"Calling Out Gay" for Jury Duty

  • kencarson

    Posts: 224

    Mar 10, 2011 4:02 PM GMT
    This guy is a friend of mine. Watch the video below.



    Do you agree with what he did? I personally do. Someone is supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers, or equals. The rights that gay people have in this country are currently UNequal. That should therefore take us out of the jury box.
  • kencarson

    Posts: 224

    Mar 10, 2011 10:02 PM GMT
    Anybody? No?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2011 10:09 PM GMT
    Can I have his phone number? icon_rolleyes.gif

    actually, very impressed by this. More and more things like this need to be done to make the point. America is not a country of equal freedom to all citizens .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    This is a great idea. Certainly here in Florida, where I am legally a second-class citizen (actually even third-class), I would think that's a great way to avoid jury duty.

    I'd like to serve, but since I'm not fully a citizen here, and don't enjoy all the rights of citizenship, I'm not sure why I should feel obligated to fulfill the duties of a citizen, whose privileges I'm denied.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Mar 11, 2011 2:51 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThis is a great idea. Certainly here in Florida, where I am legally a second-class citizen (actually even third-class), I would think that's a great way to avoid jury duty.

    I'd like to serve, but since I'm not fully a citizen here, and don't enjoy all the rights of citizenship, I'm not sure why I should feel obligated to fulfill the duties of a citizen, whose privileges I'm denied.



    If someone feels they are biased and cannot come to a decision then the judge decides , most likely it happens.

    But when you peal away the greater gay rights question. Who is he biased for?
    prosecution or defense? or just biased against the state?

    I got to the point of him being biased but i am trying to figure out if its situational or more global?
    The point would have been better made in a draft situation, but i am thinking he means to say " I refuse to be a juror because I dont have the same rights as the general population"


    The MSNB ticker was incorrect, you can adopt in NY state and be LGBT. Lovitz didnt say that at least in the piece.

  • kencarson

    Posts: 224

    Mar 11, 2011 5:54 AM GMT
    I think he means that if one isn't afforded the same basic rights as someone they're judging on a jury (i.e. the defendant) He may not have the same view as that person, and there for cannot judge his actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 5:57 AM GMT
    jprichva saidHe's cute. I want to fuck him.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:00 AM GMT
    I totally agree with him.
    And I wish I'd thought of this.
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Mar 11, 2011 6:14 AM GMT
    Hmm. Interesting take on performing jury duty. Let's turn the table. What if the government denied gays the opportunity to serve on a jury?
    Or this one...What if the government denied gays the opportunity to serve in the military?
    I'm having trouble understanding how while we are fighting for equality in all aspects of our lives, that in arenas where we have it, such as on juries, we say no? We're fighting for equality in the eyes of the law, but won't serve on juries because...I don't get it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:19 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidI totally agree with him.
    And I wish I'd thought of this.


    +2 icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:24 AM GMT
    Mr. Lovitz made contradictory remarks: "We have certain civic responsibilities like paying our taxes and serving on juries and I think everyone is obligated to participate. But when it's your turn to say how you really feel, you need to say how you really feel and I just said I couldn't possibly be impartial in this moment".

    His basic argument is that he "felt" discriminated against (but he didn't state a specific policy that has discriminated against him). Had the case involved a homosexual plaintiff or defendant, perhaps there is justification for him to not be impartial because he is gay. However, I would argue that gay people can be objective and not necessarily be expected to blindly judge in favor of the side with the gay client.

    More importantly, as a gay man, he would offer a different perspective to jury deliberations, something that was presumably missing after he left two days into the process. So does this mean that any Hispanic American citizen living in Arizona can refuse jury duty because he/she "feels" discriminated against (not even mentioning SB 1070)?

    Finally, I don't understand why MSNBC plugged Mr. Lovitz's show. This made his ambiguous reason for being on the show a little more obvious to me.

    marn13l.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:39 AM GMT
    heybreaux said
    kencarson saidI think he means that if one isn't afforded the same basic rights as someone they're judging on a jury (i.e. the defendant) He may not have the same view as that person, and there for cannot judge his actions.


