Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prop. 8 Judge is Reportedly Gay: What to Make of That?
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 8, 2010 | Ashby Jones

Posted on 02/08/2010 11:20:51 AM PST by DesertRenegade

The lede from an article out Sunday in the SF Chronicle reads as follows:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Interesting. So, what to make of this fact?

According to the article, folks aren’t making much of it. Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign, rebuffed claims that his group might bring it up if Walker ultimately rules against them. “We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

Others quoted in the article say that Walker, appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush in 1989, say they don’t believe that Walker’s sexual orientation will affect his ruling on Prop. 8.

Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to the Chron when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit.

We can certainly understand why the parties might not want to address Walker’s sexual orientation: No reason to stir more controversy into a case that will ultimately be settled at the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. Plus, it’s not like Judge Walker raised his hand for the case — it was reportedly randomly assigned to him.

But is Walker’s sexual orientation relevant to the trial? Frankly, it’s hard to see how it’s not, especially if you believe that the opinions of judges, try as they might to divorce their personal opinions from their rulings, are invariably colored and informed by their own experiences, just like the rest of us.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; homosexualagenda; judge; judicialactivism; judiciary; lavendermafia; lawsuit; samesexmarriage; sodomy; vaughnwalker
On the face of this, is this blatant bias or what? Would they have allowed an avowed pedophile to rule in judgment in the Boy Scouts case? What about allowing a militant diesel dyke to rule in the case of a father trying to get child custody? Isn't bias supposed to be removed from the legal process?
1 posted on 02/08/2010 11:20:52 AM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

He should recuse himself from the case. Conflict of interest.


2 posted on 02/08/2010 11:23:12 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning" Obama 2/4/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I think it depends on his history as a judge.


3 posted on 02/08/2010 11:23:59 AM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Ya, he should have recused himself when it was assigned to him.

But they are right, this is only the first round, and the ultimate decision may well be made in the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoever loses this trial will appeal, and whoever loses at the appeals court level will appeal to the Supreme Court.


4 posted on 02/08/2010 11:25:44 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

if a judge is going to benefit from his won decision then he should step down form the case.
this judge will and therefore should step down and why are we even talking about the judge , this should not even be in court and the judge should have said no the constitution states normal marriage now be gone with you and keep your sexual sick mind private


5 posted on 02/08/2010 11:25:45 AM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
From yesterday's Comicle: Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
6 posted on 02/08/2010 11:27:56 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Its one of those things that is not a straight-forward call. If he rules in favor of the gays he will immediately be assailed for bias.

He knows this. I say it is better to have this judge be gay as if he rules against the gays they cannot call him homophobe.

7 posted on 02/08/2010 11:28:26 AM PST by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I personally don’t think that sex-offenders and perverts should be judges.


8 posted on 02/08/2010 11:28:42 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
"No reason to stir more controversy into a case that will ultimately be settled at the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court."

Any bets now on how the Ninth will vote on this? I'm thinking it will be just another overturn waiting to happen when they rule for it.

9 posted on 02/08/2010 11:32:37 AM PST by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

I think the key is for some investigators to look into his past. In almost every case, these unrepentant homosexuals are hiding something ugly in their past. Look at the case of Kevin Jennings, the homosexual militant that Obama placed in charge of children’s education. All they did was scratch the surface and they found NAMBLA connections and more. Judge Walker is hiding something, it just hasn’t surfaced yet.


10 posted on 02/08/2010 11:32:56 AM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I don’t think we have enough information to make a judgment on this.

Should judges who smoke be barred from tobacco cases? Should Christian judges be barred from cases involving religious freedom?

The fact that he is gay should not affect the judges philosophy. (I agree that it might)


11 posted on 02/08/2010 11:35:44 AM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

you know I’m glad you brought Jennings up.

I watch Beck and see him gong after these radical czars and think great he’s doing a great service to the country but wait someone is missing and that was Jennings.

Did anyone else notice how he never went after Jenning?
He could go after Dunn for saying she likes a mass killer or Van jones for being a commie but nothing about a man placed in charge of safety for our kids at schools.
He was teaching kids how homosexuals stick a fist up another homosexual mans arse and Beck seems to not think this should be covered and where was O.R. who protects the kdis he says on this?

Jennings needs to go and if the public was aware of this kind of radical then the white house would be awash with people demanding Jennings to be fired .

If the public knew about how these homosexuals act then there would be even less support for them as there is now and that’s not much right now


12 posted on 02/08/2010 11:44:37 AM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I bet he likes being handed Briefs.


13 posted on 02/08/2010 11:45:02 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

that’s what going to be the cause for appeal on both sides.


