Living by a Separate Standard : Jurists refuse to bar themselves from clubs discriminating against gays

California’s judges have rejected a requirement that would have barred them from joining groups that discriminate against gays. That’s surprising. But what’s even more surprising--and painfully disheartening--is that judges who opposed the requirement have portrayed their views on gays and lesbians as the opposite of what they are: discriminatory and injudicious.

The California Code of Judicial Conduct already prohibits state judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin. Last month at the annual meeting of the California Judges Assn.--a voluntary group whose membership includes most state trial and appellate judges--an amendment that would have added sexual orientation to the ethics code was debated. A secret vote was taken, with about half of the state’s 2,500 current and retired judges participating, and the measure was soundly defeated, 64% to 36%. The change in the ethics code would have prohibited judges from joining groups that bar gays or lesbians.

The vote was a stinging setback for gay rights advocates on and off the bench who have tried for more than a year to extend the ethics code to sexual orientation. Worse still was the rationalization for the defeat. This from the association’s president, San Diego Municipal Court Judge E. Mac Amos Jr.: “Issues involving sexual orientation are being debated in Congress and are presently pending in our courts. Many judges are concerned that the adoption of the amendment at this time might have a negative impact upon the public’s perception of the judiciary’s ability to deal with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner.”

In our view, rejection of this reasonable provision has just the opposite impact, strongly suggesting that many California judges hold attitudes that make them unable to decide such issues fairly and without prejudice.

The vote also highlights the need for sensitivity training for the state’s jurists.

“I am disappointed. I am very disappointed,” one local trial judge said of the results. So are we.