Skip to comments.Judge's personal life debated after gay ruling
Posted on 08/06/2010 6:42:48 AM PDT by Zakeet
The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban this week is a Republican who once came under fire for his membership to a powerful all-male club that had only recently allowed blacks to join.
But after Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8, he became something else in the minds of some: a gay activist.
Rumors have circulated for months that Walker is gay, fueled by the blogosphere and a San Francisco Chronicle column that stated his sexual orientation was an "open secret" in legal and gay activism circles.
Walker himself hasn't addressed the speculation, and he did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press on Thursday. Lawyers in the case, including those defending the ban, say the judge's sexuality gay or straight was not an issue at trial and will not be a factor on appeal.
But that hasn't stopped a public debate that exploded in the wake of the 66-year-old jurist's ruling. Most of the criticism has come from opponents of same-sex marriage.
"Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution," said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.
In response, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political action committee for gay candidates, launched an online petition accusing Gallagher's group of "gay-baiting."
But the debate raises the question: Why is sexuality different from other personal characteristics judges posses? Can a female judge rule on abortion issues? A black judge on civil rights?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Judge Vaughn Walker once belonged to a powerful all-male club
what kind of vote did they expect?
From what I hear, still does.
Just another POS disguised as an independant arbitrator.
a powerful all-male club that had only recently allowed blacks to join.
Sounds like the mormon corporation...
Uh — the tie — Exhibit No. 1.
His membership in this particular club is irrelevant and an intentional distraction to the real issue which is the fact that this guy is a hard core poofter and should have not been allowed to rule in this case.
The inmates are truly running the asylum. For now. We have to take these people down in order to get our country back. We have been, and continue to be, in a civil cold war. It could go hot at anytime. Decent people are slowly but surely reaching a breaking point. Lock and load.
Mormons are an all-male club? Your comment is pathetic.
Now that the MSM has opened the debate, however skewedly, (Where’s Fox News in this picture? It’s like they don’t exist) will they stop to listen to any answers?
The small proportion of “gays” in American society (far less than the fraudulent Kinsey “10%”) appears to shout with a huge voice. Why would this be if it were not that it is also a very activism prone set? Instinctively, would you expect a heterosexually married man to care as passionately about the exclusivity of heterosexuality, as you would expect a homosexually active man to care about the elevation of homosexuality to the level of heterosexuality? It is the deviation that can be explained as a twist on the norm, not vice versa.
If the judge had been a practicing Catholic there would have been outcries over his bias. There would be demands for the decision to be overturned.
Pathetic? It’s absolutely screwed. And nobody could be more adamant than I that the Mormons have a goofy theology.
Someone tell the ignoramus who wrote this article that its called a ‘conflict of interest’ and its typical in such case for judges to recuse themselves.
Inmates running the asylum....
...he looks like he hits the bottle...hard.....if you took him out of that suit and put him in thrift store clothes, he’d look street.
and/or, he’s been rode hard and put up wet... if ya know what ah meen.
I’m looking at that shirt. I think it’s pink.
LOL! Thanks i needed a good chuckle.
LOL! Thanks i needed a good chuckle.
Well, yes. The opinion is nothing more than the judge’s personal opinion that 5000 years of recorded history and tradition count for nothing when weighed against his own post-modern moral relativism. Because the judge believes that unnatural sex acts repugnant to the wholesome imagination are legitimate, he feels authorized to overturn history, tradition and the specifically expressed will of the people of California. The fact that the judge himself is a sexual deviant is quite relevant.
Tells me the defense didn't want to win this case.
Hey, you’re posting on your blog again!
Please post on what they think of 0bama in your side of the world.