In a desperate measure, Prop 8 proponents tried to argue today that Judge Walker’s ruling against the same-sex marriage ban should be stricken from the books because he is openly gay and partnered. However, a federal judge found no evidence to suggest Judge Walker ever intended to marry his partner.
“This is the first case where same-sex relationship is the subject for disqualifying a judge, so it is important that we treat it seriously and get it right,” said the judge presiding over the case. A court ruling should be expected within the next 24 hours.
Unlike most couples headed to the altar, Walker and his partner did not have:
– A Crate & Barrel gift registry
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
– A discontinued gym membership
– When asked about weekend plans, the couple never responded “we…”
What’s some more surefire evidence that a couple is planning to get hitched?
PLAINTOM
They really should go after the lawyers for abuse of process.
Bruno
Court has not ruled yet. This is just something the judge said during the proceedings.
Pitou
@Bruno: Agreed.
Queerty should not be reporting this as fact just yet. Judge Ware has NOT ruled at this time. He says to expect it within 24 hrs. It ended roughly 3pm EST.
Oscar Raymundo
@Bruno: @Pitou: the post has been updated to make it more clear that this is not an official court ruling.
Hyhybt
@Pitou: Why shouldn’t Queerty report what the judge said? There’s no claim here that he’s made a ruling on whether to void the trial or not.
[email protected]
The problem with Bible-thumpers in a courtroom is that they assume every judge will
incorporate “God’s will” into his rulings. Imagine their line of thinking here. They
believe that because Judge Walker is gay, and because he has a partner, that he
could not be impartial because he might want to marry his male partner and therefore
have a direct interest in the case.
How does that differ from a straight judge who believes the arguments of the Christianists who say that allowing gay marriage will destroy straight marriages.
Wouldn’t a straight judge have a vested personal interest in preserving the “sanctity” of his own marriage by denying gays the right to marry?! Or how about a single straight judge? If gay marriage degrades straight marriage, wouldn’t such a judge have a
personal interest in denying gay marriage so that the judge’s future marriage would be pristine and unsullied by gay marriage? Would any human being be fit to judge this case according to the Christianists’ position? I think not!
B
What the pro prop 8 side would have us believe is that a federal judge in a long-term
relationship, who had been in that relationship for quite a number of years before the several-month window during which same-sex marriages were legal in California, would not have gotten married at that point if that was what he and his partner wanted to do. It’s not like a federal judge living in California would have been unaware of the initiative campaign for Prop 8 and of what the likely outcome would be if it passed as it did.
There are any number of reasons they may have decided not to get married, including federal income tax versus state tax issues that are independent of Proposition Eight, but which reasons apply depends on their personal situation, which is no one else’s business.
What’s going on is quite simple: the judge was chosen at random. Try again, and maybe you’ll get lucky and get a judge who will rule in your favor. If you know you are going to lose no matter what, going back to square let’s the current situation remain in place that much longer. Either way, they figure it doesn’t hurt to try.
Pitou
@Hyhybt: Sorry darling. You are a minute late and a dollar short. Please refer to @Oscar Raymundo: ‘s reply just above your reply 🙂 Thank and have a nice day.
@Oscar Raymundo: Thanks 🙂
Hyhybt
@Pitou: Why the snide attitude? That comment plainly wasn’t there when I’d loaded the page, and expecting me to have noticed it (or, for that matter, that the article had been edited) is, to put it politely, silly.
Michael
Hold on. So IF Walker was going to marry his partner this would have disqualified him??? So if a female judge is ever going to have sex again is this going to disqualify her from rape and sexual harassment lawsuits? Is a black judge going to have to recuse himself from racism or any ethnic cases unless the judge plans on somehow stopping himself from being black in the future?
This is bullshite IMO. It almost seems once again the sexual orientation trait is being held up to a different accountability.
Elloreigh
The plain facts are thus: The argument put forth by Prop 8 proponents for vacating Walker’s decision rests on the notion that being in a long-term relationship = a desire to marry, and that having such a desire, Walker should have recused himself from the case.
Would a reasonable person conclude that being in a long term relationship means having a desire to marry and therefore a bias that would unduly influence a judge in deciding the Prop 8 case? Does that answer change in consideration of the gender of the parties involved and their orientation? Might it be just as reasonable to conclude that a couple who have been in a long-term relationship but have remained unmarried must lack the desire to marry each other?
I’m actually inclined to say that no good conclusion can be drawn in either direction; that the length of relationship is no indication of one’s desire to marry or lack thereof.
