So let me get this straight

[yendi]

Some people are concerned that Vaughn Walker, being gay, had a conflict of interest in his decision on Prop 8.

By that same token, wouldn't any homophobe be equally conflicted in offering a verdict?

Which would mean that the only person who could judge it would be a straight non-homophobe, which, by definition, means that Prop 8 gets overturned.

Which is why the entire notion of laws declaring humans to be less than human is fucking ridiculous.

Comments

[martinhesselius.livejournal.com]

Gaaaaaah. :(

[tewok.livejournal.com]

By the same logic used by those Concerned People, straight non-homophobes are also under suspicion of having a conflict of interest. So, conflicts of interest exist for gays, homophobes, and straight non-homophobes. Therefore, no one is capable of being unconflicted. Therefore therefore, it is clear that we must leave Prop-8-ish decisions up to Mr. Ed.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

By the same logic, no one involved in a case against an African American defendant could be African American, because they would have a conflict of interest. Or white, because all whites are so bigoted they will not decide things on the merits of a case and would just convict the black guy.

So I guess this means that we're going to have to start importing juries from China along with our t-shirts and tchotchkes.

[samhenderson.livejournal.com]

According to some some interviews I've heard with other judges, the only time in a case like this a judge has an obligation to recuse him/herself is when they would have a direct material benefit, such as a financial benefit, from the decision. Otherwise how could either a male or a female judge make a decision that involved any aspect of gender?

[amokk]

That's what is being said, that the judge himself had a material benefit in the ruling (being he would then be allowed to marry himself where before he wouldn't).

So, tricky ethics.

Still, the only person who would not have a conflict (because homophobes benefit from prop 8 being upheld, being their belief becomes law) is a straight or bisexual non-homophobe, the ruling still gets overturned, logically.

[slitterst.livejournal.com]

The reasoning is that because he and his partner may want to get married, that constitutes the conflict of interest. Not just that he's gay.

It's still a load of hoooey, but the opponents aren't saying the conflict is due to his sexuality.

[rosefox]

Wow, that's like saying that a disabled law clerk shouldn't be allowed to clerk on personal injury cases.

Oh wait, that happened.