14 posted on 02/08/2010 11:55:01 AM PST by gman992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I agree with you if he belonged to activist groups it would be ethical to step down. The question arises if a judge was Catholic would he have to step down on any homosexual case? Or Abortion case? This gets into the absurd
15 posted on 02/08/2010 11:57:53 AM PST by wmposh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
The fact that he is gay should not affect the judges philosophy. (I agree that it might)As his rulings so far show, it has.
16 posted on 02/08/2010 12:00:27 PM PST by VeniVidiVici ("Bring out yer dead! Bring out your dead!" - Cries of a Navy Corpseman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: manc

He must support the gay position or he’ll be crucified by his own.


17 posted on 02/08/2010 12:03:41 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

“Should judges who smoke be barred from tobacco cases?”

Not a correct analogy. Smoking is not currently illegal while homosexual marriage IS illegal in California. So you have an avowed and unrepentant sodomite judge who is presiding over a case on illegal same-sex marriages. It’s full stop insanity.


18 posted on 02/08/2010 12:10:54 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Homosexual marriage is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

Your logic says that a Christian judge should always rule in favor of Christian churches.

An honest judge would rule according to the law. Period.


19 posted on 02/08/2010 12:31:41 PM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

bias is to be removed but not “common sense”

the issue is defining what is “common sense” and in a debate where one of the issues is nature vs nurture definitions are very important.

No matter what this will be appealed.

The judge would be smart to stick to process rather than recreational mating issues.


20 posted on 02/08/2010 12:50:39 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

I wonder why we don’t hear more about the sexual promiscuity of homosexuals and their unnatural acts. The gay advocates are trying to paint this picture of normality that does not exist.


21 posted on 02/08/2010 12:54:39 PM PST by Georgex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Georgex

notice how the homosexuals say marriage equality.

the left loves to pay with words to make out their agenda is a great one on the surface but when one thinks about their wolf in sheeps clothing then we get to know the truth about them..

All it takes is a video camera and an event like folson fair to show the masses what homosexuals are really like and believe me 90% of Americans will be repulsed .

I’ll await for hannity,O.R. Beck etc to show these videos but I will not hold my breath.
Ironic that hannity says taking back America and will not talk or even show anything about homosexuals or taking back America from sick perverts


22 posted on 02/08/2010 1:00:15 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

However this is ruled, you can bet it will be headed to the Supreme Court.

The danger here that I see is the anti-Prop 8 people’s argument seems centered around denying the vote because voters may have voted according to a religious belief.

No one can or should be able to ascertain why someone votes as they do.

Arguing this gay judge should not rule in this case would be tantamount to arguing that White Judges shouldn’t rule in cases involving Blacks, Hispanics or what have you.

Isn’t that exactly what we have argued against for so long?


23 posted on 02/08/2010 1:07:35 PM PST by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

“Homosexual marriage is illegal. Homosexuality is not.”

Marijuana is illegal in many states as well as marijuana paraphernalia. Would it be wrong for a judge who owns drug paraphernalia to preside over drug cases? BTW, it was not so long ago that sodomy was indeed illegal. Was Walker a judge at the time and an avowed criminal? Just food for thought.


24 posted on 02/08/2010 1:35:58 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

“Your logic says that a Christian judge should always rule in favor of Christian churches.”

On the contrary: your logic says that a man who finds the feces and human waste portion of another man to be erotically stimulating is capable of making sound legal rulings. Hello?


25 posted on 02/08/2010 1:38:02 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

People made the same argument when a tobacco case went to the US Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas is known to smoke cigars. So some wanted him off the case. I didn’t agree then. And I don’t agree now.

Catholic judges should not be automatically kept off cases having to do with priests who molested children.

Judges who smoke should not be automatically kept off cases involving freedom to smoke in public places.

Judges who once ran as a Republican should not be automatically excluded from cases having to do with partisan issues.

And same with this judge. If he has already prejudged the case and compromised himself, that is one thing. If not, the system will sort it out.


26 posted on 02/08/2010 1:44:02 PM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
The judge may have been assigned the case randomly but he could have and, I think, should have recused himself.

There are no "neutral" gays; just quiet ones and 'militant' ones.

27 posted on 02/08/2010 4:14:26 PM PST by Publius6961 (He is not America; he is an employee seemingly unable to rise to minimal expectations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
An honest judge would rule according to the law. Period.

If he is gay, then he has a reprobate mind. (See Romans 1:28-32.) If he doesn't recuse himself, then I wouldn't get my hopes up for a fair and impartial ruling.

28 posted on 02/08/2010 7:56:36 PM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson