Friday, April 29, 2011
The Truth Comes Out
Propositions 8 has caused and is still causing huge controversy’s as well as arguments in politics. This proposition states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” and was passed in 2008. Many argued about this proposition for many different reasons, but one big controversy that occurred, was finding out that one of the judges that had put his input on the case is gay. U.S. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, had been a judge since 1989 and was assigned by President George H.W. Bush, but his sexual preferences had never been exposed until now. After he retired in February of this year, he revealed his sexual orientation and 10 year same-sex partner. U.S. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, stated “Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” By this he is declaring his opposition to proposition 8. Many people argued that since he is gay, he should have not been able to get involved in this case, considering that the outcome could have affected his personal life. When I think of this I feel like those people were being unfair. There are many things judges have to decide on, and most of this things affect not only ordinary every day people, but them themselves and their families. Another argument about this situation is that if the homosexual judge was to have been restricted from the case, then why do straight married men get to decide on prop 8, because that is the same thing as a gay man getting involved. The straight men are standing up for men and women getting married which affects them personally as well. I believe that it didn’t matter if the judge was gay or not, what matter are the reasons and ideas the judges had on this case. If they can back up their opinions and give legitimate reason for their decisions, then everything should be ok. One thing I do agree with though, is that he should have stated his sexual orientation before entering this case. Since this case is strongly based on his life issues, then I think it would have been fair to the people to be informed. The U.S. judges work for the American people and their loyalty should be completely to them. We expect our government and any authority to be completely honest with us, because at the end of the day, they are the ones who run the place we live in and have control over our lives for the most. If we can’t trust them to be completely honest with us from the beginning, who can we deposit our trust into. The judge should have stated his sexual orientation from the beginning, but should have not be judged for it. I know many people would have many things to say about that, but what is important is that he could have kept his job and continue what he was doing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In this instance I would have to agree with the first argument you presented: “Many people argued that since he is gay, he should have not been able to get involved in this case, considering that the outcome could have affected his personal life. When I think of this I feel like those people were being unfair.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s the same logic that we use to say that police should not be working on cases they are personally involved in. the problem with a homosexual judge ruling on prop. 8 is that it’s not just professional. You also stated: “Another argument about this situation is that if the homosexual judge was to have been restricted from the case, then why do straight married men get to decide on prop 8, because that is the same thing as a gay man getting involved.”
The major problem I see with that statement is rather simple actually. A homosexual will be in favor of same-sex marriage – no question about that. However, a straight man may or may not be in favor of same-sex marriage. To say that because a man is heterosexual he won’t rule in favor of gay marriage is false. The odds of having an objective heterosexual judge are much higher than an objective homosexual judge on this issue.
I like and I am in support of your opinion on this particular topic. I have a hard time criticizing and putting all my time and energy into things that really don’t have an effect on me personally. I think that this incident was magnified and people were fixated on it because the people involved were those that are more superior then us. Due to occupying a more elite position allowed for more concern by the “common people”. It would be like being a celebrity. Most people would not be as concerned of this incident took place in everyday life for example students, friends, other “common people”. News flash this does happen everyday and the only people who care are people who have nothing but time on their hands. Criticizing others comes easy when it’s not you or someone you know. I think a lot of this could have been avoided is he had stated his orientation previously however unfortunately with this being said, all his “haters” probably would have made it so he could not hold his elite position. I think that it is sad that someone’s orientation can alter others perception on their intelligence. Like you said, it shouldn’t matter so long as they are able to support their argument and decisions professionally.
ReplyDeleteSaying that because he was gay he shouldn’t have been able to work on this particular case, is institutional racism (or prejudice) toward the gay community. It is like saying that black people shouldn’t have been able to advocate for Civil Rights, because those civil rights would have affected them directly, or that women could not be judges pushing for women’s rights because it would affect them. I agree with you in that regard, however I have to disagree with you in your second argument. The judge absolutely should not have had to state his personal sexual preference, which is invasion of privacy, and is against our American ideals. I agree that there should be transparency in politics, and we should know what is going on in our government, because our government is by the people and for the people. But knowing whether a judge who is against proposition 8 is gay, would not affect me or anyone else in the slightest. If we were to do that, then we would have to ask every judge and lawyer pushing for proposition 8 if they were straight, and we would have to ask everyone pushing for proposition 19 if they personally smoked pot. If people knew this judge were gay prior to all this he would have been scrutinized and attacked personally by opposing advocates. This is a slippery slope, and is a very unnecessary step back when trying to get things done.
ReplyDeleteI agree many people do argue that since he’s gay it’s not fair that he is able to vote let alone be involved in certain cases like this. I believe that based on your sexual orientation it should prevent a person from performing their duties. I disagree though on your argument about the judge stating his orientation from the beginning. Yes, it would be nice to be able to trust the government and leave it to their hands knowing the truth from the start but there is a vast majority that wouldn’t be able to accept him being gay. He is doing his job by being professional and leaving his personal matters at the door. I actually admire him because it must have been tough for someone who had to leave all that behind and vote on a sensitive topic.
ReplyDeleteYou stated in your blog “When I think of this I feel like those people were being unfair. There are many things judges have to decide on and most of these things affect not only ordinary every day people, but themselves and their families.” I agree that many issues that are decided on by our courts often affect those in these positions to make decisions within the law and how it is interpreted, difficult on their own beliefs but also by there families. I do not envy these individuals that placed in such positions. It would be difficult to put aside your own beliefs and make decisions for the best of the country. You made a great point on sexual orientations of these judges concerning Prop 8, that are allowed to decided on such an important issue. In reality it should not be any other individual’s decisions other than the two persons involved in the relationship. My sister is a lesbian, I love her very much and will always be my sister and would someday like to see her with the same privileges as I do in marriage and rights to health coverage and insurances with her significant other.
ReplyDelete