LOUISVILLE --- A family court judge who sits in Barren and Metcalfe counties has announced he will no longer hear adoption cases involving homosexual parties because he believes allowing a gay person to adopt could never be in the child's best interest.
Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.
Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.
He said in the order issued Thursday that as a matter of conscience he believes that under no circumstance would the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage.
Lawyers say Nance is highly religious and opposed to divorce.
Even in uncontested divorces involving no children, he makes the parties appear in court, offers them condolences on the demise of their marriage and makes them explain why it didnt work out.
Attorneys say he also asked divorce litigants where they go to church and whether they are a true believer.
So I guess no parents are better than two? Okay.
Even the divorce thing smh...
Well, at least their recusing themselves from the case, rather than just ruling "no" everytime...
Attorneys say he also asked divorce litigants where they go to church and whether they are a true believer.
I mean. Isn't this kinda good? Rather have him just not be a factor at all instead of denying people the right to adopt.
So he recognizes that he is biased and chooses to recuse himself rather than let his personal beliefs cloud his judgement on any particular case. What is the problem here? A lot of deeply religious people can not reconcile their faith with tolerance towards gay people. Religion and religious people are not going away. The best we hope for is that they are as out of the way as possible, as this judge is doing.
It's my understanding that in these sorts of cases often it's on the judge to decide what is in the best interest of the child, giving him a lot of leeway. He doesn't think he can be impartial in those circumstances, so he's recusing himself.No, if he can't separate his personal beliefs from his job, then he shouldn't be a judge.
What if he's the only judge available to hear a case that goes against his beliefs.
The law overrides his beliefs 100% of the time.
It's my understanding that in these sorts of cases often it's on the judge to decide what is in the best interest of the child, giving him a lot of leeway. He doesn't think he can be impartial in those circumstances, so he's recusing himself.
Do I agree with his opinions? Of course not. But given that he has them it's better that he avoid relevant cases rather than rule with bias.
Then he shouldn't be a judge.
If he can't be impartial making a ruling, then he shouldn't be doing the job.
Here's the deal: people can be bigots. We'd rather them not be bigots, but that's idealistic tripe.
However, when someone realizes they're a bigot comparatively and steps aside instead of getting in the way and forcing bigotry down peoples' throats, that's a win.
A lot of this bigotry is deep seated in the extreme and any budging is a fucking miracle.
In fact, forcing him out as judge in Kentucky may mean you'll get someone who won't recuse themselves and be just as, if not moreso, bigoted.
Baby steps, little wins. Progress is made.
This is different from, say, a county clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I don't claim to understand the adoption process very well, but I assume that each particular hearing is more than a glorified rubber-stamping. The judge has to rule based on the circumstances of each particular case.No, if he can't separate his personal beliefs from his job, then he shouldn't be a judge.
What if he's the only judge available to hear a case that goes against his beliefs.
The law overrides his beliefs 100% of the time.
Gay couple has a court date and this judge is the only available. They're not going to get a fair trial if he hears the case and it's not fair for them if their case has to be rescheduled because the judge can't do the job that he was sworn in to do (uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States).