Judges Opt Not to Vote on Gay Bias Proposal : Ethics: State association plans further study of a change in its code that would forbid membership in private groups that discriminate against homosexuals.

After impassioned debate, California judges Monday chose not to vote on controversial changes in their ethics code that would forbid jurists from membership in private groups that discriminate against gays.

Members of the California Judges Assn. decided instead to further study the proposal--offered by two Los Angeles judges--after foes complained that it intruded on their personal lives and would prevent them from participating in the Boy Scouts because the group bars homosexuals.

The association, in its annual meeting, went on to adopt a series of wide-ranging changes in the ethics code for judges that strengthen prohibitions against bias in the courtroom and impose new restrictions on private conduct.

The new code forbids judges from showing any kind of bias in court, including words or conduct based on race, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. Speech or gestures that imply sexual harassment are banned.

Before the changes voted Monday, comparable provisions of the code simply required that judges be patient, dignified and courteous in court.

Jurists also are specifically cautioned in the new code against the appearance of bias in private activities. The code advises, among other things, that judges should not tell jokes based on sex, religion or sexual preference.

The code’s standards, while not law themselves, are binding on the state’s 1,500-member judiciary and violations can result in discipline by the state Judicial Performance Commission or the state Supreme Court. California is the only state where an ethical code is imposed by judges, rather than by a state high court or legislature.

The code already contained a variety of prohibitions--for instance, judges are told not to belong to clubs that discriminate because of race, religion or gender.

The new code broadens those provisions, offering more extensive guidance on ethical questions. Now, judges are barred not only from membership in discriminatory clubs but also from regularly using or arranging meetings at such clubs.

Monday’s spirited debate centered on a proposal by Los Angeles Superior Court Judges G. Keith Wisot and David M. Rothman forbidding membership in groups that arbitrarily excludes individuals because of sexual orientation. The proposal exempted membership in religious groups or the military.

“If we accept discrimination in our private lives we demonstrate that we may lack neutrality and acceptance of all legal conduct,” Wisot told members. “The legitimacy of our court system requires that we recognize we live in a changing society.

But several judges objected to the proposal. “I strongly believe this is an unjustified intrusion into the personal lives of judges and their families,” said state Appellate Justice Rodney Davis of Sacramento.

Ventura Municipal Judge Steven Hintz warned that judges could face disciplinary complaints for associating with the Boy Scouts. Kern Superior Court Judge Roger D. Randall told the group: “If I have to choose between my morality and my judicial standard, I have to choose morality.”

The judges voted 108 to 89 to send the measure to their ethics committee, in anticipation of another vote next year.

Other newly adopted provisions of the code:

* Forbid judges from commending or criticizing jury verdicts. Such comments, the code says, could improperly influence jurors in future cases.

* Warn judicial candidates against making statements that “commit or appear to commit” them to issues likely to come before the courts.