vaughn walker prop 8

Prop 8 Proponents: Judge’s Decision Invalid Because He’s In a Gay Relationship

gay blog, gay news, prop 8, marriage equality, appeal, san francisco
Judge Vaughn Walker

Things are looking mighty desperate for the bigots across the gay marriage pond.

The Associate Press reports:

The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned.

Lawyers for the ban’s backers filed a motion in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

“Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case,” attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote.

Walker, a 67-year-old Republican appointee, declared Proposition 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californian’s civil rights last summer. He retired from the bench at the end of February.

Protect Marriage general counsel Andy Pugno said that changed when the judge this month told a group of courthouse reporters about his 10-year relationship. The issue is not that Walker is gay, but that his relationship status made him too similar to the same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, Pugno said.

We deeply regret the necessity of this motion. But if the courts are to require others to follow the law, the courts themselves must do so as well,” Pugno added.

Walker said at the time that he did not consider his sexual orientation to be any more a reason for recusal than another judge’s race or gender normally would be.

Right. And are we correct in assuming that the group will also be filing motions for every single case relating to divorce that was presided over by a married person? And every single child custody decision arrived at by a parent? What’s that? No?

Then STFU and stop wasting the world’s time, homophobes. The majority of the country is in support of gay marriage now. Your obsession with our sex lives has become absolutely creepy.

Get over it.

Via AP

  • Did you have any doubt they would pull this? They’ve spent the entire course of the trial swooning over any suggestion they harbored any animus, suggesting quite the opposite, they were simply “defending” the “will of the people” and “traditional marriage”. I think this move lays that bare.

    It’s clear that they couldn’t hold it in any further, they just had to lash out at someone’s sexuali– I’m sorry — someone’s relationship because, clearly, judges operate out of the same well of resentment and hatred that the proponents of Prop 8 do. Clearly.

  • Orientation clearly addles moral compass, in the same way that only a heterosexual judge should be allowed to tell homosexuals what to do. Or perhaps they only want a homosexual whore to do the ruling? I’d be happy to preside this case.

    I’m not sure what any of their claims are really getting at.

  • If we cannot trust in the judges fairness then who can we trust.

  • BULLSHIT!

    I don’t want any judge who is in a committed heterosexual relationship to have anything to do with this case either then.

    I want an asexual, loner judge…who is a hermit… no, who is from another planet – and thus has not lived in a society that is largely, pervasively heterosexist

  • Would he be less biased if he were straight? No. Also, judges are really supposed to be neutral and it seems like he made a neutral descision.

  • they haven’t been obsessed enough, I have not had some fun since 2008. come into my world ::whip whip::

    XD

  • Anonymous

    Oh, for the love of everything…

    THIS is what they’ve reduced themselves to? THIS is the best they can come up with? By claiming that since the judge is gay, then that means he shouldn’t have presided over the case?

    PLEASE!

  • Anonymous

    It’s desperation, plain and simple. All their other arguments won’t hold up in a court of law, so they’re resorting to the claim of judicial bias. Even though there is no basis for it.

    The more they keep this up, the most stupid they look and the more support for them drops.

  • Buddy Englett

    So… it would be more fair if he were hetero? I don’t get it.

  • No one questioned the sexual orientation of any other judge in previous rulings on this and other similar matters when they were straight. Therefore, the sexual orientation in this particular case should be as irrelevant as being a straight judge was in all the other decisions and cases. There should be no discrimination against this judge or anyone else at work based on their sexual orientation.