Prop 8 supporters criticize San Francisco judge who struck down the gay-marriage ban, because he himself is gay
Vaughn Walker, a Federal judge in California, recently struck down the state’s gay-marriage ban. Proponents of Prop 8 are protesting, but not for the obvious reasons (they’re opposed to gay marriage), but because of a claim of vested interest.
Vaughn Walker is gay, a fact that was speculated about but never confirmed until he recently went public with his ten-year relationship. Their claim is that is he should have recused himself, since he stands to benefit from the legalization of gay marriage — since he could marry his partner.
It’s an interesting defense, since politics aside, I think they’ve got a point. I believe women should have the right to get an abortion, but I also think you couldn’t truthfully say you were an impartial judge in that matter if you or your partner had just unintentionally gotten pregnant. Could you?
On the other hand, you can’t prevent judges from being gay or Asian or black or partial to peach ice cream — is his opinion no less valid than a married straight judge's?
There is also a long legal tradition of using a technicality to pass or reject bills with larger ethical implications (think banning the death penalty by saying the methods used cause momentary pain, and thus constitute cruel and unusual punishment). Does the same logic hold here?
Comments ( 18 )
Obviously, female judges shouldn't be allowed to rule on abortion cases. And black, white, Asian and Latino judges should recuse themselves from cases involving racism. Plus, heterosexual judges can't rule on gay marriage because, as opponents claim, gay marriage undermines straight marriages.
A judge who owns stock in AT&T is expected to recuse himself from a case with AT&T. Since the judge is a resident of California, who stands to benefit economically if he is allowed to marry his partner, then he probably should have recused himself.
Since he chose not to reveal his relationship until after his retirement, it creates the appearance of hiding material information. Poor, poor judgement on his end.
I agree. No one is more in favor of gay marriage than I am, but - from a legal ethics standpoint - I think he screwed up. His vested interest (financial) is different than an 'ethical' vested interest. The law concerns the former and not the latter, I think.
I don't agree. it's not news that he is gay. if he wanted to marry his partner of a decade, he could have easily done so during that brief period when marriage was legal in California (and he did not). That would actually argue to the point that he is not interested in marrying his partner and therefore would not benefit economically from this case. Trying to tie this into a possible financial interest is shaky at best.
sp80
What about a homophobic straight judge who thinks gay marriage is ruining society? Does he need to disclose his homophobia and recuse himself? The thing about social issues is that everyone has an opinion and vested interest in our society (as opposed to, let's say, a shareholder dispute where the judge owns stock in the company). Whether you're gay or straight, everyone is impacted by Prop 8, so it's impossible to find a judge that does not have a vested interest.
Obviously, all judges should recuse themselves in murder and theft trials because someday they might want to kill someone or steal something so they would benefit from lenient judgments in such cases.
It's even worse: most criminals are human, not to mention most victims, so therefore human judges should recuse themselves from all cases.
But surely you recognize a difference between a judge on a case that pertains to two humans, and a case that pertains to two humans, one of whom is his father?
No one is saying that anyone is completely impartial -- subjectivity is human. But there's legal and illegal lack of impartiality.
Would you say the same thing if a judge who'd upheld DOMA, it turned out, would get a few thousand dollars a year from the government if it passed? Would that be cool?
No, but if the same judge who upheld DOMA is in a heterosexual relationship? Is his ruling ANY less biased than Walker's, according to your understanding of this? I mean, the argument supporting DOMA is that gay marriage would undermine heterosexual marriages. Wouldn't a heterosexual judge have the same bias as a gay one? Are we supposed to find a self-identified asexual judge for this case to be judged fairly?
BenReininga flunked Logic 101.
The argument was that since the judge was gay, he should have recused himself because he had an interest in the outcome. His interest would be that he might want to get married someday and his decision would effect his ability to do so. Proposing that judges recuse themselves because they someday might have an interest in the outcome is rather different proposition than that judges recuse themselves because they presently have a personal or financial interest in the outcome.
Your argument is ridiculous. Straight people have an interest in the outcome, believe me. In fact, the most vociferous arguments regarding gay marriage are from married straight people who shouldn't care, but do because they are religious and/or closeted gays. by your argument, we should ban women and minorities from judging rape, sexual assault and discrimination cases, then, because only white males are objective. Banning a gay judge from judging on a gay issue is insulting, especially when you look at all the conflict of interest going on with the Supreme Court (Scalia and Thomas are especially egregious), but you probably don't care about that because they aren't gay, right?
I think the point of Lazar's resignation is more that he has lost the judgment to tell implying that women need to have lots of unprotected sex to be happy (Because semen is magic lady-happy juice, apparently) might be A) kind of sexist and B) kind of offensive and C) both not a funny joke and inappropriate for the forum in which he published it. You probably shouldn't be heading up a major organization at that point, no matter the distinguished past of your career
@Mel: A) He didn't imply "that women need to have lots of unprotected sex to be happy." B) There is nothing sexist about what he wrote. C) The article was peer-reviewed so the joke was apparently appropriate.
I agree. Can't we take a joke, or are we so uptight and insecure that we're worried something might have meant that women and men are different and like each other?
Straight judges rule in favor of straight marriage all the time and we don't hold them accountable for conflict of interest. This is fucked. There is no argument.
Ben,
It's amazing to me that anything published in Surgery News is even read, must less read closely enough to create a scandal. I mean the supposedly horrible comment was, like, the last line in a long, boring-ass article. Readers would have to wade through pages and pages of sentences like this on the mating habits of the fruit fly: "It has long been known that Drosophila raised on starch media are more likely to mate with other starch-raised flies".
jill
https://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.com
I'm straight and live with my boyfriend who I love very much. I don't want to marry him. Also the fact that marriage could bring in a few thousand dollars to the household a year isn't proof that they want to get married. There are tons of ways to get a couple grand, and most are easier than marriage.
Add a Comment