• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
UPDATE 1-U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case | Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO, April 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban never considered his own homosexuality as a reason to recuse himself from the case, he said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's comments were his first on what legal observers have been been intensely -- but quietly -- discussing since the blockbuster case was filed. Some wondered whether his sexual orientation would affect his decision and how it would be received.

However the group defending California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, refrained from raising the issue in court. Walker eventually struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.

Do you think that the proponents of Prop 8 will bring up Retired Judge Walker's sexual orientation in appeal? Should Walker have recused himself and why?

In case anyone is interested, here is Walker's full ruling...

California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

If you feel that Walker's sexual orientation somehow marred his judgment, then could you please point it out?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

UPDATE 1-U.S. gay judge never thought to drop marriage case | Reuters



Do you think that the proponents of Prop 8 will bring up Retired Judge Walker's sexual orientation in appeal? Should Walker have recused himself and why?

In case anyone is interested, here is Walker's full ruling...

California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

If you feel that Walker's sexual orientation somehow marred his judgment, then could you please point it out?

On one hand, you could make a case for it, but then you'd have to find a non-sexual, virgin with no personal relationship. So on the surface, there is a "hmm", it just... doesn't really pan out. At all.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

And if you read the full decision, I think that most would quickly dismiss any question of bias controlling the decision. Justice Walker was very careful to do his due diligence. He walked through the argument step by step, point by point, and was very careful to explain his reasoning for arguments he found lacked credibility.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

yeah, i would say that A) everyone knew this already B) it helps eplain some of his behavior and C) he probably should have recused himself, but there is certainly no reason that he should have been forced to do so.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

yeah, i would say that A) everyone knew this already

Wrong. A lot of people speculated, but almost no one knew.

B) it helps eplain some of his behavior

Huh? What actions?

and C) he probably should have recused himself, but there is certainly no reason that he should have been forced to do so.

By that argument, a strait judge should have recused himself as well. The recusal argument is really stupid. By extension black judges should not rule on cases involving race, or hispanics, or whites, or asian, or...you see where that goes. Judges who own property should not rule on property cases. Holy ****, you have just destroyed our judicial system with one unthinking comment...
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

Wrong. A lot of people speculated, but almost no one knew.

um. it was pretty much commonly understood the entire time. sort of like how everyone knew that Obama wouldn't fight for traditional marriage though he pretty promised that he supported it to get elected. I've been aware of it certainly since it got assigned to him.

Huh? What actions?

Staging a Show Trial on Same Sex Marriage:

Midday on December 31, a curious document suddenly appeared on the official website of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Entitled “Notice Concerning Proposed Revision of Civil Local Rule 77-3,” the document states that the court “has approved for public comment” a revision of this rule. The document calls for public comments to be submitted “as soon as convenient and, in any event, no later than January 8, 2010” — a mere five business days from the publication of the notice. The proposed revision would alter the court’s longstanding prohibition on “public broadcasting or televising, or recording for these purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding.” The revised rule would permit the televising of proceedings as part of a “pilot or other project authorized by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.”

If all this seems arcane and mundane, don’t be fooled. On Monday, January 11, Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the Northern District of California, is set to commence trial in San Francisco in Perry v. Schwarzenegger... Walker’s New Year’s Eve surprise is a critical step in his evident ongoing effort to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Proposition 8’s sponsors. Specifically, Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial...

The longstanding policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States — the body charged with ensuring fair and effective administration of the federal courts — opposes all broadcasting of civil and criminal cases in federal district courts. As the chairman of a Judicial Conference committee explained in congressional testimony in 2007, the Judicial Conference’s policy reflects the concern that televised proceedings could “undermine the fundamental rights of citizens to a fair trial.” Televising court proceedings, he said, “could jeopardize . . . the safety of trial participants” and “produce intimidating effects on litigants, witnesses, and jurors.”...

In plain violation of these legal provisions, Walker, without prior notice, purported to amend Local Rule 77-3 on December 22, to make the revision that became the subject of the December 31 notice. Walker’s obvious purpose in doing so was to enable him to authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 case...

Evidently realizing that his December 22 action was in fact unlawful, Walker directed that the December 31 notice inviting public comment be issued. But it’s clearly because of the purpose of the proposed revision — to enable televised coverage of the Proposition 8 case — that the period for public comments, which typically would run for 30 days or more, is so ridiculously short: It ends the Friday before the trial begins, so Walker will have time to rubber-stamp the revised rule. Walker might be able to claim that he will have technically complied with the governing federal statute, but his notice, issued on New Year’s Eve and affording only five business days for comment, could hardly be better calculated to evade the purpose of the statute...

