Was Judge Walker bias in Prop. 8 ruling?

[tinybear]

And just where would you find another judge that wouldn't be subject to the same biases??

Why not read the judge's decision and tell us where you think any bias is displayed?
California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

Prop 8 proponents were clearly lacking in their defense of their proposition.

Well, for a start, give it to a judge who isn't himself/herself gay/lesbian and who hasn't stated his/her views on the subject.

As for the judgment, Judge Walker would be pretty stupid if he wrote one which reeks of bias. Of course you can't tell from the judgment itself. But that, as I said, is beside the point. Actual bias need not be shown. As long as a reasonable member of the public perceives that there might be bias, the judgment must be set aside. So in answer to the question posed by this thread, I would say: There is no evidence Judge Walker was biased, but, even so, if there the mere perception of bias in the minds of the public, his judgment cannot stand.

[Jack]

...give it to a judge who isn't himself/herself gay/lesbian and who hasn't stated his/her views on the subject

He hadn't "stated his views" prior to the ruling, this has all come out after the fact. And why should the case be handed to a heterosexual judge? Wouldn't he or she have an "appearance of bias" against homosexuals?

[Mister Mr]

Well, for a start, give it to a judge who isn't himself/herself gay/lesbian and who hasn't stated his/her views on the subject.

As for the judgment, Judge Walker would be pretty stupid if he wrote one which reeks of bias. Of course you can't tell from the judgment itself. But that, as I said, is beside the point. Actual bias need not be shown. As long as a reasonable member of the public perceives that there might be bias, the judgment must be set aside. So in answer to the question posed by this thread, I would say: There is no evidence Judge Walker was biased, but, even so, if there the mere perception of bias in the minds of the public, his judgment cannot stand.

Agreed.

[Mister Mr]

He hadn't "stated his views" prior to the ruling, this has all come out after the fact. And why should the case be handed to a heterosexual judge? Wouldn't he or she have an "appearance of bias" against homosexuals?

Because a homosexual judge handling this case would directly benefit from it personally, while a heterosexual judge wouldn't personally benefit from the ruling of this case. That is why they should choose another judge, and also why he/she would not have an appearance of bias against homosexuals.

[Zeebadee]

Because a homosexual judge handling this case would directly benefit from it personally, while a heterosexual judge wouldn't personally benefit from the ruling of this case. That is why they should choose another judge, and also why he/she would not have an appearance of bias against homosexuals.

Sure, never mind the reasoning that the judge used in making his decision. As TB implied, his bias is well hidden behind logical arguments, but we know it's there anyway. The only bias being displayed here is yours.

And just how would this judge "directly benefit from it personally"?? Have you some evidence to show that this is true?

[Jack]

Because a homosexual judge handling this case would directly benefit from it personally, while a heterosexual judge wouldn't personally benefit from the ruling of this case. That is why they should choose another judge, and also why he/she would not have an appearance of bias against homosexuals.

Judge Walker had a chance to marry his partner and chose not to. So how exactly would he benefit from his decision?

A heterosexual judge who harbored religious opposition to gays in general could be seen as benefiting from upholding Prop. 8.

If you believe what you say do you also oppose any married judge from ruling on cases that affect married people? How about a Black or Hispanic judge ruling on racial issues? Should self-professed Christians be removed from cases invloving the separation of church and state? Wouldn't a male judge be seen as having a bias toward men in divorce proceedings? How far into the realm of nonsense should we extend your contention?

[Zeebadee]

Because a homosexual judge handling this case would directly benefit from it personally, while a heterosexual judge wouldn't personally benefit from the ruling of this case. That is why they should choose another judge, and also why he/she would not have an appearance of bias against homosexuals.

Please enlighten us, should black judges be excluded from civil rights cases, or should that be white judges? And how would we ever find a suitable judge for a domestic abuse case?

[againstthewind]

From reading the ruling I could tell he was NOT biased when he rendered his decision, it was findings of fact and conclusions of law. The case for the proponents was piss poor

[Dieval]

Judge Walker had a chance to marry his partner and chose not to. So how exactly would he benefit from his decision?

Going forward, he could choose to marry his partner, regardless of the past...have you ever changed your mind on anything and then found out it was too late to do something?

Please enlighten us, should black judges be excluded from civil rights cases, or should that be white judges?

Irrelevant and an invalid comparison. As much as people would like to compare gay marriage to race related issues, they're just not the same.

[grandpa]

Going forward, he could choose to marry his partner, regardless
of the past...
have you ever changed your mind on anything and then
found out it was too late to do something?

Again, the real question is whether the policies are biased. On the surface, yes, we know these policies are biased; "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John
8:32). If gays were allowed to marry, what would be the obvious harm? Would heterosexual couples everywhere be among the piles of dead?

Grandpa h.

[brendand]

Irrelevant and an invalid comparison. As much as people would like to compare gay marriage to race related issues, they're just not the same.

I hear a lot of statements without any reasons. The logic is exactly the same. "Presonally benefitting from a judgment" is the issue at hand, so, were this a legitimate concern, any judge making any ruling that had the potential to benefit them could be (and probably should be, in some instances) called into question. But these Prop 8 seem like all they want to hear is a judgment in their favour, no matter how desparate their arguments come across.

Fortunately, despite using logic in an attempt to cover his elusive "bias", Judge Walker's ruling stands.

Prop. 8 challenge to gay judge's ruling rejected

[grandpa]

I hear a lot of statements without any reasons.
The logic is exactly the same.

Why is this "bias" argument so laughable? I would try to count all the reasons, but I doubt I can count that high. For one thing, to my knowledge a court couldn't adequately detect bias without access to one's subconscious mind (just to be sure). For another thing, courts primarily exist so one party can personally benefit at the expense of another. In other words, they exist to impose opinions on people, and to sustain a systemic bias of how society, culture and institutions should function (including the courts themselves).

Grandpa h.