Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
red herrings

NOM Doesn’t Have a Problem With Judge Vaughn Walker Being Gay. Just With His Radical Activism

mn-walker16_phb3_05003549481

Oh, Brian Brown, how you slay us. You don’t care, you say, that Perry‘s Judge Vaugn Walker is gay. You just care that he’s clearly biased!

Not that you’re convincing anyone your argument is immune to Walker’s sexuality, given your statement’s headline (“Got Bias? SF Chronicle Reports Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay”) and its lede: “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.”

Way to address the elephant in the room without bumping into it.

But this move is true to form for the National Organization for Marriage, of which Brown is the executive director. It’s the “smiling bigot” phenomenon, where religious beliefs are slyly substituted for important secular responsibilities like “family and children,” hoping nobody notices. It’s imperative for NOM, and the defendants in Perry, to put distance between their goal (banning gay marriage) and their reasoning for it (it goes against religious teachings), because courts regularly shoot down arguments tied to the cross. And Brown’s statement repeats NOM’s earlier positions: They don’t have anything wrong with gay people, they just don’t want them screwing with their sacred institution.

Except Brown’s statement has all the ringings of, in a hypothetical and parallel situation, notifying his supporters that the judge overseeing a race-based case is black, not that there’s anything wrong with that. That Walker is gay, then, should receive the same amount of “controversy” as learning Walker is straight. Because then, of course, he would be biased against homosexuals.

By:           editor editor
On:           Feb 9, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 10 Comments
    • Ty
      Ty

      The most outrageous part is that he’s calling him biased before he even issues his verdict! Wouldn’t you say that goes against the Bible’s teachings of “judge not, that ye be not judged.” When I thought NOM already showed its true colors, they showed even more. I wonder how he’s going to get out of this one.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 10:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill
      Bill

      Anyone who took the time to read the court transcripts can see that Walker showed absolutely no bias during the proceedings.

      The court transcripts themselves will ‘clear his name’ of bias.

      One wonders if the NOM-heads even READ the transcripts.

      If they had, they would see no bias.

      Someone should question the NOM-heads about what SPECIFICALLY showed Walker to be biased during this trial. NOM-heads should be required to cite SPECIFIC instances of bias.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 11:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John k.
      John k.

      It’s all about cameras in the courtroom, ruling that thy had to turn over documents, and holding off on ruling that the plaintiffs had to overturn documents. His rulings on cameras in the courtroom and their turning over documents were overturned. But, the thing is, he’s been ruling in favor of transparency the whole time. The documents could have shown anti-gay bias was the motivating factor for the campaign, which goes to one prong of the suspect class test (another thing they complained about is that he let a gay man from out of state testify about how he could not change his orientation, calling I irrelevant, but it is extremely relevant to the question of immutability of sexual orientation, another prong of the suspect class test. The only irrelevant issue is that he was the anti-gays complaint that he was from out of state).

      The internal documents from the No on 8 campaign ARE arguably irrelevant because it’s Yes on 8’s motivation that is on trial here, not No on 8. Still, Walker had not ruled on that issue.

      And their ridiculous argument that cameras in the courtroom made some of their supposed experts back out of testifying takes the cake because there WEREN’T cameras in the courtroom. Yet, they still spout this garbage.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      Oh please. What was the benefit of video taping this trial? Instead to turn the whole thing to a media circus. The anti 8 side gave u reasons that they were worried that this decision will hurt them. You did not bother to act on it. It took the supremes intervention before he backed off. Let us be fair and turn the tables round. IF IT WERE UR SIDE THAT WAS TREATED THAT WAY. What would you have done?

      This is supposed to be fair trial. This trial is not fair.

      And that is why it is going to lose. Instead of fighting this the right way..there is this macarena a la so called animus you are pushing to shove a marriage redefinition no one wants down their throats.

      ITS PATHETIC

      Feb 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brandon
      brandon

      Bussy

      Read the transcripts. It has been a fair trial. Go troll someplace else. Thank you. When everyone is treated as equals we will have justice, until then we have a disparity worthy of another look. I am so sick of heterosexuals pushing their deviant lifestyle onto me, as if I secretly crave to be one of them. I don’t.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      “Someone should question the NOM-heads about what SPECIFICALLY showed Walker to be biased during this trial. NOM-heads should be required to cite SPECIFIC instances of bias.”

      Well that one’s easy to answer – Olsen and Boises clobbering the opposition. NOM is mostly likely nervous enough about losing that they are preemptively calling the judge an “activist judge” and accusing him of bias because they’ve seen the Biblical handwriting on the wall and figure they are toast. By calling him names now it won’t look quite so blatantly like sour grapes if they lose.

      Of course, if they win, our side will be able to quote their “activist judge” statement to argue against the decision, so they obviously think that winning is not very likely for them.

      Definition: activist judge. A judge whose decision you do not like.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 4 · BUSSY wrote, “And that is why it is going to lose. Instead of fighting this the right way..there is this macarena a la so called animus you are pushing to shove a marriage redefinition no one wants down their throats. ITS PATHETIC”

      Gee. Maybe you guys shouldn’t have run such a dirty campaign, defaming a minority by calling them a threat to children. Now you are whining because your “bad karma” may have come back to bite you.

      But don’t worry. We may end up agreeing with you that Judge Walker is biased and an activist judge …. if Olsen and Boises lose. It’s a small consolation if that is what happens, but at least we’ll get to see you guys squirm, maybe as much as you are squirming now.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      He let our side give evidence; to their “minds,” that clearly shows bias without any need to know what his decision will be.

      Feb 9, 2010 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 8 · hyhybt wrote: “He let our side give evidence; to their “minds,” that clearly shows bias without any need to know what his decision will be.” ???

      The plaintiffs are arguing in part on the basis of an existing Supreme Court decision, Romer v Evans, in which “animus” was one of the reasons for overturning a change to a state constitution.
      The plaintiffs will not get a fair and impartial trial if they are prevented from proving animus as that is one of the preconditions required for applying Romer v Evans. If your argument is basically that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that X and Y imples Z, a judge cannot reasonably say, “I will not let you try to prove X.”

      So, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a previous case that was in the “minds” of the people who initiated a constitutional change is relevant to whether that change is allowable. That was not Judge Walker’s decision, but because of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Judge Walker had no choice but to declare that to be relevant.

      Feb 10, 2010 at 12:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @B: Fine and dandy, but why did you quote my comment in yours?

      Feb 10, 2010 at 10:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.