PLATFORM : Judicial Bias

As the first openly gay person to ever become a judge, I may be biased in this debate, but I also believe deeply that I am right. After all, our canons and common sense make it clear that judges must live their lives in a manner that allows those who appear in court to believe that the judge will be fair to them.

We all have learned that “birds of a feather flock together.” If your judge belongs to a group that discriminates against people solely because they are Catholic, would you as a Catholic feel comfortable appearing in that court, whether as an attorney, a party or a witness?

In the same way, lesbians and gay men should not have to appear in front of judges who decide to belong to groups that discriminate against them. Lesbians and gay men enjoy the same legal status in California as all other citizens--we demand and should expect the same fair treatment in our courts.

When people seek to become judges, whether through appointment or election, they must understand that they are giving up certain rights that are fiercely guarded by others. For example, a judge may not speak out on political issues and can’t even raise money for charities. So judges expect many limitations on their private lives. This would be just one more, but because it is so bound up with the perception of a judge’s fairness, this is a most important one.

More than 400 judges voted in favor of this amendment. I believe that their vision of how a judge’s life must be lived will ultimately prevail. Until then, the more than 700 judges who voted “no” have given our judiciary an unneeded black eye; unfortunately both judges and our society will suffer for it.