California's gay marriage ban struck down as unconstitutional

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact that he was an intelligent individual?

[Sharpe]

Quote:
There are also signs that the judge had made up his mind before the trial even started

Such as?

Well I saw on AC 360 that was said - something about a massive court battle about allowing cameras in the court for the case - that the case was something significant - you have to admit the case is mostly significant if the plaintiffs won - not so much if they lost - and that battle happened before the case started and the judge was one pushing for cameras reportedly?

As for a gay judge ruling, it would look less problematic or more favorable if a non-gay judge had made this ruling wouldn't it? Or if the case had been decided in some place other than San Francisco?

[Boris Godunov]

Well I saw on AC 360 that was said - something about a massive court battle about allowing cameras in the court for the case - that the case was something significant - you have to admit the case is mostly significant if the plaintiffs won - not if they lost.

Allowing cameras in the court = he made up his mind in advance?

Sorry, that doesn't really fly as an argument demonstrating he was biased towards one side or another beforehand. He could have a lot of reasons for being willing to allow cameras, and assuming it was because he made up his mind beforehand is unfounded.

As for a gay judge ruling, it would look less problematic or more favorable if a non-gay judge had made this ruling wouldn't it?

No more so than it would have looked for a Christian judge to be rendering the opposite verdict, now would it?

You need a bit more evidence to accuse a judge of bias beyond his being a member of the same minority group that's bringing the case. That's setting up an absurd double standard.

[Zevico]

1. The -appearance- of prejudice is inevitable in cases such as these, and is therefore permissible. Thus if a heterosexual judge ruled against such a law he might be seen as evincing prejudice against homosexuals (just as, in your example, a homosexual judge ruling in favour of it might be seen as evincing prejudice in favour of them). While the appearance of prejudice by a judge (or judges) is usually a ground for overturning a ruling or recusement prior to trial, it cannot be so in relation to the criterion of sexual orientation in relation to a ruling on issues of sexual orientation, if the argument is simply based on the alleged innate prejudices of the court.

[Sharpe]

What's the difference between a gay judge ruling on something so fundamental for the gay community re gay marriage and a judge who owns a significant number of shares of say Google, ruling on a case fundamental to Google?

By the way I'm not saying anything for or against the case in particular, I'm just curious as to why there wasn't a conflict of interest or vested interest.

[Asher]

Who says this issue is fundamental to the judge? There is no unilateral "gay community", many gays I know don't give a damn about marriage and don't believe in it at all. Perhaps this judge has no personal interest in marriage either.

A judge will either be heterosexual or homosexual, the accusations of bias could go either way. It's not at all applicable to the Google shareholder analogy.

[Boris Godunov]

What's the difference between a gay judge ruling on something so fundamental for the gay community re gay marriage and a judge who owns a significant number of shares of say Google, ruling on a case fundamental to Google?

I'm pretty sure ethics guidelines make a distinction between specific financial/personal gain and a nebulous one such as this. There's no reason to believe he'd necessarily personally benefit from this ruling one way or the other.

And again, wouldn't the same logic apply in reverse to a Christian judge? Or a judge of any religious belief that traditionally considers homosexuality immoral?

How do you impose a test to find an agnostic, heterosexual judge?

I suppose all 9 Supreme Court Justices in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka should have recused themselves since they were all white and we should have appointed a temporary panel of Indians, East Asians, Latinos and Eskimos.

[Sharpe]

Maybe, you have to admit - it would look better if the case hadn't been decided in SF by a gay judge - there wouldn't be as many doubts about the decision then perhaps.

And again, wouldn't the same logic apply in reverse to a Christian judge? Or a judge of any religious belief that traditionally considers homosexuality immoral?

Maybe, and it would be interesting to see the reactions if a Christian judge who was against gays ruled in the same way as this judge has. If the ruling was based on sound law, he wouldn't have much choice not to wouldn't he?

[Boris Godunov]

The people who are doubting the decision would be reacting the exact same way if the judge were heterosexual and the court was in, I don't know, Boise. Claiming bias on the part of Walker is just a convenient excuse. How about people actually read the ruling and judge it on its merits? Isn't that actually the unbiased thing to do?

We could also go the other way and point out Walker was nominated by Reagan and Bush Sr., and his reputation is as being a somewhat conservative judge.

If the ruling was based on sound law, he wouldn't have much choice not to wouldn't he?

And the same would hold true for a gay judge, now wouldn't it?

[Sharpe]

Most people , myself included would probably have to make a trip to an asylum after reading any court ruling as our brains would be all mixed up

The income tax act is challenging enough for me in my profession unfortunately.

[Zevico]

1. I found it well written and, at least, an interesting discussion from a policy viewpoint (though I can't speak to the legal bases of the case).

[Fake Boris]

Well, this is the kind of case where the judge has pretty much made his mind before the trial. Still, there's no reason we should treat "gay" bias differently than, say, Catholic or straight bias.

[Kuciwalker]

It's completely unreasonable that the plaintiffs won. The case is called Perry v. Schwarzenegger, for chrissake.

[Boris Godunov]

Schwarzenegger declined to defend the law, he's against Prop 8.

[Solomwi]

You are an idiot and should be shot in the penis.

You complete me, Wiggy.