RECENT  POSTS:  » Court upholds Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance » Maggie Gallagher won't toast you while you trap your spouse in sin » NOM pre-spins its likely low #March4Marriage attendance » 'Children of gays' lawyer to SCOTUS: Ban same-sex marriage so bisexuals will marry heterosexually » Audio: Ryan T. Anderson says sexual orientation speaks to content of character; links it to sadomasochism, polyamory » WHOA: FRC 'reediting' all those heinous fasting-for-marriage prayers I've been showing you!! » Man who dedicates his life to fighting marriage equality, gay parenting: 'I don't work to harm others' » FRC's eighth day of fasting-for-discrimination: Uses passage about forced drowning to condemn gay parents » NOM: Marriage is some creepy number that looks like it's about to behead one spouse » Desperate anti-gay movement's latest attempt to dehumanize: Gay unions harm straight kids  

« 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