Well, the rumors that Judge Vaughn Walker were out there for a long time, and he never really denied it. The Chronicle, among others, published that information during the trial, and it was basically an known fact. However, Judge Walker has now acknowledged that he has been in a long term relationship with a man, and that apparently is entirely different. He might, you know, be interested in marrying some day, and so the thought processes of the Prop 8 attorneys goes, he should have recused himself from the case. They’ve filed a motion saying just that and asking for a new trial.
Eight months later, Proposition 8’s proponents and their attorneys have taken a new position. They filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic ruling, a move they said was prompted by the now-retired jurist’s recent disclosure that he is in a long-term relationship with another man.
Lawyers for the ban’s backers argue that the judge’s relationship status, not his sexual orientation, gave him too much in common with the couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban in his court. The judge should have recused himself or at least revealed the relationship to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest, the lawyers say.(Sac Bee (AP))
This is really rather incredible. First, they are essentially arguing that only those who are unaffected by civil rights cases can hear those cases. So…diversity, yeah, that’s a waste of time. Our bench should just be white straight men (WSM) so that they can hear all the cases. Never mind that we all bring a perspective to our daily life, only WSMs are unbiased enough to hear civil rights cases. And really, we should be looking into some of those WSMs as well. Gender discrimination case? Well, that WSM has a daughter who might have been excluded, better eliminate him too. You know, maybe we should just go to a court judged entirely by people locked up in a room, so that they don’t have any other interests. We can raise children from the age of 5 in a state of unattached freedom, so that they never care about anything, and then they can grow up to be our judges. How does that sound?
Of course, it is pretty hard to imagine that this will actually go anywhere:
Indiana University Law School professor Charles Geyh, an expert on judicial ethics, said that without more evidence that Walker stood to personally benefit if same-sex marriages were legal in California, he found it difficult to imagine that the particulars of the judge’s same-sex relationship provided gay marriage opponents with an avenue for reversing his ruling.
“It really implies it would be fine if he were essentially surfing at bars and had a new partner every night because he wouldn’t want to be married,” he said. “I don’t see that as advancing their cause.”(SacBee (AP))
In the end, Prop 8 isn’t about stable relationships, or encouraging the reasonable public policy of rewarding that stability. No, it is a punitive measure against those that they don’t like. It is simply homophobia, and it doesn’t belong in California, and it doesn’t belong in our nation.
UPDATE: I’m a big fan of the dean of UC-Irvine’s nascent law school, Erwin Chemerinsky. He really knows how to get to the nub of an argument, and explain it to you in a very real way. Here is an example of that:
“I know of no instance in which a judge has been disqualified because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation or gender,” Chemerinsky told TIME. “This would mean that no African-American judge could have heard a challenge to segregation laws or no woman judge a challenge to a law discriminating based on sex. No court ever has suggested any such thing, nor will it. This is simply a personal attack on Judge Walker in an effort to embarrass him. As was said in another context long ago, Have they no shame?” (Time Magazine)
First, I opposed Prop 8, supported Judge Walker’s decision and strongly support gay marriage rights. However, I see no evidence that the proponents of Prop 8 insist on a white judge. Where did the racial reference come from? And where did the gender reference come from? When did they suggest that a woman could not hear the case?
What they are suggesting is that their initiative selects a very narrow population and says “you are prohibited from marrying the person you love”. Judge Walker happens to be a member of that population. Is it completely unreasonable to ask if any of his rulings during the case were influenced by the knowledge that if Prop 8 fails, he could marry someone he loves.
Part of the problem with this is that Prop 8 is so obviously unfair, unlawful and just plain cruel. If Congress passed a law prohibiting a red-haired person from being a judge, could a red-haired judge hear the case? Such a case would be so obvious, any judge should be able to rule.
In my mind, the Prop 8 case is just as obvious. However, if did pass with a majority vote, so it is not quite as obvious to others.
I thought they might avoid this tactic because their main argument seems to be that allowing same-sex marriages would adversely affect straight people. If that’s really the case, wouldn’t a straight judge be inherently biased?