Was Judge Walker bias in Prop. 8 ruling?

[Zeebadee]

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.

The whole issue here is judicial bias. In cases regarding racial issues, who would be more biased, black judges or white judges?

[grandpa]

The whole issue here is judicial bias.
In cases regarding racial issues, who would be more biased,
black judges or white judges?

I intend no personal attack here, but isn't the whole point of banning gay marriage to strengthen institutional bias? I mean, isn't that true on the very face of it? It's like Ronald McDonald speaking on the rights of a cow.

Black judge versus white judge is an interesting topic, though.
The case of 24-year-old Jeffery McGowan:
Black judge rejects plea deal for 'white boy' - TODAY News - TODAY.com

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

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

Actually, I'd rather the judges not rule on laws that have won a majority vote. The people of California have spoken and a very small group of people won't accept it.

[Dieval]

The whole issue here is judicial bias.

Correct - in regards to the Prop 8 ruling.

In cases regarding racial issues, who would be more biased, black judges or white judges?

Irrelevant to the topic. racial issues ≠ prop 8.

[brendand]

Actually, I'd rather the judges not rule on laws that have won a majority vote. The people of California have spoken and a very small group of people won't accept it.

State Question 755 was overturned after a majority vote in its favour, but I hear no outrage over that, nor do I see millions of dollars put forth in a campaign to battle it.

In any event, that "very small group of people" would rather not have a potentially tyrannical majority vote on their right to engage in a governmental contract because people don't like the gender of one of the signing parties. You'd think these self-professed "constitutionalists" would be more interested in upholding the Equal Protection Clause...yeesh...

[Second as Farce]

Actually, I'd rather the judges not rule on laws that have won a majority vote. The people of California have spoken and a very small group of people won't accept it.

A "very small group of people"? 48% of the largest state in the union now qualifies as a "very small group of people"?

Also, judges shouldn't rule on any law which has won a popular vote? So if the evil, godless athiests in a state like Vermont were to narrowly vote in favor of banning the practice of Christianity, you wouldn't want a judge to overturn that law?

[Dieval]

State Question 755 was overturned after a majority vote in its favour, but I hear no outrage over that, nor do I see millions of dollars put forth in a campaign to battle it.

..never heard of it...funny how the very vocal, very small minority makes you hear about prop 8, eh?

In any event, that "very small group of people" would rather not have a potentially tyrannical majority vote on their right to engage in a governmental contract because people don't like the gender of one of the signing parties. You'd think these self-professed "constitutionalists" would be more interested in upholding the Equal Protection Clause...yeesh...

What's the point in voting if a (gay) judge can overturn anything?

[Dieval]

A "very small group of people"? 48% of the largest state in the union now qualifies as a "very small group of people"?

You're saying that 48% of the people in CA are gay? sources?

Also, judges shouldn't rule on any law which has won a popular vote?

What I'm saying is that the people have spoken. Get over it.

So, what I'm hearing is that it's wrong to vote on a change to the constitution that would allow only m/f marriage....but it's not wrong to keep voting on gay marriage laws over and over? How many times will it take? What does it take to pass a law?

So if the evil, godless athiests in a state like Vermont were to narrowly vote in favor of banning the practice of Christianity, you wouldn't want a judge to overturn that law?

Completely irrelevant - see the First Amendment of the Constitution.

[brendand]

What's the point in voting if a (gay) judge can overturn anything?

I don't think that everything should be voted on...particularly the rights of (gay) people.

[Second as Farce]

You're saying that 48% of the people in CA are gay? sources?

I'm saying that 48% of people opposed prop 8. Interesting fact: you don't have to be gay to think gay people deserve rights.

What I'm saying is that the people have spoken. Get over it.

And what I'm saying is that in a society built upon constitutional rights, slim majorities don't get to simply vote away the fundamental rights of a minority.

So, what I'm hearing is that it's wrong to vote on a change to the constitution that would allow only m/f marriage....but it's not wrong to keep voting on gay marriage laws over and over? How many times will it take? What does it take to pass a law?

It's wrong to vote to take rights away from others- it's not wrong to vote to grant them those rights. Pretty simple, really.

Completely irrelevant - see the First Amendment of the Constitution.

And this is where your argument falls apart. You're correct- such a law would be unconstitutional. However, you've undermined everything you just wrote about how judges shouldn't overturn democratically-passed laws, because you conceded that if those laws violate the constitution, they can be overturned.

That's precisely the argument we're making here- these laws violate the constitution. I understand you probably disagree with that, and that's your right, but don't bother pretending that no judge can ever overturn a popularly-passed law.

[againstthewind]

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.

It is the same when you are talking about a Judge. Judges are to be impartial and I would like you to point to any place where he is biased in all of the 136 pages. You will find out that he wasn't. Just because a judge is gay doesn't mean he will automatically vote YES on a gay rights case or vindicate the gay plaintiff. He ruled it unconstitutional BECAUSE IT WAS!

[Dieval]

I don't think that everything should be voted on...particularly the rights of (gay) people.

Lets back up a step.....please explain how the "rights of (gay) people" were violated?