A gay judge shouldn’t have to recuse himself from cases involving marriage rights. It’s married heterosexual judges that must recuse themselves from such decision-making. Since over half of all heterosexuals ARE WRONG ABOUT THEIR OWN MARRIAGES (resulting in divorce) – clearly they are in no position to rule competently in such a matter.

Should female judges not hear cases pertaining to womens rights? Who should decide custody in divorce cases…hermaphrodite judges only? Would you say this about Latino judges, black judges, Asian judges etc.?

Should black judges be allowed to preside over cases involving black plaintiffs or defendents, especailly when one of the sides isn’t black? Oh wait, that happens every day and no one would suggest that it not!

I actually fear that having a gay judge hear this case could work against us. He COULD be so concerned about an APPEARANCE of bias that he actually goes against his instincts and really looks for a way to rule for the defense, just to make some stupid point about his judicial purity.

The judge appointed to this case could have JUST AS EASILY been a flaming evangelical Christian. You play the cards you’re dealt when you go into a court room. Perhaps a little thing called Karma is catching up with the good people at NOM! NOM is not entitled to a judge who is straight or anything else. How many conservative, religious, STRAIGHT judges have ruled on various gay rights cases through the years? I don’t hear the gay community crying foul over that.

What about civil rights cases do ethnic minority judges recuse themselves from these cases? What about sexual harassment cases, do female judges recuse themselves from these cases. More importantly, why would anyone rationally expect a white judge or a male judge to be unbiased in these cases.

The real issue here is one of historical privilege and entitlement. Straight white males have long enjoyed being at the top of the food chain and thus often have difficulty recognizing deep seated biases while at the same time viewing those who are racially or otherwise different as inherently biased when dealing with issues of race etc. That is the perfect illustration of what it really means to be racist, sexist and heterosexist.

Food for thought,

Of course we know better than to expect them to follow their own twisted logic.

See exerpt from CNN below:

5/6/2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to recuse himself from an upcoming case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he recently hunted and dined.

“I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned,” Scalia said in a 21-page memorandum, rejecting suggestions of an appearance of a conflict of interest.

“If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined,” he wrote.

Got Bias? San Francisco Chronicle Reports Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay
Monday, February 8, 2010 5:56 PM
From:
“Brian Brown”

Dear Friend of Marriage,

In a story this Sunday (Feb. 7), the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is gay and called his orientation, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage.”

We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That’s no secret at all.

Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.

But Judge Walker’s bias from the bench includes:

A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant “fishing expeditions” into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn’t six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.

Even though the Prop 8 supporters were forced to turn over private, internal documents and emails, Walker has refused to demand the same from opponents of the measure. In fact, Walker has refused to even rule on a motion to compel the discovery of this information, even though he has already closed testimony in the case. That alone is an unbelievable tilting of the playing field.

Walker has presided over a show trial designed to generate sympathetic headlines and news coverage for gay marriage supporters. Witness after witness was allowed to testify about their “expert” opinion that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel badly when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 was simply an echo of historic prejudice and bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.

To show the lengths that Walker has gone to create a “record” favoring the plaintiffs, he even allowed one “expert” witness — a gay man from Colorado who has never lived in California and was never exposed to any Prop 8 campaign messages — to testify that his parents’ efforts to change his sexual orientation failed.

But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker’s rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker’s efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules “at the eleventh hour” in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).

Judge Walker’s bias has been so extreme, he’s earned a rare judicial “twofer.” Key elements of his “fishing expedition” rulings were already reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (notably one of the most liberal in the nation) and the Supreme Court had to step in to block his illegal attempt to broadcast the trial.

It is highly unusual for a higher court to have to intercede in a trial judge’s handling of a trial while it is going on — yet Walker has had that “distinction” twice in the same case — and we’re not yet even at closing arguments.

There’s only one saving grace to Judge Walker’s bias. It’s so big, and so obvious, not only the American public but the Supreme Court itself is already aware we have bias in the trial judge presiding.
Brian Brown

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org