• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge in high-profile (California) Prop 8 case is gay

So he wants to get married?

I'm sorry, if this was a case of say... religious expression, and the judge was a street preacher on his off days...

Or he was on the board of a Pro-Life group...

Or this was a case for Transgender rights, and he was in the process of transitioning...
 
I'm sorry, if this was a case of say... religious expression, and the judge was a street preacher on his off days...

Or he was on the board of a Pro-Life group...

Or this was a case for Transgender rights, and he was in the process of transitioning...

And if this was a case about gay marriage,and he wanted to get married to a same sex partner...

If just having an orientation would disqualify a judge, we could have no judges for the case.
 
I'm sorry, if this was a case of say... religious expression, and the judge was a street preacher on his off days...

Unless he had specifically preached about what kind of religious expression was permitted, why would that disqualify him?

MrVicchio said:
Or he was on the board of a Pro-Life group...

Bad analogy. Being on the board of a pro-life group would show that he supports a particular political agenda. Being gay does not; you are just making assumptions about his views.

MrVicchio said:
Or this was a case for Transgender rights, and he was in the process of transitioning...

That also would not be a disqualifier, as you would just be making assumptions about his political views.


Besides, isn't the whole basis of the anti-gay marriage argument supposedly that it has nothing to do with punishing gays, and is just a matter of protecting the institution of marriage? If that is truly the case and not just a cover for homophobia (which frankly I don't believe for one second), why would you assume that a gay judge wouldn't see it the same way? After all, if it isn't about punishing gay people, why would his sexual preference have any bearing on this case?
 
Last edited:
If just having an orientation would disqualify a judge, we could have no judges for the case.

Absolutely right. If a gay judge is going to side with gay marriage, then a straight judge is going to side with straight marriage.

Who's left?
 
This judge has no conflict of interest. Prop 8 is about the definition of marriage, right? Unless you are willing to admit the sole purpose is to persecute gays, in which case prop 8 violates the multitude of anti-discrimination laws in the California Constitution. So which is it? Is it a conflict of interest because a gay man has a vested interest in avoiding government sanctioned discrimination or is he impartial as the next judge?
 
Because, he's going to side in the way that benefits him most.

assuming that is true (which of course it isn't....but just assuming it is)....

Are you advocating that he should recuse himself, but a straight judge shouldn't?

Afterall, using your rationale, a straight judge would automatically side in the way that benefits him the most....
 
If the judge was very vocal about being anti-gay marriage, would any of the pro-gay-marriage folks have a problem with that?
 
Fox watching the hen house?
 
If the judge was very vocal about being anti-gay marriage, would any of the pro-gay-marriage folks have a problem with that?

Yes, I would have a problem with that, just as I would have a problem if he were very vocal about pro-gay marriage. However, do you have proof that he is?
 
If the judge was very vocal about being anti-gay marriage, would any of the pro-gay-marriage folks have a problem with that?

Of course I would have a problem with that. But that's not a good analogy, because he hasn't been very vocal in SUPPORT of gay marriage. He's just gay. You're making ASSUMPTIONS about his legal views based on that.
 
It's an interesting article. My gut reaction is: so what. But, upon reading the article, it's not just conflict of interest, but appearance of conflict of interest that matters. The people must have faith in the decisions - having two orders reversed by higher courts is playing into the perceived bias in favor of one side.

The last five paragraphs were thought-provoking. I still think he didn't need to recuse himself, but I'm less certain of that opinion now.


In the end though, this case will definitely go on to further appeals no matter how it comes out.
 
It's an interesting article. My gut reaction is: so what. But, upon reading the article, it's not just conflict of interest, but appearance of conflict of interest that matters. The people must have faith in the decisions - having two orders reversed by higher courts is playing into the perceived bias in favor of one side.

The last five paragraphs were thought-provoking. I still think he didn't need to recuse himself, but I'm less certain of that opinion now.


In the end though, this case will definitely go on to further appeals no matter how it comes out.

Remember that it is a Baptist Press article. While I agree that it is a decent article, and I have no facts to contradict them, I am going to patiently watch things a bit, since I am not overly confident that the article is the whole story. I could be wrong, it's just a feeling I have.
 
Absolutely right. If a gay judge is going to side with gay marriage, then a straight judge is going to side with straight marriage.

Who's left?

Hmmm....I'm normal, and I find no validity to arguments opposing same-sex marriage.

HOWEVER....the queer judge has an obvious potential bias that in an honorable man would have led him to recuse himself from this case. He did not recuse himself, therefore he is not honorable, and if the verdict on this case is to throw Proposition 8 out, yet once again the Right will be absolutely correct in saying the will of the people was overturned by one biased unelected individual.

Prop 8 should be overturned.

It should be overturned without the slightest taint of impropriety.
 
Back
Top Bottom