Vaughn Walker
Supporters of California’s Proposition 8 — the voter approved ban on gay marriage, that was later declared unconstitutional — are seeking to have the ruling voided because the federal judge that presided over the case is gay and was in a long-term relationship.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
In a court filing, the sponsors of the ban on gay marriage, ProtectMarriage, asked the chief judge of the federal court in San Francisco to nullify last August’s ruling by former U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who retired earlier this year.
ProtectMarriage said Walker should have disclosed his involvement with his male partner before presiding over the marriage trial because it constituted a conflict of interest
“Judge Walker’s 10-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires,” ProtectMarriage argued in the legal filing.
On Aug. 4, 2010, Walker struck down the measure as unconstitutional, ruling that “moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”
Earlier this month, Walker — now retired — confirmed for the first time publicly that his is gay, although it was widely known before the trial began.
Walker said he never considered his own homosexuality a reason to recuse himself from the case.
“If you thought a judge’s sexuality, ethnicity, national origin (or) gender would prevent the judge from handling a case, that’s a very slippery slope,” Walker said.
Articles Related to this topic:
Proposition 8 -- Drama in the court: Judge Walker is called to ‘answer’
Prop 8 backer's motion to void ruling 'fast tracked,' hearing set for June 13
Federal court judge who struck down Proposition 8 confirms he's gay
Vaughn Walker, federal judge who presided over Prop 8 trial, announces retirement
Prop 8 supporters claim Walker's ruling unfair because he's a gay judge
Prop 8 unconstitutional: Federal judge strikes down CA gay marriage ban
‘Biggest open secret’ in Prop 8 trial: The judge is gay
Filed under: California
If Walker was biased because he’s gay then any heterosexual would be just as biased. After all, we’re constantly being told that gay marriage has far-reaching consequences on heterosexual marriage. So apparently we need to find an asexual judge with no interest in marriage. Good luck with that one
Too ridiculous! I believe that only hermaphrodite or eunuch judges should be considered to make such a ruling. And while we’re at it, perhaps all white judges need to recuse themselves from trying any people of color.
Excellent jurisprudential reasoning! Other examples: black judges should recuse themselves from cases involving race. Female judges should never be allowed to decide cases about gender. And religious judges should recuse themselves from cases involving the separation (or nonseparation — let’s be unbiased!) of church and state. It makes perfect sense. These homophobes might be low in EQ, but their jurisprudential IQ is unquestionable.
Too ridiculous! I believe that only hermaphrodite or eunuch judges should be considered to make such a ruling. And while we’re at it, perhaps all white judges need to recuse themselves from trying any people of color.
Thank you Frank!
Thank you Frank. At least someone understands!
SO BASICALLY, WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS, IF ANY ANTI-GAY LAW IS PASSED BY A STRAIGHT JUDGE… WE CAN HAVE IT VOIDED BECAUSE IT’S ‘OBVIOUS’ THAT HIS OR HER PERSONAL BELIEFS PLAYED A ROLE RIGHT????? FUCK REPUBLICANS. FUCK RELIGION. IT’S CALLED EQUALITY, IT’S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN FOR BIGOTS!!!!