[trumandogz]

You have nothing to stand with your claim that the judge would be biassed.

And you sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton screaming that African American defendants should always be put on trial before an African American judge and a jury made exclusively of African Americans.

[Mister Fleas]

See post #11.

[Reddy]

Your straw man arguments don’t add up. You’re comparing being an African American, which cannot be changed- no matter what kind of surgery or psychotherapy is performed, with being a homosexual- which is defined totally by sexuality, which CAN (and does) change with surgery or psychology.

An AA judge ruling on a case of racism is NOT the same as a homosexual judge ruling on Prop. 8.

[fr_freak]

And you sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton screaming that African American defendants should always be put on trial before an African American judge and a jury made exclusively of African Americans.

Again, false logic. Being gay is a behavior, not a race. This current trial is specifically about whether the legal definition of marriage should be changed to incorporate a particular behavior, but more importantly, the pro-gay side is trying to argue that Prop 8 was passed out of some ignorant bigotry on the part of the voters. That makes the case extremely vulnerable to ideological bias.

Your comparison to black people is asinine, but, if Jesse Jackson were demanding that a judge be recused from a racially charged case if that judge were a known member of the KKK, then Jackson's demand would be reasonable, and it would be an apt comparison to the prop 8 case.

[Kahonek]

“And you sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton screaming that African American defendants should always be put on trial before an African American judge and a jury made exclusively of African Americans.”

Actually, I think the analogous argument is that African-American defendants should always be put on trial before a WHITE judge and a WHITE jury. Still a problematic argument...

[AmishDude]

You have nothing to stand with your claim that the judge would be biassed.

And yet it seems he is. Funny, that.