    Agreed. My take on the whole thing is what he was saying was if you are not equal, how can you judge someone you are supposed to be an equal but do not feel equal? Under current law, you are not. Trust your instincts, and laws and moral responsibilites will evolve into what they may. It is honest, and as forthright as can be, which is what is asked of you as a juror.


    So does this mean, that if he doesn't waver on his principle, that Mr. Lovitz will glady serve as a juror when both sides have gay clients and all the other jurors are gay? Taken to its logical end, this is what his argument would result in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 6:41 AM GMT
    Disagree.
    I think it really depends on the particulars of the case. This guy is claiming that since he is not afforded equal rights in a certain aspect of the law, therefore he cannot be impartial in all aspects of the law. There are many laws about many things, and he is claiming that in every one of those things he will have a built-in bias. I think it would be hard then for anyone to claim objectivity if we were to take into account 2nd or 3rd order biases instead of direct biases. And what about civil trials? I'm pretty sure a smart guy like him could be a fair juror in many cases.
  • kencarson

    Posts: 224

    Mar 11, 2011 6:55 AM GMT
    Exactly. He just said how he felt, and what he thought his bias was. And ultimately, the decision to dismiss is up to the judge.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 11, 2011 7:02 AM GMT
    I would have thought that the judge would have had a lot of questions for him before making a decision to excuse him.

    I'm wondering why he felt he couldn't be impartial.
    Was he going to find the defendant not guilty, no matter what ?

    Regardless, I think that it's wonderful that someone in the gay community found a way that each of us could stand up and say that, until we have equal rights, we will not participate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 7:06 AM GMT
    dsmith123 said
    heybreaux said


    So does this mean, that if he doesn't waver on his principle, that Mr. Lovitz will glady serve as a juror when both sides have gay clients and all the other jurors are gay? Taken to its logical end, this is what his argument would result in.


    No, in fact. If we followed it to its logical end, because gay people are not in possession of the same rights as others, they cannot serve, nor can they be tried under due process--to its logical end.

    Of course that sounds absurd, but so does DOMA, and DADT, and illegality of marriage focused on any one classification of citizen. It has made me biased, and I don't even want to get married. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree that DOMA and DADT are absurd. However, DADT was repealed last year and the implementation of the repeal is rolling out. As for DOMA, there have been unsuccessful challenges in the federal court system but President Obama has directed his Justice Department to no longer uphold it. Unfortunately, DOMA is becoming part of many states' laws. Ultimately, it's something that has to be addressed on a national scale. Had Mr. Lovitz cited DOMA as an example why he could not get married in New York state, that might add some weight to his argument. As the saying goes, it sounded like "all hat and no cattle" to me.

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 11, 2011 7:09 AM GMT
    boydroid saidDisagree.
    I think it really depends on the particulars of the case. This guy is claiming that since he is not afforded equal rights in a certain aspect of the law, therefore he cannot be impartial in all aspects of the law. There are many laws about many things, and he is claiming that in every one of those things he will have a built-in bias. I think it would be hard then for anyone to claim objectivity if we were to take into account 2nd or 3rd order biases instead of direct biases. And what about civil trials? I'm pretty sure a smart guy like him could be a fair juror in many cases.



    Suppose he said that he believed that the judicial system was unfair because of the way it has ruled against gay people. And, since it was unfair towards gay people, he felt that it was probably unfair against other groups of people, including the defendant. I like this.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 11, 2011 7:11 AM GMT
    dsmith123 said
    dsmith123 said
    heybreaux said


    So does this mean, that if he doesn't waver on his principle, that Mr. Lovitz will glady serve as a juror when both sides have gay clients and all the other jurors are gay? Taken to its logical end, this is what his argument would result in.


    No, in fact. If we followed it to its logical end, because gay people are not in possession of the same rights as others, they cannot serve, nor can they be tried under due process--to its logical end.

