'Judge Won't Hear Gay Adoptions Because They're Not in a Child's 'Best Interest'"

[Kenny]

If he's so prejudiced against gay people that he feels he can't deal with same-sex adoptions, then the likelihood is probably high that his prejuduce is influencing other cases he hears involving gay people that he isn't recusing himself from.

If he is honorable enough to recuse himself in this case, he is honorable enough to recuse himself in others.

I would be extremely worried if a judge never recused himself for there isn't a judge that doesn't have some bias.

Or, in another perspective, if recusing oneself means you aren't fit to judge, then there isn't a judge in this world who should hold that position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If he is honorable enough to recuse himself in this case, he is honorable enough to recuse himself in others.

What makes you say that?

I would be extremely worried if a judge never recused himself for there isn't a judge that doesn't have some bias.

Or, in another perspective, if recusing oneself means you aren't fit to judge, then there isn't a judge in this world who should hold that position.

There are plenty of cases where a good judge can legitimately recuse himself: for instance, in a case involving a family member or someone who he had a beef with. But if a judge is so prejudiced that he can't treat an entire class of people fairly, then he shouldn't be a judge.

It isn't recusing himself that makes him unfit; it's his inability to judge gay people fairly that makes him unfit.

 

[Kenny]

What makes you say that?


There are plenty of cases where a good judge can legitimately recuse himself: for instance, in a case involving a family member or someone who he had a beef with. But if a judge is so prejudiced that he can't treat an entire class of people fairly, then he shouldn't be a judge.

It isn't recusing himself that makes him unfit; it's his inability to judge gay people fairly that makes him unfit.

recusing IS when you can't judge fairly

verb (used with object), recused, recusing. 1.to reject or challenge (a judge or juror) as disqualified to act,especially because of interest or bias.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

recusing IS when you can't judge fairly

verb (used with object), recused, recusing. 1.to reject or challenge (a judge or juror) as disqualified to act,especially because of interest or bias.

You missed the most important part of what I said, even though I put it in italics. Maybe a bigger font will work better:


But if a judge is so prejudiced that he can't treat an entire class of people fairly, then he shouldn't be a judge.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I mean no offence but a lot of the Sex Ed curriculum in America (I know this varies considerably) is absolutely abysmal. Nothing about it seems to foster healthy attitudes towards sex.

I was taught that a woman's sexuality is comparable to a piece of scotch tape or chewing gum. Not as humans who are free to make their own decisions and be in charge of their own sexualities, but as danty little flowers who are delicate and fragile and you have to be careful because eventually she won't be sexually worth anything if we follow their analogy to its logical conclusion.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

recusing IS when you can't judge fairly

verb (used with object), recused, recusing. 1.to reject or challenge (a judge or juror) as disqualified to act,especially because of interest or bias.

Good old Gorschich needs to recuse himself from society-- that is how bigoted he is.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I was taught that a woman's sexuality is comparable to a piece of scotch tape or chewing gum. Not as humans who are free to make their own decisions and be in charge of their own sexualities, but as danty little flowers who are delicate and fragile and you have to be careful because eventually she won't be sexually worth anything if we follow their analogy to its logical conclusion.

Indeed. Women are still considered property or possessions even today.

It's even inherent in the marriage ceremony--- the "giving away of the bride"-- as if she was chattel and not her own person...

 

[ronandcarol]

"Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.

Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage."
source
​

Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”
Thoughts?

I applaud the Judge for not doing the adoptions even though he should have used his religious freedom rights as a reason.
ronandcarol
Oh, and the supreme court doesn't make laws and rules! congress is supposed to do that, when they are not fighting among themselves.
​

.

 

[columbus]

I'm not sure that is the reason why (although psychological issues also contribute)... it seems like there is a greater chance for disease.

Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

Diseases are probable more rampant between men.

Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns

Prior to AIDS it wasn't disease particularly. Part of the reason the gay male community was so sleazy(and it was) was the fact that guys couldn't develop a condition that didn't respond to antibiotics. They didn't have to worry about pregnancy. HIV changed all that, but not in a hurry. 20 somethings started dying in droves.
But we are getting off onto a big derailment of this thread. I could write a long essay about the ill effects of systematic psychological abuse and it's effects on people.
I'll just say two things.
A) You could easily find similar sad statistics about any other large group. Black kids in "the projects". Or children of drug addicted parents.
B) The current trends towards acceptance of gay people and basic rights like marriage equality are going to have a positive impact on everybody, including but not limited to, gay folks.
When realizing that you're gay doesn't mean shutting the door on basic social functions like marriage and children (and their civilizing influence) gay people won't be so prone to dysfunctional and destructive behavior patterns.
Tom

 

[Kenny]

You missed the most important part of what I said, even though I put it in italics. Maybe a bigger font will work better:


But if a judge is so prejudiced that he can't treat an entire class of people fairly, then he shouldn't be a judge.

Again.. my position stands.

Homosexuality is not a "class of people". Race, color, national origin, sex are classes.

His honesty and integrity to recluse himself is proof he is good for the job.

 

[Kenny]

Good old Gorschich needs to recuse himself from society-- that is how bigoted he is.

LOL... that sounds like a bigoted statement

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again.. my position stands.

Homosexuality is not a "class of people". Race, color, national origin, sex are classes.

I'm talking about principles, not any particular law.

His honesty and integrity to recluse himself is proof he is good for the job.

So if a bigot is self-aware enough to recognize his bigotry in at least some situations, this makes him a good judge?

 

[Skwim]

If he's so prejudiced against gay people that he feels he can't deal with same-sex adoptions, then the likelihood is probably high that his prejuduce is influencing other cases he hears involving gay people that he isn't recusing himself from.

My suspicion is that he would recusing himself from such cases. If he's principled enough to recuse himself from this case I see no reason to think his principles would not be engaged in others.

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Again.. my position stands.

Homosexuality is not a "class of people". Race, color, national origin, sex are classes.

His honesty and integrity to recluse himself is proof he is good for the job.

Sexuality is on that list, as is religion and disability.

 

[Skwim]

Just as a matter of posting mechanics, if you make sure your quoted material is bracketed by any reply you make will appear by itself under the quoted material.

As for your reply.

I applaud the Judge for not doing the adoptions even though he should have used his religious freedom rights as a reason.
ronandcarol

it wasn't a matter of not doing adoptions, but choosing not to hear the case at all.

Oh, and the supreme court doesn't make laws and rules! congress is supposed to do that, when they are not fighting among themselves.

Did someone suggest otherwise?

.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Again.. my position stands.

Only if you are dishonest.

Homosexuality is not a "class of people". Race, color, national origin, sex are classes.

False. You just contradicted yourself: you listed "sex" as "class" but you excluded the sex that is homosexuality!

Wow!

His honesty and integrity to recluse himself is proof he is good for the job.

You can say a LOT about this judge-- but honesty OR integrity? Is not an accurate statement; he has neither, or he'd step down entirely.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Being that we are a secular nation established on secular ideals, the judge has no right to let his personal religious views guide his legal decisions. He has to follow the law, and the law is increasingly allowing for same-sex adoptions, especially because there is no evidence such an arrangement poses any threat or risk to children, and these are ready and willing parents ready to jump through all sorts of hoops to adopt a child who so desperately needs a home. Why should they be denied?

 

[Kenny]

I'm talking about principles, not any particular law.


So if a bigot is self-aware enough to recognize his bigotry in at least some situations, this makes him a good judge?

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

It would appear that even you could be classified as one by your statements. You seem to be intolerant and hateful towards the judge.

One would also say that in his decision to recluse himself signifies a love for the person in question so as to be dealt with fairly.

Imagine if, because of the law, he would have to judge against the defendant. The outcry and labeling of the judge (though his decision may have been legal and correct) as he would be accused of bias.

His decision seems more like a loving decision that a bigoted one as you would suggest for now the decision would be free from any misinterpretation..

 

[Kenny]

Sexuality is on that list, as is religion and disability.

No... there is a difference between sex and sexuality.

 

[Callisto]

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality and gay marriage, however, gay adoption seems like a bad idea. This has nothing to do with sexual morality. Things work the way they do for a reason; heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.

I'm not seeing your line of reasoning... The vast majority of gays are the product of heterosexual parents. So how is it that heterosexual parents "would be best" for psychological influences when they've given birth to and reared individuals who are homosexual and now want to adopt?