6/26/2013 10:34 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:30:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Gay judge in a law-term same sex relationship who possibly wants to be married has a chance to make a decision on whether he's legally allowed to get married.

Yes, there's a possible conflict of interest.
That same conflict wouldn't exist for straight judge ruling for prop 8?
No.  There are plenty of straight people who would have been open to SSM who would have been able to rule strictly on the merits of the case without any personal interest in the outcome.  I assume some of them are judges in the State of California.
So you're saying that a gay judge is incapable of ruling based on the merits?
No.

I'm saying that the appearance of a conflict of interest raises questions on the integrity of the ruling.
6/26/2013 10:35 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm concerned with an actual conflict. Appearances of conflict, not so much.
How can YOU tell the difference?  Because Judge Walker said so?
6/26/2013 10:37 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm concerned with an actual conflict. Appearances of conflict, not so much.
How can YOU tell the difference?  Because Judge Walker said so?
I don't believe his conflict of interest was any more real than the conflict if decided by a straight judge.
6/26/2013 10:38 AM
What conflict by a straight judge?

Do all straight people hate gays?  Is that what you're implying?
6/26/2013 10:39 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 10:38:00 AM (view original):
What conflict by a straight judge?

Do all straight people hate gays?  Is that what you're implying?
Oh yeah, I forgot, gay marriage has zero effect on straight people.

Duh. Thanks for the reminder.
6/26/2013 10:40 AM
Wow this thread is still going strong.

BL you sure are a stubbon one.

6/26/2013 10:48 AM
Well I guess it's unconstitutional now.
6/26/2013 11:13 AM
Soooo.....what happens in the 39 states that do not recognize/allow SSM?

Lawsuits demanding equal rights?
6/26/2013 11:15 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm concerned with an actual conflict. Appearances of conflict, not so much.
How can YOU tell the difference?  Because Judge Walker said so?
I don't believe his conflict of interest was any more real than the conflict if decided by a straight judge.
There's a higher probability that Walker has an issue ruling fairly than the straight judge who does not want to have a homosexual marriage.  
6/26/2013 11:16 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Soooo.....what happens in the 39 states that do not recognize/allow SSM?

Lawsuits demanding equal rights?
Nobody knows. All the ruling said was that the Feds have to recognize state marriage laws.
6/26/2013 11:16 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm concerned with an actual conflict. Appearances of conflict, not so much.
How can YOU tell the difference?  Because Judge Walker said so?
I don't believe his conflict of interest was any more real than the conflict if decided by a straight judge.
There's a higher probability that Walker has an issue ruling fairly than the straight judge who does not want to have a homosexual marriage.  
Based on what?
6/26/2013 11:17 AM
The fact that he wants a homosexual marriage. (I'm assuming he does, I don't know for sure)
6/26/2013 11:18 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm concerned with an actual conflict. Appearances of conflict, not so much.
How can YOU tell the difference?  Because Judge Walker said so?
I don't believe his conflict of interest was any more real than the conflict if decided by a straight judge.
There's a higher probability that Walker has an issue ruling fairly than the straight judge who does not want to have a homosexual marriage.  
Based on what?
Human nature.
6/26/2013 11:19 AM
Let's say I'm a judge.  I have to make a ruling on issue X.

If I rule one way on issue X, I collect 1 million dollars. 
If I rule the other way, nothing changes in my life.

Would you rather me be the judge? Or someone else who does not have this option of collecting money?
6/26/2013 11:24 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2013 11:19:00 AM (view original):
Let's say I'm a judge.  I have to make a ruling on issue X.

If I rule one way on issue X, I collect 1 million dollars. 
If I rule the other way, nothing changes in my life.

Would you rather me be the judge? Or someone else who does not have this option of collecting money?
But he's not getting $1 million. That's the point. Everyone has a sexuality. It would be impossible to find a judge whose sexuality didnt fall on one side or the other.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.