    Of course that sounds absurd, but so does DOMA, and DADT, and illegality of marriage focused on any one classification of citizen. It has made me biased, and I don't even want to get married. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree that DOMA and DADT are absurd. However, DADT was repealed last year and the implementation of the repeal is rolling out. As for DOMA, there have been unsuccessful challenges in the federal court system but President Obama has directed his Justice Department to no longer uphold it. Unfortunately, DOMA is becoming part of many states' laws. Ultimately, it's something that has to be addressed on a national scale. Had Mr. Lovitz cited DOMA as an example why he could not get married in New York state, that might add some weight to his argument. As the saying goes, it sounded like "all hat and no cattle" to me.






    While it's great to have SOME equal rights, we will not be truly equal until we have ALL equal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 7:18 AM GMT
    I honesty would have to know what the case was about to make an opinion about this.

    When I was in jury duty and they came to this question.only one person said that they couldn't be fair. They made the man come up to the judges box with the lawyers to discuss. So much for whispering, because I heard everything ahahah. The man was a racist,so they let him go.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 7:52 AM GMT
    Webster666 said

    While it's great to have SOME equal rights, we will not be truly equal until we have ALL equal rights.


    This begs the question of what the next equal right for gays will be once the marriage issue is resolved at the national level (whenever that will be). Are gay male civilian "conscientious objectors" willing to abstain from jury duty until their female counterparts (lesbians) receive equal compensation to their male colleagues? It's a worthy idealistic goal, but may not be practical in reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 8:06 AM GMT
    Webster666Suppose he said that he believed that the judicial system was unfair because of the way it has ruled against gay people. And, since it was unfair towards gay people, he felt that it was probably unfair against other groups of people, including the defendant. I like this.

    Well, that's kind of my point. He could say that, but if I were the judge and the trial at hand was for example a lawsuit between a fat person and McDonalds, I wouldn't think that explanation is really too relevant.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2011 8:53 AM GMT
    kencarson saidThis guy is a friend of mine. Watch the video below.

    -video-

    Do you agree with what he did? I personally do. Someone is supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers, or equals. The rights that gay people have in this country are currently UNequal. That should therefore take us out of the jury box.


    Your argument is flawed, because you say everybody should be judged by their peers, yet gay people shouldn't have to be on jury duty and the reason they shouldn't you say, is because they have no equal rights. So by extrapolation, every accused person would have to be asked their sexual orientation and every juror as well. So only gays can juror a gay accusé and only straight people can juror a straight accusée?

    Instead of refusing rights where you do have them, you should focus on attaining rights where you do not.


    The whole jury system is flawed in my opinion, but that is not the topic here.
  • mynyun

    Posts: 1346

    Mar 11, 2011 8:59 AM GMT
    OutdoorAdventurist saidHmm. Interesting take on performing jury duty. Let's turn the table. What if the government denied gays the opportunity to serve on a jury?
    Or this one...What if the government denied gays the opportunity to serve in the military?
    I'm having trouble understanding how while we are fighting for equality in all aspects of our lives, that in arenas where we have it, such as on juries, we say no? We're fighting for equality in the eyes of the law, but won't serve on juries because...I don't get it.




    It's a double edged sword. A catch 22
  • charlieviiper...

    Posts: 328

    Mar 20, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    LOL at the show plugin at the end.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 21, 2011 3:56 AM GMT
    dsmith123 said
    Webster666 said

    While it's great to have SOME equal rights, we will not be truly equal until we have ALL equal rights.


    This begs the question of what the next equal right for gays will be once the marriage issue is resolved at the national level (whenever that will be). Are gay male civilian "conscientious objectors" willing to abstain from jury duty until their female counterparts (lesbians) receive equal compensation to their male colleagues? It's a worthy idealistic goal, but may not be practical in reality.




    You are employing a couple of red herring arguments here, which are false arguments.
    Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
    I was referring to 100% equal rights, under the law, for gay people.

    Obviously, the argument made by the gay man in the OP was accepted by the judge.
    It's on a par with rising up against taxation without representation.