Show Trial on Prop 8:

...Unfortunately, Judge Vaughn Walker (a Bush 41 appointee who is, not incidentally, chief judge of the Northern District) has already given ample signs that he is eager not merely to strike down Proposition 8 but also to orchestrate a show trial of Proposition 8’s sponsors. To that end, he has taken three highly dubious steps:

The first is his decision even to proceed to trial, rather than to rule, one way or the other, on plaintiffs’ claims as a matter of law (as has been the practice in other challenges to traditional marriage laws). Among the supposedly relevant factual issues that Walker somehow sees fit to explore are the views on homosexuality held by the sponsors of Proposition 8.

Second, Walker authorized the plaintiffs to obtain access to the private communications of Proposition 8’s sponsors on campaign strategy—only to have his order overruled by a Ninth Circuit panel (of three Clinton appointees, no less).

Third, despite his court’s longstanding ban on televising proceedings, Walker has been pressing—and, as I will explain soon, resorting to illegal action and other procedural shenanigans—to have the trial televised. A televised trial would of course produce much greater publicity for the circus and its ringmaster. It would also surely heighten the prospect that witnesses in support of Proposition 8 (and their attorneys) would face harassment and abuse, all the more so as the trial will take place in San Francisco...

the Supreme Court had to step in to rein in this guys' shennanigans.

Judge Walkers Facts:

It has been clear since before the beginning of the year that Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco was on a mission to establish a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage and thereby to overturn California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed by the people of the state in 2008.

From his decision to have a “trial” of the “facts” in the case rather than proceed straightaway to legal arguments about the constitutional issues (a choice that surprised even the plaintiffs’ attorneys) to his attempt to stage a nationally televised extravaganza (brought to a halt by the Supreme Court) to his unconcealed bias in favor of the plaintiffs in virtually every aspect of the proceedings, Judge Walker has been preparing us for a baldfaced usurpation of political power for quite a while.

What Walker did not prepare us for is the jaw-dropping experience of reading his sophomorically reasoned opinion. Of the 135 pages of the opinion proper, only the last 27 contain anything resembling a legal argument, while the rest is about equally divided between a summary of the trial proceedings and the judge’s “findings of fact.” The conclusions of law seem but an afterthought — conclusory, almost casually thin, raising more questions than they answer. On what grounds does Judge Walker hold that the considered moral judgment of the whole history of human civilization — that only men and women are capable of marrying each other — is nothing but a “private moral view” that provides no conceivable “rational basis” for legislation? Who can tell? Judge Walker’s smearing of the majority of Californians as irrational bigots blindly clinging to mere tradition suggests that he has run out of arguments and has nothing left but his reflexes...

To take one example: It is hardly an incontrovertible fact that “Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians.” But there it is, as finding No. 58. With “facts” like these, and appellate judges disinclined to question them, Judge Walker plainly hopes to propel this case toward a gay-marriage victory, regardless of how transparently weak his legal conclusions are...

to cap; he did everything legal (and some things illegal) in his courtroom to tilt the room against Prop 8, made quite clear his conclusion was foregone, and then produced a ruling built around a series of "just-so" "findings of fact" that interposed his opinions in place of a legal argument.

By that argument, a strait judge should have recused himself as well.

a straight judge that acted in a similar manner probably should have.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

um. it was pretty much commonly understood the entire time. sort of like how everyone knew that Obama wouldn't fight for traditional marriage though he pretty promised that he supported it to get elected. I've been aware of it certainly since it got assigned to him.

1) My first is... so?
2) My second is... Duh on Obama changing his positions. Bush promised to be a "compassionate conservative" and that didn't materialize either. Evolving political standards is common with all elected leaders.

the Supreme Court had to step in to rein in this guys' shennanigans.

If you call public access to the judicial system shennanigans... then true.

to cap; he did everything legal (and some things illegal) in his courtroom to tilt the room against Prop 8, made quite clear his conclusion was foregone, and then produced a ruling built around a series of "just-so" "findings of fact" that interposed his opinions in place of a legal argument.

He didn't do anything illegal. And if you have a problem with his decision, please quote the specific segments of his decision and prove him wrong.

a straight judge that acted in a similar manner probably should have.

Disagree whole heartedly. I want a judiciary that is interested in keeping the public informed and part of that is being able to see the trial as it progresses. It is allowed in some areas, not in others. SCOTUS has been inconsistent with their application of the no-media standard.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

1) My first is... so?

that was the general reaction. some wondered if he should recuse himself due to the potential gain he could see by ruling as he eventually did, but nobody made the argument that he should be made to.

2) My second is... Duh on Obama changing his positions. Bush promised to be a "compassionate conservative" and that didn't materialize either.

and Judge Walker pretended that he was impartial and everyone knew it to be false the entire time as well.

