RECENT  POSTS:  » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry » Video: AFA prez expounds on organization's movement-destructive ad by adding even more religious fervor  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/14/2011

A bad day for witch hunts

by Jeremy Hooper
Finally, the presumption that “all people in same-sex relationships think alike” is an unreasonable presumption, and one which has no place in legal reasoning. The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion to Vacate Judgment on the ground that the presiding judge failed to recuse himself under Section 455(a).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion to Vacate Judgment.

Dated: June 14, 2011
JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT- INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT [CAND.USCourts]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails