd still scream and stamp their feet and wail about how some limp-wristed (and if driving nails through your wrists doesn't make them limp, I don't know what will!) faggy hippy love-child who spent his life out in the desert with a group of men had some kind of bias.

Or as Ambrose Bierce summarized it, "Justice (n): A decision in your favor." Nothing else is going to be acceptable to them.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

So a black judge could never rule on a case involving racism but a white judge could because of COURSE a white judge is less likely to be biased and treat people fairly right? I mean after all. They're BLACK!

Isn't it nice how conservative white heterosexual men believe that they're the only people capable of being unbiased? It's almost as if they have some kind of bias.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

Still not getting it. Your analogy assumes (incorrectly) that all Black people would be biased. I know a lot of black people who are against affirmative action, against reparations, and who vote Republican. I even have a close friend who is offended by the term "african American"

You would be hard pressed to find any Gay people who are against gay marriage. you can't argue that a gay judge wouldn't be biased in this case, because that defies all reason... especially when the same judge tried to conceal that fact.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

(funny how now all of a sudden I'm a racist, too. Typcial misdirection from a leftist loonie.)

[briar-fox.livejournal.com]

"Black people aren't all biased, I know some of them! It's The Gay you have to watch out for!"

I like how considering that your assumption of bias might be incorrect "defies all reason", the article's "does not advertise" gets magically transformed into "tried to conceal", and an analogy conveniently gets transformed into an accusation of racism right when you need a misdirection. Kudos on upholding the conservative image.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, damn that man for not broadcasting something that has absolutely no bearing on his professional life but would bring him no end of pain from narrow-minded bigots. It's almost like he feared some kind of systematic bias against homosexuals. Crazy!

The issue isn't that it's hard to find gay people who oppose gay marriage, it's that it's hard to find any straight people who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion, animus, or some vague ick factor -- as the testimony in the trial so far has amply demonstrated. You assume that solidarity among the gay community and division among straights implies that straights are more fair-minded and gays are biased. I submit that you have it exactly backwards, just as has been the case for pretty much every major civil rights battle in this country's history. It's always the majority, eager to protect the status quo, who clings to outdated biases.

Number 127

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

By switching to affirmative action and reparations, you're changing the subject. The correct analogy would be miscegenation laws.

Do you think that, when laws against interracial marriage were being challenged, black judges (had there been any at the time) should have recused themselves?

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

It's not just my opinion... How about the author of that article:

"On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that a 65-year-old gay man hasn’t thought about questions like whether homosexuality is innate—and hasn’t thought about them more deeply and empathetically than most 65-year-old heterosexual men."

The point is that a Gay man thinks about gay marriage and will have a strong view on it, whereas others don't bother with the issue much.

There's a definite double-standard here... Straight white men are assumed to be biased against gay marriage, when the statistics show differently, yet you refuse to acknowledge that a gay man would *not* be biased on this issue?!? 5% of California's population is gay, yet they still got over 40% of the vote against Prop 8... I bet some of those votes were from straight white men.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

No, I was only using current topics as an analogy, not historical ones that aren't at issue anymore.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

And since you're a conservative straight white guy, I'm certain your sample of strawmengays must be completely unbiased.

(besides, I know better than to waste my time arguing with someone with the mental acuity of a 3-year-old)

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

My point was that MANY straight people are also in favor of same-sex marriages, but you will be hard pressed to find ANY gay people who are against it.


Not even slightly true, not to mention being based on assumptions rather than observed fact. Do a lot of gay people want legal marriage? Yes. Do all of them? Nope. A lot of them, like a lot of straight people, believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, and would strongly prefer that the government just get it's long pointy nose out of *everyone's* private life, change all the laws that base privilege on marriage, and change the tax structure too, while they're at it.

Do you have *any* idea how deeply insulting it is for you to assume and state as fact that Judge Walker (a) isn't capable of basing his decision on established law and precedent rather than his own personal bias, (b) isn't capable of being able to determine whether he has bias, and/or (c) wouldn't have the ethics to recuse himself if he did feel that he was biased?

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

You're presuming a bias on the part of gay people, and then you're dodging the question of whether you would presume a similar bias on the part of black people. I'm having a hard time taking your arguments in good faith.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

Sorry, my answer wasn't complete and iddn't address that sentence.

If a Klan member was a judge back then, he should have recused himelf from an interracial marriage issue, yes.

...and you are presuming MANY things about my points that are not true.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. That's so last year!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_of_interracial_marriage_in_Louisiana