If you call public access to the judicial system shennanigans... then true.

i call breaking the law in order to place people with whom you disagree at risk in order to place political pressure on them "shennanigans" at the least. even the famously liberal 9th Circuit agrees with me there, as they unanimously shut him down.

He didn't do anything illegal

actually he did. which is why the 9th shut him down and why he later changed tack. Articles I posted above explain in detail how this is so.

And if you have a problem with his decision, please quote the specific segments of his decision and prove him wrong.

i'll start with the pieces above that i notice you conveniently somehow forgot to answer:

Judge Walkers False Facts:
1. a constitutional amendment that carries with it the weight of the tradition of millenia as nothing more than a "private moral view" that can be discounted as meaningless
2. that he has the right to decide that A) california voters are just a bunch of bigots and B) that therefore their votes don't count.
3. that Prop 8 used the law to attack homosexuals.

Disagree whole heartedly

really. so if the judge had been a right-wing Southern Baptist and had based his opinion on the logic that "gays are just a bunch of queer-monkies who hate America (and Jesus)", then you would have been cool with that and moved on?

me no think so.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

By that argument, a strait judge should have recused himself as well.

Um, not exactly here. This is a poor analogy.

A Homosexual Judge has something to gain from this, as it essentially bestows the right of marriage upon him (even if he chooses to not have it)

As the proponents of Same Sex Marriage have said for some time, allowing Gay Marriage doesn't do anything to straight people.

EVERY gay person gains something from this ruling, even if they don't engage in the act of Marriage becuase they have the ABILITY to. Every straight person doesn't necessarily have a vested stake in this or even the average straight person doesn't have a vested stake that actually legally would affect them. Its far more reasonable to suggest that there would be bias on the part of a Homosexual towards this than there would be suggesting a bias of a striaght person against this.

The far better analogy would be a Christian Fundamentalist judge, as then it is something going against his religious beliefs and it would be just as reasonable to suggest a bias on the part of him as it would be on the homosexual.

Now that said, I don't think he should've recused himself, in part for the scenario I said above wouldn't make me think the fundamentalist judge should recuse himself. But the homosexual/straight analogy is a failed one for what you're arguing.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

that was the general reaction. some wondered if he should recuse himself due to the potential gain he could see by ruling as he eventually did, but nobody made the argument that he should be made to.

I don't see him needing to recuse himself.

and Judge Walker pretended that he was impartial and everyone knew it to be false the entire time as well.

No judge would have been "impartial" in this case unless they were an unmarried virgin.

i call breaking the law in order to place people with whom you disagree at risk in order to place political pressure on them "shennanigans" at the least. even the famously liberal 9th Circuit agrees with me there, as they unanimously shut him down.

He didn't break a law. The rules of procedure are not "laws".

actually he did. which is why the 9th shut him down and why he later changed tack. Articles I posted above explain in detail how this is so.

The opinion pieces you posted don't have facts that support their assertion.

i'll start with the pieces above that i notice you conveniently somehow forgot to answer:

Judge Walkers False Facts:
1. a constitutional amendment that carries with it the weight of the tradition of millenia as nothing more than a "private moral view" that can be discounted as meaningless
2. that he has the right to decide that A) california voters are just a bunch of bigots and B) that therefore their votes don't count.
3. that Prop 8 used the law to attack homosexuals.

That was not the actual assertion from the case. Go to the original source, not what someone who needs to spin the facts said.

really. so if the judge had been a right-wing Southern Baptist and had based his opinion on the logic that "gays are just a bunch of queer-monkies who hate America (and Jesus)", then you would have been cool with that and moved on?

me no think so.

1. The logic was not based on his personal views, it was based on the facts of the case and the law. 2. I wouldn't have a problem with a different result from the social conservative who used the facts of the case and the law.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

If he was planning on getting married, he should have recused himself...otherwise probably not.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I would ask if a black Judge should be removed from a trail relating to a hate crime against another black individual? Or should a white judge be removed in the case of a hate crime against another white person?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I don't see him needing to recuse himself.

:shrug: i don't know if he 'needed' to or not. i think he should probably have.

No judge would have been "impartial" in this case unless they were an unmarried virgin.

exceedingly unlikely. this case didn't have nearly the impact on straights as it did on gays.

He didn't break a law. The rules of procedure are not "laws".

actually he did which is why he retracted and then re-sent it out over new years eve. do you want me to just repost the article, or did you not read it the first time?

The opinion pieces you posted don't have facts that support their assertion.

actually they cite the relevant law. something you have distinctly failed to do.

That was not the actual assertion from the case.

in fact it was.

Go to the original source, not what someone who needs to spin the facts said.

finding of fact # 58

1. The logic was not based on his personal views, it was based on the facts of the case and the law

wrong. the 'logic' that was presented was based on a rambling set of "finding of facts" that basically repeated the defense's claims. the judge didn't even move to rule on the law itself, but went straight to the "facts of the case" so that he could do this. even the anti-prop-8 attorney's were surprised by this.

