A worthwhile political comic (Prop 8)

[BoltNut]

It was 1787 and they thought women and black people were inherently inferior, so, I am sure that the equal rights of gay people (the fourteenth amendment not even being proposed yet) wasn’t even on their minds.

While I agree there are similarities and that those similarities will have much to do with any decisions made by the Supreme Court, I have a little bit of a hard time comparing race or gender to lifestyle choice. But that's just me. These days, they all seem interchangeable.

 

[variant]

While I agree there are similarities and that those similarities will have much to do with any decisions made by the Supreme Court, I have a little bit of a hard time comparing race or gender to lifestyle choice. But that's just me. These days, they all seem interchangeable.

I was just making the point that the founders may not be the best people to inform our decisions on how we treat each other and minorities in 2010.

I don't think being gay is a choice, or harmful to others, so the comparison makes sense to me.

 

[GarrettC]

I understand your point. Being a gay judge, if he had excused himself from hearing this case, another judge would have taken his place. If that new judge were not gay, would there not be reason for the new judge to excuse himself based on a potential bias toward heterosexuals? It kinda works both ways.

In the case heard about Prop 8, I believe it would have been difficult for a judge who was an old fashioned, Bible believing Christian to decide any differently than this judge did. The 'plaintiffs' made a good case. The proponents of Prop 8 just didn't do their homework. It would have been very difficult for some of the best legal minds in our nation to win that case.

These days, there are so many issues that strike a nerve with me. Many of these issues go to the heart of my beliefs as a Christian. I am finding that I cannot 'slay every dragon' that is out there. Arguing over a few issues, even though they are important in my heart, are becoming pointless. I'm having to pick other 'battles' to fight. The concern I have in this particular instance is more how it will affect the future. Can churches at some future time be sued for refusing to 'marry' gay couples based on Biblical teachings? It's possible, I would imagine. That, in my opinion, is much more important than the decision that was made by this judge.

Yes, straight judges are biased as well, but I'd wager it would be easier to find a relatively unbiased straight judge than a relatively unbiased gay judge, which was the second part of the point I was trying to make.

 

[GarrettC]

Lets say that we have a sexual harassment case. A female employee is harassed by her boss.

Who is allowed to rule on it?

A female judge might be biased for the woman, a male, for the man. Do we hire a transsexual judge? Maybe we need a eunuch?

Thing is, in regards to those cases, there is a widely held belief in the inherent wrongness of sexual harassment. There is no widely-held belief when it comes to homosexuality - it is a much more divisive issue.

 

[reverend B]

Yes, straight judges are biased as well, but I'd wager it would be easier to find a relatively unbiased straight judge than a relatively unbiased gay judge, which was the second part of the point I was trying to make.

why do you think so?

 

[lemmings]

Thing is, in regards to those cases, there is a widely held belief in the inherent wrongness of sexual harassment. There is no widely-held belief when it comes to homosexuality - it is a much more divisive issue.

I understand this, but the point still stands, everyone belongs into one group (gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ext) or another. If there is a court case in which they are fighting then it is a judge's responsibility to look at a case impartially. If they were not able to do this, it would be impossible for us to have discrimination lawsuits.


I fear that this posting in incoherent so just ask me for clarification.

 

[variant]

Yes, straight judges are biased as well, but I'd wager it would be easier to find a relatively unbiased straight judge than a relatively unbiased gay judge, which was the second part of the point I was trying to make.

This probably has to do with your definition of normal, and thus reveals (your bias).

 

[Maren]

Yes, straight judges are biased as well, but I'd wager it would be easier to find a relatively unbiased straight judge than a relatively unbiased gay judge, which was the second part of the point I was trying to make.

Still, it is odd that people ignore (or don't bother to find out) the fact that this is a conservative judge who has a very good reputation for being unbiased and producing fair rulings -- even among religious conservatives. As well as the fact that when he was first nominated by Pres. Reagan to a position as federal judge, he was rejected by Congress as being too conservative and even considered as anti-gay based on cases he had argued.

Instead these people immediately latch onto the fact that he was gay -- and because he is gay, in their minds, they automatically assume that he is a liberal judge making an activist ruling.

To me, it is also worth noting that the plaintiffs (the anti-Prop. 8 side) had two nationally respected lawyers who have both previously argued before the Supreme Court and are from opposites sides of the political spectrum. These are the two lead counsels from each side of Bush v. Gore. Seems like with that type of legal counsel for the plaintiffs, the decision likely did have less to do with the judges orientation and instead more to do with the arguments presented by each side, especially with the reports of how poorly the defense argued their case.

 

[BoltNut]

Yes, straight judges are biased as well, but I'd wager it would be easier to find a relatively unbiased straight judge than a relatively unbiased gay judge, which was the second part of the point I was trying to make.

Maybe this is more to do with numbers than who has a vested interest in the case. There would obviously be more "straight" judges than there would be gay judges. Therefore, finding a judge that could remain "impartial" may be easier to find amongst the "straight" judges if by nothing else, their bigger numbers. Your idea that the straight judge would be more likely to be unbiased due to the assumption that he has "nothing to gain and nothing to lose" no matter how he decides, is understandable. The same could not be said of the gay judge. My opinion of this particular allegedly gay judge is that he had no need to be biased. Simply based on court procedures and case law that was presented, there was really no other decision he could have made. I don't see how a straight judge would have seen it any differently.