Prop 8
I haven't posted yet about the Prop 8 ruling, mostly because so many others have done it so much better than I can. It probably won't surprise any of you that I was thrilled about the decision. I was so pleased to read the ruling and see Judge Walker articulate what so many gay marriage proponents have been saying all along, namely that civil rights should not be a public referendum, and that one person's moral objection isn't grounds to deprive another person of civil liberties.
In 2008 during the election, you may remember that Keith Olbermann made a very impassioned entreaty/diatribe about all the votes that were anti-gay. A lot of people responded to it, cheering Keith on. I was one of them, but as I wrote in this post, I think his was the wrong tack to take. Basically he was saying, how dare you restrict how people love each other? It was the "you should accept the gay marriage because it's okay" approach. Which is emotionally satisfying but ultimately nonproductive, because you can't make people accept something they don't. There are no magic words to utter or write that'll make someone agree that It's Okay To Be Gay. Most of the time, only experience or time can change someone's mind about that. It's more useful to argue that it doesn't matter if you approve or not, gay people deserve the same civil rights that you get, so stfu. Which is basically what Judge Walker was saying.
Huffpost reported this morning that surprise, surprise, everyone's favorite douchebag, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, is saying that Walker should have recused himself because of bias resulting from his own sexuality. Apparently there are rumors that Walker is himself gay, if closeted.
Sigh. It hardly needs to be said that this argument doesn't hold water. By this logic, a black judge should recuse himself from a civil rights case, or a judge who's a mother should recuse herself from custody cases. But the bias! Perkins exclaims. Judge Walker is biased!
Of course he is. He's a human being with opinions. His life experience informs his views on judicial matters. They're supposed to. Judges are political appointees and their opinions are weighed in that light when their appointments are made. They are not expected, nor is it possible for them to be, totally unbiased arbiters. They are expected to interpret the law as they understand it, which is what Judge Walker did. If he is gay, of course that affected his ruling on this case. If he were a Mormon, that would also affect his ruling on the case. Do you suppose Perkins would be arguing that he ought to have recused himself if that were the case, and Perkins had gotten what he wanted?
In 2008 during the election, you may remember that Keith Olbermann made a very impassioned entreaty/diatribe about all the votes that were anti-gay. A lot of people responded to it, cheering Keith on. I was one of them, but as I wrote in this post, I think his was the wrong tack to take. Basically he was saying, how dare you restrict how people love each other? It was the "you should accept the gay marriage because it's okay" approach. Which is emotionally satisfying but ultimately nonproductive, because you can't make people accept something they don't. There are no magic words to utter or write that'll make someone agree that It's Okay To Be Gay. Most of the time, only experience or time can change someone's mind about that. It's more useful to argue that it doesn't matter if you approve or not, gay people deserve the same civil rights that you get, so stfu. Which is basically what Judge Walker was saying.
Huffpost reported this morning that surprise, surprise, everyone's favorite douchebag, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, is saying that Walker should have recused himself because of bias resulting from his own sexuality. Apparently there are rumors that Walker is himself gay, if closeted.
Sigh. It hardly needs to be said that this argument doesn't hold water. By this logic, a black judge should recuse himself from a civil rights case, or a judge who's a mother should recuse herself from custody cases. But the bias! Perkins exclaims. Judge Walker is biased!
Of course he is. He's a human being with opinions. His life experience informs his views on judicial matters. They're supposed to. Judges are political appointees and their opinions are weighed in that light when their appointments are made. They are not expected, nor is it possible for them to be, totally unbiased arbiters. They are expected to interpret the law as they understand it, which is what Judge Walker did. If he is gay, of course that affected his ruling on this case. If he were a Mormon, that would also affect his ruling on the case. Do you suppose Perkins would be arguing that he ought to have recused himself if that were the case, and Perkins had gotten what he wanted?