2. I wouldn't have a problem with a different result from the social conservative who used the facts of the case and the law.

including the 'fact' that marriage is only between a man and a woman and anyone who says differently is immoral - and thus deserves to have their votes cast out?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I would ask if a black Judge should be removed from a trail relating to a hate crime against another black individual? Or should a white judge be removed in the case of a hate crime against another white person?

has the judge ever been a victim of racially motivated assault?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I have never heard of a radical heterosexual protesting but Gay people do all the time. This Judge should not have ruled on this at all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I have never heard of a radical heterosexual protesting by Gay people do all the time. This Judge should not have ruled on this at all.

What now? The entirety of prop 8 was a radical heterosexual protest. And the usual anti-gay tactics have always been things like violence and murder, not peaceful protest.

But to return to the topic at hand, gays do not have to wait for a heterosexual to grant equal rights. The man is a judge. That's not a position that is easily obtained. To say that a gay judge should have to recuse himself in this case is just proof that gays are second class citizens in this country.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

:shrug: i don't know if he 'needed' to or not. i think he should probably have.

Everyone who has been married should have recused themselves under that standard because it will have prejudiced their understanding of marriage.


exceedingly unlikely. this case didn't have nearly the impact on straights as it did on gays.

Then why are heterosexuals pushing it if it doesn't impact them?


actually he did which is why he retracted and then re-sent it out over new years eve. do you want me to just repost the article, or did you not read it the first time?

Actually your articles are spin.


actually they cite the relevant law. something you have distinctly failed to do.

And spinning...



in fact it was.

Quote the case directly.



finding of fact # 58

And if you will have read the case, you will see that the judge is references facts laid out in the trial, not his personal opinion.l



wrong. the 'logic' that was presented was based on a rambling set of "finding of facts" that basically repeated the defense's claims. the judge didn't even move to rule on the law itself, but went straight to the "facts of the case" so that he could do this. even the anti-prop-8 attorney's were surprised by this.

You apparently haven't read the case.

including the 'fact' that marriage is only between a man and a woman and anyone who says differently is immoral - and thus deserves to have their votes cast out?

They will be overturned on appeal if they are wrong.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I have never heard of a radical heterosexual protesting but Gay people do all the time. This Judge should not have ruled on this at all.

And if the judge was instead a staunch christian, you'd have similar issues? Because I have heard of "radical christians" protesting. I've heard of christians protesting all the time.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

wrong. the 'logic' that was presented was based on a rambling set of "finding of facts" that basically repeated the defense's claims. the judge didn't even move to rule on the law itself, but went straight to the "facts of the case" so that he could do this. even the anti-prop-8 attorney's were surprised by this.

Wow, it is blatantly apparent that you didn't read the ruling. Walker actually made his ruling from the law that Prop 8 was gender discrimination that violated equal protection. That was a completely different argument than the opponents of Prop 8 even presented, and Walker based his findings on fact on nearly a dozen expert witnesses that the opponents provided, whereas the proponents only provided 3 witnesses, 1 of which ended up siding with the opponents upon cross testimony. Not only that, but Walker went through in his ruling and considered literally every argument that the proponents brought to the table and actually provided his logic for why each wasn't a suitable argument.

Please, if you aren't going to be informed or intellectually honest in this discussion, then leave my thread.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

As far as justice goes, I think he should have dropped himself from the case. I support SSM, but I don't think a gay judge should have ruled on a gay marriage ban especially considering his ruling was nothing more than his personal opinion and not necessarily the law (from what I understand).
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

As far as justice goes, I think he should have dropped himself from the case. I support SSM, but I don't think a gay judge should have ruled on a gay marriage ban especially considering his ruling was nothing more than his personal opinion and not necessarily the law (from what I understand).

So you didn't read the ruling either?
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

So you didn't read the ruling either?

I remember reading snippets of it. From what I gleaned he essentially said that there is no good argument against gay marriage and that it should be legal.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

I remember reading snippets of it. From what I gleaned he essentially said that there is no good argument against gay marriage and that it should be legal.

Based upon the facts presented in the case, not his opinion. If you read the full case you can see how the pro Prop 8 people totally dropped the ball.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

Whether he should have recused himself or not is less the issue to me than his saying he never even considered the matter.
 
Re: Prop 8 judge admits he is gay

Based upon the facts presented in the case, not his opinion. If you read the full case you can see how the pro Prop 8 people totally dropped the ball.

The full case is over 130 pages long. I read some of it now and what I see is opinions like him saying it's discrimination to prevent lesbians from marrying and things like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom