Gay Bias Addition to Judges’ Code

* I am appalled at the ignorance exhibited by the California Judges Assn. in its recent vote to not include discrimination against gays as one of the requirements in its code of conduct prohibiting judges from joining a group or organization (Nov. 23).

The president of the association’s contention that this amendment to their policy would “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” is indicative of his ignorance and bias.

Under the current code of conduct, judges are forbidden from being members of organizations that exclude members based on race, national origin, gender and religion. Haven’t judges been deciding civil rights cases on these groups for decades? Should they be considered biased on these cases because of their code of conduct?

By not including sexual orientation in their non-discrimination clause, judges are in fact exhibiting their ignorance and bias--inexcusable qualities for members of the judiciary.

JIM KEY

West Hollywood

* “Living by a Separate Standard” (editorial, Nov. 25) is an appropriate summary statement for The Times’ position concerning homosexuality. The Times criticizes California judges for not accepting its separate standard. The Times’ standard is separate because it contradicts the biblical standard.

What if the biblical standard concerning homosexuality is the correct standard, and The Times’ standard is wrong? Are there any societal consequences of such advocacy? Those who engage in homosexual behavior are more likely to contract AIDS and have a shortened life span. Monogamous heterosexual marriages, not homosexual relationships, have been the stabilizing force in our society and the safe haven for our children for thousands of years.

Years ago we accepted the new moral standard of sex before marriage, and the consequences have been devastating on the youth in America. The Times now advocates acceptance of another new moral standard. Rather than criticize the judges for not accepting a new moral standard, The Times should instead try to understand why the old one was given to us in the first place.

GREG LANGWORTHY

Hanford