Mississippi Judge Advocates the Bible and Institutionalization for Gays

[Stephen Maturin]

This guy is a real piece of work. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/judge_gays020412.html) From the article:

Wilkerson, 65, who has been a Justice Court judge for six years, said he was sorry his comments about gay people have stirred up so much controversy, * * *

He's not sorry for what he wrote, mind you; he's only sorry that his statements proved controversial.

* * * but maintained that his views do not affect his performance on the bench.

Of course not. I'm sure that he's able to turn off this raving, Bible-based bigotry at will. :rolleyes: :banghead:

[free12thinker]

This guy is living proof that no matter how much education or authority you have, intelligence resides from within one's own mind. By taking a stance against homosexuality, simply because it is chastised in the bible, is weak minded. I use this word a lot, but there's no other explanation.

While I believe people are entitled to their own opinions, someone of his postion cannot (by the oath of his position) be openly prejiduce to a specific group of people, and he has clearly violated this oath. He should be removed. Moreover, Mississippi needs to get with the program and adopt anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual preference but we're talking about the Southern way, and the South has proven time and time again to be the least educated, and thereby the last group, to "get with the times" and adopt tolerance.

Can this judge come up with non-biblical reasons to call homosexuality immoral? No. Because there isn't anything that makes it sinful. He's a foolish bible thumper without a set of opinions that are his own. And for that, I feel sorry for him.

[bonduca]

I'd like to go on record as saying that doddering old homophobes should be put in institutions, where they are fed mush and given plastic scissors to play with.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

[Tigermilk]

[quote] From Connie

"I probably wouldn't write it, seeing as much trouble as it's caused people," he said. "I didn't know it was going to cause problems." <hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I can see how there's no way you could suspect that it would have offended people. :rolleyes:

That statement belies a complete lack of understanding of society - and this man is allowed to preside over a court of law? To make judgements about peoples' lives?? Surely empathy is a requirement in order to do that! Yuck.

[Jewel]

If he is so out of touch that he honestly did not know that his comments would stir up controversy then he should not be on the bench. And if he cannot seperate his religion from his job, he should not be on the bench.

Makes me ill.

[Captain Pedantic]

As I said on Morons.org, they already tried to "cure" homosexuals by putting them into mental institutions during the 1950s. There are people around now who went through that treatment. They're still gay.

Why do people say stupid stuff without doing research? Why? Why? Why?

[abe smith]

EH! so glad to know that O"brien's co-hero, Stephen Maturin the doctor & naturalist & Jack what's s name's close friend is still with us and here on line!

[Berenger Sauniere]

[quote]Originally posted by free12thinker:
<strong>...but we're talking about the Southern way, and the South has proven time and time again to be the least educated, and thereby the last group, to "get with the times" and adopt tolerance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll no longer refer to it as the deep south! :)

[Panta Pei]

Welcome, everyone, to my world :rolleyes:

[Stephen Maturin]

[quote]Originally posted by abe smith:
<strong>EH! so glad to know that O"brien's co-hero, Stephen Maturin the doctor & naturalist & Jack what's s name's close friend is still with us and here on line!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hiya Abe. It's always good to meet a fellow O'Brianite. :)

[abe smith]

Yeah, Doctor. Some damn messy times there in the midst of battle at sea, when the only local anaesthetic was rum. Welcome aboard, Guy.

[Stephen Maturin]

My apologies for resurrecting this long-dead thread, but there's actually been a new development after all this time. In response to a formal complaint filed in 2002, the Mississippi Commission of Judicial Performance charged the fundie bigot judge in question with "willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute."

Yesterday, the Mississippi Supreme Court refused to sanction the judge and dismissed the complaint. Applying First Amendment free speech analysis, the court held that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining an impartial and unbiased judiciary. However, the court found that letting anti-gay bigot judges shoot their mouths off publicly is a good thing that makes Mississippi courts more impartial:

Whatever state interest the Commission may find in preventing judges from announcing their private views on gay rights would conflict with, and be outweighed by, the more compelling state interest of providing an impartial court for all litigants, including gays and lesbians. Allowing – that is to say, forcing – judges to conceal their prejudice against gays and lesbians would surely lead to trials with unsuspecting gays or lesbians appearing before a partial judge. Unaware of the prejudice and not knowing that they should seek recusal, this surely would not work to provide a fair and impartial court to those litigants

Translation: "What are you bitching about? The judge actually did gays and lesbians a favor by saying that they should be locked up in mental institutions. Now any gay or lesbian who has to appear in his court will know where the judge stands and has a basis for requesting recusal." :rolleyes: The court went on to say that preserving the mere appearance of judicial propriety is not a compelling state interest and thus cannot override the judge's First Amendment right to engage in politically offensive speech.

The opinion (PDF, 31 pages) is available here (http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/OPINIONS/CO18526.PDF). The full text of the judge's letter to the editor and a transcript of his radio comments appear starting on Page 21 of the PDF file as part of the dissenting opinion.

[Brian63]

I do not completely understand the objection to the ruling, as it potentially works in the favor of gay rights activists by fully disclosing the prejudices of the judges that may decide their cases. As they say, gay rights activists now have grounds to request recusal of judges that they know will be biased against them at the outset of cases, and to find ones that would be more impartial.

Brian

[Nasreddin]

I do not completely understand the objection to the ruling,

Let's alter the scenario a bit. Let's replace "homosexuals" with "blacks" and "mental institution" with "cotton fields". Should a judge that spouts off something like this be allowed to remain on the bench?

And then there are the scriptures he's quoting. What do you suppose would be the reaction to a judge pushing veiled insinuations of racial genocide?

Would an attack on race be seen as an unequivocal violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits "expressions of bias or prejudice" - and would the judge be given the boot? Absolutely. Yet the Mississippi Supreme Court has, in effect, said that it's perfectly alright to express prejudice against homosexuals, no matter what that silly old Code of Conduct says.

...as it potentially works in the favor of gay rights activists by fully disclosing the prejudices of the judges that may decide their cases. As they say, gay rights activists now have grounds to request recusal of judges that they know will be biased against them at the outset of cases, and to find ones that would be more impartial.

Wrong on two counts. First, gay rights activists do not "now" have grounds to request recusal of such judges - they had them all along, and this decision has no effect on that. Second, you say that it "fully discloses" the judges' prejudices when it does nothing of the sort. Does it require prejudiced judges to reveal their prejudices? 'ell no. Will judges who keep quiet about their prejudices now suddenly become more outspoken, so's to give homosexuals a fair chance? Not at all. The only thing this decision does is give Mississippi judges free rein to dump a boatload of shit on the heads of homosexuals without fear of losing their position.

[JLK]

The court went on to say that preserving the mere appearance of judicial propriety is not a compelling state interest and thus cannot override the judge's First Amendment right to engage in politically offensive speech.

They could have saved so much time and ink by just declaring there can never be judicial impropriety, only the appearance of judicial impropriety. Which itself is A Very Good Thing since appellates will know the impropriate judges -- the more impropriate judges who appear, the better.
[/voice of Martha Stewart starring in Plan 9 From Outer Space]

Why don't we just go back to picking lice out of our fur?


















http://www.mrsmegabyte.com/trek/t_tuvk_mar.jpg