Posted on 04/26/2011 6:29:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
To hear them describe it, defenders of traditional marriage during last year’s trial on California’s Proposition 8 felt like the visiting team in a game with a hometown referee.
It was an open secret that District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker was gay, although he had never publicly acknowledged it. Under the circumstances, challenging his objectivity in a case on the constitutionality of “one man, one woman” marriage carried substantial risks, such as angering the judge or being accused of “outing” a public figure, without any promise of success.
The circumstances changed when Judge Walker, now retired, was quoted in an April 6 article by Reuters saying that he had been involved in a same-sex relationship for more than 10 years. Now traditional-marriage proponents are openly disputing the judge’s impartiality, culminating in Monday’s motion to throw out his decision overturning Proposition 8.
The situation has raised thorny issues over how much judges should be required to disclose about their personal lives - and whether a judge’s identity can be considered a conflict of interest. With a raft of lawsuits in support of same-sex marriage working their way through the legal system, it may be only a matter of time before the Walker scenario repeats itself in another courtroom.
The gay-rights community has dismissed the challenges as a last-ditch attempt to skirt the judge’s decision. Judge Walker ruled in August that Proposition 8 violated the California Constitution’s equal-protection clause, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has placed a hold on the order until an appeal can be heard.
“They’re grasping at straws. It’s truly desperation at this point,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign in Sacramento.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Just like former Gov.RoyBoy Romer refused to recuse himself over Amendment #2.Said he could oppose Amendment#2 as private citizen but defend or implement it as Gov. We know how that worked out. Before that one could go back to Benedict Arnold
to see another fine case of a man who insisted his private life could be separated from his public career. Never was a man or woman-or ? who could be one thing int he privacy of their own home and something different in public.
Just like former Gov.RoyBoy Romer refused to recuse himself over Amendment #2.Said he could oppose Amendment#2 as private citizen but defend or implement it as Gov. We know how that worked out. Before that one could go back to Benedict Arnold
to see another fine case of a man who insisted his private life could be separated from his public career. Never was a man or woman-or ? who could be one thing int he privacy of their own home and something different in public.
Just like former Gov.RoyBoy Romer refused to recuse himself over Amendment #2.Said he could oppose Amendment#2 as private citizen but defend or implement it as Gov. We know how that worked out. Before that one could go back to Benedict Arnold
to see another fine case of a man who insisted his private life could be separated from his public career. Never was a man or woman-or ? who could be one thing int he privacy of their own home and something different in public.
Just like former Gov.RoyBoy Romer refused to recuse himself over Amendment #2.Said he could oppose Amendment#2 as private citizen but defend or implement it as Gov. We know how that worked out. Before that one could go back to Benedict Arnold
to see another fine case of a man who insisted his private life could be separated from his public career. Never was a man or woman-or ? who could be one thing int he privacy of their own home and something different in public.
Just like former Gov.RoyBoy Romer refused to recuse himself over Amendment #2.Said he could oppose Amendment#2 as private citizen but defend or implement it as Gov. We know how that worked out. Before that one could go back to Benedict Arnold
to see another fine case of a man who insisted his private life could be separated from his public career. Never was a man or woman-or ? who could be one thing int he privacy of their own home and something different in public.
Just like former Gov.RoyBoy Romer refused to recuse himself over Amendment #2.Said he could oppose Amendment#2 as private citizen but defend or implement it as Gov. We know how that worked out. Before that one could go back to Benedict Arnold
to see another fine case of a man who insisted his private life could be separated from his public career. Never was a man or woman-or ? who could be one thing int he privacy of their own home and something different in public.
"Secular civil legal partnerships" is all this has ever been about. It happens government co-opted the term "marriage" for it.
As said earlier, the judge's homosexuality was not unknown. I find his opinion flawed on the merits. There's no need to go muckraking.
I'm reminded of the saying, "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff." Essentially, this move smells desperate.
As a CA voter, I find it contemptuous when our governors and attorneys general refused to defend the express will of the people in the courts. The Prop 8 folks seemed to have difficulty making their case and putting up witnesses.
I suspect watching the Prop 8 drama unfold had a hand in Obama's abandonment of DOMA in the courts. He could tell it would be hard for the House Republicans to find a law firm to take the case. We saw that played out this week.
This drama has been a great data point for why lawyers are thought of in such low regard. The cowardice is appalling.
The law does not recognize a mere religious marriage. it is ALL civil unions under the law. Priests are notaries in order to legally validate the marriage for intestasy and child support purposes post marriage.
The judge’s concealment is against the judicial cannons BECAUSE it looks bad. the appearance of wrong is wrong for judges. This judges sexual behavior is an issue because we don’t know if he had a special interest in legalizing marriage based on sexual recreation. (ie when this is legal we will marry)
Ethically it is required. It is probably why he retired. It was a long shot throw and he did not care about the mess he caused.
I don’t think you even need the religious argument.
society rewards the insitution NOT the individual.
homosexuals contribute nothing to the furtherance of society.
therefore
society does not and should not reward homosexual conduct.
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.