The Prop 8 Proponents were unable to present a single piece of evidence that Walker desired to marry his long-term partner and therefore was biased in his conduct at trial and in his ruling. Not one iota. All they have is this flawed logic:
Premise 1: Walker was in a long term relationship
Premise 2: Long term relationships tend to lead to marriage (questionable premise)
(Flawed) Conclusion: Walker was biased because he had a desire to marry his partner.
One might fault Judge Ware though for ignoring the question of timeliness in proponents’ challenge. It’s pretty clear the proponents of Prop 8 knew that Walker was gay and in a relationship, and failed to act on that knowledge to raise the issue of recusal until after they had lost the case and didn’t get immediate satisfaction from their appeal to the 9th Circuit. But it’s also clear that Ware is doing so to avoid giving them a means to appeal on the timeliness issue were he to make it the basis of his ruling. If he rules on their main claim instead of taking the perhaps easy out of disqualifying them based on a lack of timeliness in asserting it, he’ll have effectively sunk their battleship without leaving them a lifeboat.
It’s pretty transparent that the “long term relationship” bias claim is just a smokescreen for proponents’ animus toward same-sex relationships. In pursuing this, I’m inclined to think they’re just showing their desperation while simultaneously managing to shoot themselves in the foot. They didn’t have convincing evidence at the trial Walker presided over, and they lacked it again today at he hearing in front of Ware.
The crustybastard
The decision should read, in full, as “If sexual orientation is a disqualifier, no judge is qualified to arrive at any decision, including this one. The decision below stands. It is so held.”
Hyhybt
@The crustybastard: It’s best, since the defense put up a pretense of this being about his relationship rather than orientation, to include an answer covering that as well. Though your version does have a nice ring to it, it probably cuts through the nonsense a bit *too* well.
Michelle
If any one would like a clearer and more detailed entry on this go here: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ware.html
SteveH
Many members of the legal community have spoken to this issue already.
The principle is well settled. A judge is not disqualified by reason of his or her membership or non-membership in any minority group. And, such membership status is not even required to be disclosed. It is irrelevant.
Membership in a minority group does not make one biased either for or against that minority. Both married and non-married judges may rule in divorce cases. Both black and non-black judges may rule in cases involving race. Both male and female judges may rule in cases involving sex.
To say otherwise, would leave many cases with no qualified judges at all.
Hyhybt
@SteveH: The principle is indeed well-settled. What isn’t settled is whether being gay qualifies legally as a minority status… and it’s something the Prop 8 folks absolutely cannot give in on, because doing so would cost them both the little hope they have of success in court, but also, almost certainly, a large chunk of public opinion as well. It would essentially mean admitting that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard, and there are no anti-gay laws anywhere that can survive under that. Barring strong luck, of course.
B
No. 6 · [email protected] wrote, “The problem with Bible-thumpers in a courtroom is that they assume every judge will incorporate “God’s will” into his rulings. Imagine their line of thinking here. They believe that because Judge Walker is gay, and because he has a partner, that he could not be impartial because he might want to marry his male partner and therefore have a direct interest in the case.”
Regarding the Bible thumpers, I think it is a different issue – the “Yes on Eight” side wants financial contributions from the Bible thumpers and is trying to generate an excuse – an allegedly biased judge – to explain any loss in court. Saying, “we lost because we put up an incompetent defense” is not going to fly with prospective donors, so they are putting up a smokescreen by going after retired Judge Walker (in addition to the other reasons I gave in Comment No. 7 above). By arguing it in court, they get coverage in the newspapers and on TV – i.e., free advertising, the cost of which (if they actually paid for it) probably being much higher than what they are paying in lawyer fees to give it a try in court.
Kev C
The Prop 8 folks are so determined to win that they will tear down conservative judges appointed by Reagan and Bush like Walker. Protect Marriage are the new masters of butthurt, spending over $40 million dollars to fail. And tommorow, they’ll be recieving another shipment of Fail.
Michael
@Michelle: YOU ROCK!!!
Cam
By the logic used by the attorney’s, this would mean that no black judge could rule on a case dealing with a race based case involving blacks. A woman judge couldn’t rule on a case having to do with women’s issues, and a divorced judge couldn’t decide in family law cases. This is the sort of ridiculous identity politics that is anathma to our court system.
If they are REALLY going to push on this issue, then by all rights, half of the Supreme Court, the strickt Catholics should be disqualified if this case ever makes it up there.
B
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/14/BA261JTP5D.DTL&tsp=1
…. it seems the ruling just came in: the “Yes no Eight” people were basically
told to get lost – there was no conflict of interest and judges have no obligation
to disclose their personal lives.