Quote Originally Posted by Ranger View Post
The bias IS that, yes, he is gay. And I see your point about if he were straight then that's a bias as well. However, you have to weigh this in with what is "average" (I was going to say normal but that would be mis-interpreted). On average marriage is between a man and a woman, but in this case they are trying to change the average, and he is on the "activist" side of the case.

The same would ring true if a Hispanic judge were to sit in ruling of a case where Hispanics gain some significant new right. If it were a black judge, there's no pony in the race. If it's a white judge then there is a high likelihood there is no pony in the race, but perhaps there might be.

I completely understand your point but I believe there is a difference in THIS case if a gay judge ruled on an appeal from the community that he is a part of. Who is to say that he wasn't for prop 8 to start with? Nobody, but any chance of impropriety has to be brought into question. In my experience, at least, it is more likely a gay person will be PRO gay than it is that a straight person will be ANTI gay.

All of this being said, he did the right thing by postponing his ruling pending the appeal. Perhaps he knew that there was possibility for bias in this case and by postponing the ruling he was appeasing both sides to some degree.
I've really been trying hard to stay out of this thread, but damn... Seriously, Ranger? By your premise, no judge should ever be allowed to make a ruling on anthing, ever. If I was a judge, I'm pretty sure I would have to recuse myself from any criminal case for sure, because I'm anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-robbery... If a gay judge can't rule against prop 8, then a straight judge can't rule for it. So, a judge can only rule against their actual perceived bias to appear non bias.

This is not a democracy. This is a federalist government. Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong. If we did everything the majority wanted, we would still have white schools and black schools and white bathrooms and black bathrooms. At one point, the 2nd ammendment could have been repealed with that kind of thinking.

He's postponing the ruling because both sides have voiced appeal desires. This is standard practice. Ever wonder why after CU lost their recent conceal carry case CU student's still couldn't carry. The process for CU to appeal hadn't been determined yet. Same thing.