Streams

Gays Protest Jury Duty Over Lack of Equality

Friday, March 11, 2011

It appears that gays protesting for equal rights have a new message: that they can't serve as impartial jurors when called to serve.

I was called to jury duty in Manhattan State Supreme Court on Thursday. On two separate occasions, I heard gay men tell a judge during the voir dire process that they didn't think they could fairly serve on a jury.

The first occurred in the morning session. When asked if he could be an impartial juror, the man stated that he wasn't given full civil rights by the legal system. Judge Laura Ward looked stunned. She repeated her question and again the man said he honestly didn't feel he could be impartial because gays are denied certain rights such as marriage. The judge told him everyone is treated equally in her courtroom. When he objected again she excused him from the case but told him he'd be called back on other cases.

In other words, his jury duty wasn't over.

Later that afternoon, while screening jurors for the same criminal case, another man told Ward he couldn't be impartial because he is gay. He mentioned that he's been in a relationship for 18 years with the same man, but that they still can't get legally married. He was excused from the case.

It's not clear if the two protests were related or if they were in response to anything in particular. But last week, a 26-year-old actor named Jonathan Lovitz used very similar language when he told a different Manhattan judge that he didn't think he could be an impartial juror. Lovitz wrote about his experience on Facebook and it's since gone viral over social media.

When contacted by WNYC, Lovitz said he had never been much of a political activist. But he said he was reading about gay marriage on his Blackberry while waiting to be called for a jury on March 1 in a Manhattan civil court. When the judge started asking people if they could be fair and impartial, he said he answered, "I can't possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class one in the eyes of this justice system."

He added, "It just struck a chord with me."

Lovitz said he was very nervous and saw some people smile approvingly while others rolled their eyes. He was excused from the case and gave the same answer the next day when called back for a different case. He insists he wasn't just trying to get out of jury duty.

"It's another example of civil disobedience which we're all taught to respect and admire from the day we're in elementary school civics classes," he said, referring to the American Revolution and the Civil Rights marches.

Lovitz said he's received hundreds of messages through Facebook and has been contacted by various web sites and news outlets. He says most people are supportive but a few said he's chosen a "frivolous" form of protest and he's responded by suggesting they pick another way to demonstrate against not being treated equally. But he hopes his form of protest takes off as more gays and lesbians object to jury duty. He wants lawmakers to see they're going to lose a "significant portion of their jury pool" if laws such as those against same-sex marriage don't change.

"States are going to realize that if they don't integrate LGBT citizens into the same laws that apply to everyone else, civil disobedience will only begin with jury duty," he said.

Meanwhile, the movement hasn't caught on too broadly yet. Two gay rights groups contacted by WNYC said they aren't encouraging people to protest jury duty.

A spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration, David Bookstaver, said he never heard of anyone objecting to jury duty as a protest for gay marriage.

"Each juror is interviewed independently and as to a juror being excused, that's up to the judge," he said. "No one is exempt from jury duty."

Tags:

More in:

Comments [6]

Ryan

"All men, hetrosexual or homosexual, in this country are allowed to marry one woman at a time. All women, hetrosexual or homosexual are allowed to marry one man at a time. There is no double standard on anyone hetrosexual or homosexual. These people should be charged with contempt of court and sat in a jail cell for a while. I do not agree with all of the laws and policies of this country, but when called for jury duty I SERVE."

This makes no sense. I hope to God you are joking.

Mar. 17 2011 06:37 AM
William Reed

All men, hetrosexual or homosexual, in this country are allowed to marry one woman at a time. All women, hetrosexual or homosexual are allowed to marry one man at a time. There is no double standard on anyone hetrosexual or homosexual. These people should be charged with contempt of court and sat in a jail cell for a while. I do not agree with all of the laws and policies of this country, but when called for jury duty I SERVE.

Mar. 14 2011 10:29 PM
Daniel Millstone from Lower east site

I support gay marriage and think the idea of excusing oneself from jury duty is wrong. People who are targets of discrimination need to be on juries not off of them.

Mar. 13 2011 11:06 AM
carolita from NYC

Makes perfect sense to me. Bravo!

Mar. 12 2011 02:22 PM
Erik S Frampton from Overlooking NYC - Jersey side

I support this cause and am ashamed not to have been the first. I was called to jury duty last week in NJ and have been rescheduled for this week. If I am selected, I will consider making this argument. We have civil unions in this state and yet I know this is only because I am not considered an equal participant in the human right of passage called marriage. I am 15 years into my domestic partnership and have no intention of getting civilly unioned. I will, we will, wait until such time as we may MARRY under the full protection of the federal and state statutes that apply. This includes the tax code, immigration laws, travel abroad, insurance and medical rights, adoption, etc. The fact that my union is "other" than marriage is an abomination to the concept of equality. Separate but equal is and has always been an oxymoron neither justifiable nor defendable.

Sincerely, Erik S Frampton

Mar. 12 2011 09:57 AM
anonymous_listener from NYC

As a bi / queer person who shares the same concerns I certainly understand the desire for meaningful protest, but I'm a lawyer too and I'm just not sure this is the right idea. As a lawyer I am well aware of loads of other reasons to doubt whether our justice system is capable of justice at all -- we have a Supreme Court that foisted George Bush upon the American electorate, we have Supreme Court justices now who delight in foisting their religious beliefs and their contempt for women to upon the American people, we have unknown thousands of wrongfully-convicted people languishing in jail because of procedural missteps and inequities, I could go on all day with reasons I don't think much of our justice system -- but it's what we have. I absolutely believe we must try to improve it, but in the meantime the idea of depriving jurors of a jury of their peers -- and a jury without gays on it is not a jury of anyone's peers -- does not sit well with me. To have juries full of heterosexual people only is certainly a way to make a statement, but I'm not sure it's a helpful statement, and I don't think it's fair to the defendants on trial.

Mar. 12 2011 09:20 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Sponsored

Latest Newscast

 

 

Support

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public

Feeds

Supported by