Was Judge Walker bias in Prop. 8 ruling?

[Jack]

That would be a material gain that would call for recusal. I don't see how the opportunity to marry could be considered a materially rewarding gain.

[Second as Farce]

Soooo..would you be "butthurt" if a judge had a stake in <Insert company here> and ruled in favor of this company, directly benefiting him? That wouldn't be a conflict of interest?

First of all, Judge Walker did not show before, nor has he shown after the fact, any interest in marrying his partner. Post-legalization and pre-Prop 8 (long before Judge Walker had any reason to believe he would hear a constitutional challenge to the ban), he and his partner had the chance to get married. They opted not to, as was their right. At the point where he never tried to use this institution, it's unclear as to how he directly benefits from its expansion.

But additionally, if everything that Prop 8's defenders say is true, and the institution of marriage and the family is genuinely imperiled by allowing same-sex marriage, then any judge with a spouse or a family would have a stake in the result of this decision. If this is necessary to "protect marriage," then anyone married could see their impartiality compromised.

[el ايمان]

The two situations are incomparable. Sexual orientation is not a business from which one seeks to gain benefits.

Homosexual marriage affects no one, except for the zealots and anti gay bigots who think that their concept of Abrahamic marriage is the only significant one in the world, and who would gladly eradicate things they disagree with from a religious or cultural perspective.

[Dieval]

That would be a material gain that would call for recusal. I don't see how the opportunity to marry could be considered a materially rewarding gain.

..tax breaks and tax incentives he doesn't have now...?

[Dieval]

The two situations are incomparable. Sexual orientation is not a business from which one seeks to gain benefits.

BS. One of the biggest things people speak out about are the tax incentives straight people get and the gays are denied. There are benefits and it is a valid comparison.

Homosexual marriage affects no one, except for the zealots and anti gay bigots who think that their concept of Abrahamic marriage is the only significant one in the world, and who would gladly eradicate things they disagree with from a religious or cultural perspective.

Oh, that's right..anyone who has a differing opinion than you is a bigot...nice argument... -_-

[el ايمان]

BS. One of the biggest things people speak out about are the tax incentives straight people get and the gays are denied. There are benefits and it is a valid comparison.

Is straight marriage then a business? Should we abolish straight marriage because it was obviously a straight person that started tax incentives for married couples?

Oh, that's right..anyone who has a differing opinion than you is a bigot...nice argument... -_-

Weak strawman. Unless you feel that you are affected negatively by gay marriage, you did not get called a bigot or a zealot. If you feel that gay marriage negatively affects you, please tell us why.

[Dieval]

Is straight marriage then a business? Should we abolish straight marriage because it was obviously a straight person that started tax incentives for married couples?

That seems to be the gay marriage supporters point of view...'if they get breaks, why don't we?'

Weak strawman. Unless you feel that you are affected negatively by gay marriage, you did not get called a bigot or a zealot. If you feel that gay marriage negatively affects you, please tell us why.

I believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You called anyone that doesn't agree with your views "zealots and anti gay bigots".

[el ايمان]

That seems to be the gay marriage supporters point of view...'if they get breaks, why don't we?'

And presumably you can afford to have conflicting trains of logic because you are unable to defend a ban on gay marriage without an opposition to gays in general.

I believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You called anyone that doesn't agree with your views "zealots and anti gay bigots".

You're seeing what you want to see. I actually said that gay marriage affects nobody except zealots and bigots. I did not offer you up into that position. For all I knew, you might have had a perfectly rational reason for not agreeing with gay marriage; I see that this is not the case.

[tinybear]

The judge should not have heard the case. The law is that there doesn't have to be actual bias. If there is the mere perception of bias, the judge ought to recuse himself. Justice must not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done. The decision of the judge should be set aside and the case remitted to be decided by another judge.

[grandpa]

The judge should not have heard the case.
The law is that there doesn't have to be actual
bias.

What about the people who really were there? What arguments do they have for or against the judge? What about those defending the biased law against gay marriage?

This is just more hypocrisy in government; claiming to be so deeply concerned about bias, yet passing laws that are clearly biased. Selective moral compasses abound.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

You're seeing what you want to see. I actually said that gay marriage affects nobody except zealots and bigots. I did not offer you up into that position. For all I knew, you might have had a perfectly rational reason for not agreeing with gay marriage; I see that this is not the case.

So, since you "see that this is not the case", which one am I? A zealot or a bigot?

[Zeebadee]

The judge should not have heard the case. The law is that there doesn't have to be actual bias. If there is the mere perception of bias, the judge ought to recuse himself. Justice must not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done. The decision of the judge should be set aside and the case remitted to be decided by another judge.

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.