Prop 8 trial judge is gay – will it stay a non-issue?
I didn’t see this coming. Turns out that it’s an open secret in San Francisco that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker – the guy deciding the Prop 8 trial – is gay.
This is a non-issue, or it should be. After all, hundreds of cases about heterosexual relationships and rights are decided by straight judges every day. But that it made the San Francisco Chronicle at all (albeit in a positive opinion column) suggests that it’s not a non-issue at all, even though the case was assigned to him at random. And I wonder, if Walker decides in our favor, what the reaction of the Right will be.Not pleasant, I imagine.
From the Chronicle (updated to actually include link – apologies!!):
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.
They also don’t believe it will influence how he rules on the case he’s now hearing – whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.
“Life is full of irony,” the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.
Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker’s. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that “people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality.”
In short, the friend said, Walker’s background is relevant in the same way people would want to know that a judge hearing a discrimination case involving Latinos was Latino or a Jewish judge was ruling in a case involving the Anti-Defamation League.
So – to make sure the ruling is ‘fair’, we had to find a bisexual judge?
Frankly, who cares what the Right thinks? He was appointed to his position by a Republican president. He was assigned the case at random. And he IS the judge.
Normally the public does care whether a judge shares any common characteristic with a defendant or a plaintiff. Or judges would have to be assigned with an eye to how they differ from both sides, which would be ludicrous.
If they Right doesn’t like the decision, they can lump it. And in any case, despite the way the case has been moving thus far, two things are true: first of all, Walker might not rule in our favor and, secondly, even if he does, his won’t be the final word. It will keep escalating.
You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be screams of protest from the right wingers and religious wing nuts that Judge Walker is playing favourites should he rule against Prop 8. And maybe Peter Formaini hit the nail right on the head by suggesting a “bisexual judge”!
Or an asexual one.
In the end, this doesn’t matter a great deal, because this judge will not be the one who finally decides the issue. Regardless of his decision, it WILL at the very least end up with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This trial is just going to be feeding that one with findings of fact and a decision that will certainly be appealed by the side that loses.
At most, the anti-gay hate industry will try to score a few cheap political points should they lose, by suggesting that the sole reason they lost is that the judge is biased against them, solely by virtue of being gay. (Completely overlooking the fact that a similar accusation could be made by our side about any heterosexual judge… thus the “cheap” political point.)
Where is link to this ‘positive’ opinion column Vanasco??
It would be arguing the same that a heterosexual would be biased deciding a case of homosexual rights. That’s ridiculous. As we have seen, Walker has taken a case against the Gay Olympics so clearly he is not a biased judge. However, we probably will see cries from the right should we win. Well Judge, you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
Here it is. http://tinyurl.com/yex5l6q
To be honest, the right will never be “happy”…until they get only what they want. Regardless of who rules on the subject…. If Christ himself told the “right” that they were “wrong”, of is God told them or the Supreme Court…nome of them will be “enough”, because in the end, this has nothing to do with “what is right or wrong”, merely about what they want……so the orientation of the good Judge is just a “distaction” or an “excuse” for one side or the other……
This is a no win situation. The judge should probably recuse himself. The rr will use this as an excuse and make a big deal out of. I know the judge will do the correct thing and make his judgement based on legal precedents but to maintain the the “whiff” of impartiality he should recuse himself.
“This is a no win situation. The judge should probably recuse himself.”
Why? Isn’t a straight judge just as likely to decide based on non-legal issues?
Which was the entire point of my post.
One could only make this statement if one believes gays are objectively less ethical than straights. Not a place you probably want to go.
The defence knew this. That is why they put on such a pitiful defence. Now upon appeal they can say original judge was biased and get the case dismissed.
sorry defense. opps
That took no time at all. A friend of mine got forwarded the latest campaign email from NOM:
Got Bias? San Francisco Chronicle Reports Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay
Monday, February 8, 2010 5:56 PM
From:
“Brian Brown”
Dear Friend of Marriage,
In a story this Sunday (Feb. 7), the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is gay and called his orientation, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage.”
We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That’s no secret at all.
Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.
But Judge Walker’s bias from the bench includes:
A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant “fishing expeditions” into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn’t six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
Even though the Prop 8 supporters were forced to turn over private, internal documents and emails, Walker has refused to demand the same from opponents of the measure. In fact, Walker has refused to even rule on a motion to compel the discovery of this information, even though he has already closed testimony in the case. That alone is an unbelievable tilting of the playing field.
Walker has presided over a show trial designed to generate sympathetic headlines and news coverage for gay marriage supporters. Witness after witness was allowed to testify about their “expert” opinion that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel badly when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 was simply an echo of historic prejudice and bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.
To show the lengths that Walker has gone to create a “record” favoring the plaintiffs, he even allowed one “expert” witness — a gay man from Colorado who has never lived in California and was never exposed to any Prop 8 campaign messages — to testify that his parents’ efforts to change his sexual orientation failed.
But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker’s rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker’s efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules “at the eleventh hour” in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).
Judge Walker’s bias has been so extreme, he’s earned a rare judicial “twofer.” Key elements of his “fishing expedition” rulings were already reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (notably one of the most liberal in the nation) and the Supreme Court had to step in to block his illegal attempt to broadcast the trial.
It is highly unusual for a higher court to have to intercede in a trial judge’s handling of a trial while it is going on — yet Walker has had that “distinction” twice in the same case — and we’re not yet even at closing arguments.
There’s only one saving grace to Judge Walker’s bias. It’s so big, and so obvious, not only the American public but the Supreme Court itself is already aware we have bias in the trial judge presiding.
Brian Brown
Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
This is almost as good as when Brian Brown gets to the pearly gates and finds out Jesus is gay.