Prop. 8 Judge's Sexual Orientation, Relationship Become An Issue
Comments (9)
No on Prop. 8 sign, Creative Commons
Last August, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is now retired, presided over the same-sex marriage dispute. At the time, Walker had not explicitly disclosed his sexual orientation, although he is openly gay, and that he is in a long-term relationship.
By ruling in favor of the party which challenged Prop. 8, supporters of the measure say Walker’s sexual orientation and long-term relationship status made him automatically biased because he could potentially benefit from his decision.
One conservative sponsor of Prop. 8, ProtectMarriage, argued Walker’s sexual orientation alone would not disqualify him from presiding over a same-sex marriage case, but if he wanted to marry his partner of 10 years, he might have a personal interest in the case, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In April, Walker told reporters about his sexual orientation, but the San Francisco Chronicle had mentioned the fact that Walker is gay previously during the trial.
The Los Angeles Times said they asked ProtectMarriage to comment on Walker’s sexual orientation during the trial, but the group declined.
Many legal ethics experts said there is no problem with gay and lesbian judges presiding over gay-rights cases, but there may be a conflict of interest if the judge is trying to marry his or her partner.
However, the other side of that position points to the possibility that a heterosexual judge may have a personal interest in protecting his or her definition of marriage.
Campaign signs and slogans for Prop. 8 invoked the message that heterosexual marriages and traditional families needed to be protected from non-traditional forms of marriage; Prop. 8 slogans included “Protect Marriage” and “Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children.”
The San Francisco Chronicle quotes Monroe Freedman, a Hofstra University law professor who is a legal ethics expert saying that Prop. 8’s campaign advertising suggests “any heterosexual has a problem (judging the case) because his or her marriage or future marriage is threatened…because the children are threatened.”
Another law professor said in his online legal ethics forum that whether Walker had a conflict of interest in the Prop. 8 case depended on several factors.
“The fact that Walker is gay has no bearing on his ability to sit. The fact that he is in a long term same sex relationship does not, by itself have a bearing. But if he and his partner want to marry in California and only Prop. 8 stood in their way he violated the recusal rule,” said Stephen Gillers of NYU Law.
The recusal rule is when a judge must disqualify himself or herself from presiding over a case where he or she would be partial.
Walker’s ruling against Prop. 8 is now in the process of appeal with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In the meantime, his decision has been suspended.
In March, California Attorney General Kamala Harris called for state courts to immediately restore the right for same-sex couples to marry. Harris also said an appeal to Walker’s decision is unlikely to be overturned.
Harris said in a March press release that as long as Walker’s ruling of Prop. 8 as unconstitutional is suspended, “the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples will continue to be violated, perpetuating unconstitutional discrimination…”
A federal judge will hear the motion June 13.
Comments
Some of these responses are so distasteful. It's shameful. Last year I read an article on here: http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/10/moving-beyond-homophobia-after-tra... I think you should read it.
People need to move past homophobia. Get over it and live your own lives.
Interesting article. However, there are some points I must bring to attention:
1) This is old news. The "Protect Marriage" Suit against Judge Walker was filed over a month ago.
2) Though you focused highly on the "Yes on 8" argument of how Walker was more influenced by his orientation than his knowledge of the law. You completely failed to reference any excerpts from his actual opinion on the case. Walker's opinion was a solid, educated, and UN-BIASED interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Civil Rights violations. If any other heterosexual judge would have ruled the same way, the "Yes on 8" camp would be calling him/her a "liberal activist" judge.
Moral of the story, A judge (much like Walker's ruling) cannot be recused from a case simply because they match the same religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, and/or political party as the plantiff. The judge must be trusted to interpret the law in an un-biased manner. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. However, if protectmarriage.com and the rest of the conservative "Yes on 8" crowd really want to go down this path... I'd suggest you rethink your strategy. What's good for the gooose, is good for the gander. Remember, there are 4 conservative/Republican/Christian leaning justices on the US Supreme court who have been, in the past, more than happy to talk about their conservative political/social ideals. If/When this case gets to the SCOTUS, those justices should recuse themselves as well.
thanks for the post guys..family law is the part of legal practice that covers domestic relations. These range between marriage and divorce, to concerns of adoption and surrogacy, and also to issues such as common law marriages and same-sex marriage. In Denver, as anywhere else, you will need a lawyer who has a substantial amount of knowledge within your unique area of need.
The anti-gay, Christianist bigots not only shot themselves in the foot, but they shot both of their legs off. "...but if he wanted to marry his partner of 10 years, he might have a personal interest in the case, according to the Los Angeles Times." June 13, 2011, will be an opportunity to deliver spectacular ridicule to the pious bigots defending proposition 8. The greatest revenge against these fools will be to rub their faces in their pathetic legal arguments, and then the gays living equally protected under the law. Big, bold, middle finger to every Christianist, bigot slob who supports legal inequality. Get laid, and get a wife! Get your god-damn laws out of my private life!
I believe this is the first comment section I've ever seen without a "report" button.
Anyway... regardless of his orientation, relationship, presumed personal opinion, etc., the judge gave them *every opportunity* to present a convincing case. They were either unwilling or unable to do so. If you were a judge, and one side decided at the last minute not to call most of its witnesses after all, those who did show up conceded most of the other side's points, and when finally directly asked for evidence, any at all, they told you they didn't have to provide any... what choice would you have but to find against them?
recall Harris
Yeh one of you USC media types said being antigay does not belong in LA but I say "Gay get out of LA". I will answer all these questions for you. There was no need for any elections because the gay legal Mafia and their Hollywood puppet judges need a constitution amendment to redefine the word marriage. At the time of the write the word marriage was defined as man and woman per the KJV bible, the foundation of the English language as the 1st printed bible was the foundation of the German language. At the time of the writing of the CA and Fed constitution the KJV bible was the largest printed book in the US and all the English commonwealth and it is still is. If a family had any book it was the bible because it also had the record of births, deaths, and marriages i.e. family bible term and it was a legal document. It is ok to change the definition but your gay Mafia legals and this just-so-happen-to-gay fed judge and the ACLU 9th circus judge appealing to Hollywood who will not step down from the Prop 8 appeal case because of a conflict of interest as Walker should have cannot bypass the constitutions. The original fake ruling was created at the log cabin republican convention in SD by the terminator then CA republican Supremoes redefine the word marriage in the original fake ruling hence all of your gay marriages are illegal and the above are guilty of conspiracy and belong in jail. Please note that Iran now has a missile base in Venezuela and the Mexican Mafia is all thru out the SW. Civil Rights or Civil War was the gay famous call.
coulda, woulda, shoulda.........When the Republicans lose in 2012, they only have to look at how ridiculous they are to find out why they lost.
coulda, woulda, shoulda.... When the Republicans lose in 2012, they only have to look at how ridiculous they are to know why they lost big time.