Los Angeles Times Rules Judge Vaughn Walker’s Sexuality Pertinent, But Not If He Was Straight

This website continues to mention Judge Vaughn Walker is a homosexual — and a hot silver fox, really — because THIS WEBSITE TALKS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS. But what about the bigger boys out there? The ones that you refer to when using the slur “MSM,” or “mainstream media”? When it comes to the Los Angeles Times, they bring up Walker’s sexuality because he was deciding a case on same-sex marriage, which means one of his immutable characteristics could’ve gotten in the way of rational legal thought! Or something! Now let’s see why this is an awful argument to make.

LAT assistant managing editor David Lauter, who notes the newspaper is using the “well known fact” (and not, say, Walker’s own statements) angle to support its notations, says Walker’s sexuality was an issue of fairness in reporting, just like his politics (he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and appointed by the first George Bush): “Both — ideology and sexuality — are factors that a reasonable person could see as having an impact on a judge’s view of a controversial issue such as same-sex marriage.”

But wait! Would Lauter have had the newspaper mention Walker is straight if he was, in fact, straight? “Lauter,” blogs the paper’s own Deirdre Edgar, “acknowledged that it probably would not.”

And therein lies the disparity. Walker’s sexuality is somehow relevant to the case only when he is gay, because, oh what have ridiculous demagogues been arguing? That Walker stands to personally benefit if same-sex marriage is enacted. Yes, but if Walker was straight, he could have also benefited if he upheld Prop 8: the gays would continue funding the marital tax breaks of straights.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #california #davidlauter #losangelestimes stories and more


  • Cam

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Since Judges are supposed to uphold what is good for their area, their state, the country etc… you could argue that all judges benefit from the results of their cases. If a judge lives in the same neighborhood as a violent criminal in their court, you could argue that by locking them up longer that judge benefits. The judges that just found against the state of New Jersey for scamming with it’s pension fund benefit since they are residents of that state. A woman judge could be said to benefit every time a violent rapist is locked up.

    The internet and blogs have really made it obvious just how lazy and lacking in critical thinking most of the writers for the major papers seem to be nowadays.


    Ummm, so then I am guessing straight judges should not be allowed to rule on cases involving straight folks?????

    More absolute crap run up the bullshit flagpole by the frighwing lunatics who applaud whenever a ruling goes in their favor. However when a rule goes against them suddenly the judicial system is overwhelmed with “activist judges”………such patetic bigoted hyprocritical scumbags…………….

  • Carl

    I have gay friends in same sex relationships that oppose same sex marriage because of the bible. I was very surprised to learn of this.

  • dave

    The Los Angeles Times (my half of the year home newspaper) is a pale shadow of the once responsible source of information and editorial comment that it once was.

  • Cam


    I don’t believe you. Your friends would be well aware, if they were that into the Bible and were using it as a guide to living their lives, that the Bible says “Do not lay with” it doesn’t say “Do not get gay married”. You sound like a posting troll from one of the anti-gay churches. ( I tried to post the church from Utah’s name but the site seems to be screening out the M word today.)

  • Baxter

    @Cam: Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not do what is good for their area. It’s a subtle, but important, difference.

  • Cam


    And the laws are written to protect or further the needs of society. Therefore, the same argument could be said of any judge. By upholding the laws, they are benefitting themselves in some way. That is why the argument is ridiculous.

  • GayForever

    No where in legal history have heterosexuals treated gay people equal to them. Heterosexuals are always biased against gay people. Yet you won’t see any gay person acknowledge those facts instead we are the ones that are accused of bias and heterosexuals of open-mindedness.

  • David Ehrenstein

    Read the ruling. Walker did what all good judges do. He based his ruling on the evidence offered at trial and nothing more. At no point does he refer to himself or his life experiences in any way.

  • Steve

    This doesn’t surprise me. We always find a “fault” with someone when they disagree with us. Walker isn’t just a judge, he’s a gay judge. The man who wants to build that mosque isn’t just a man, he’s a Muslim man. It’s nothing but a form of fear mongering and I’m getting more and more disappointed that once-responsible news sources are falling into the practice (though of course, this kind of polarization is most common during election season, like this one coming up.)

  • Bill

    I think we may be onto something here! I say let’s RUN with it.

    Because using this line of thinking, only gay judges should be able to decide any court cases that pertain to heterosexuals.

    And I am sure a whole bunch of us gay citizens would be down for that, you dig?

  • Jim D


    Carl says “I have gay friends in same sex relationships”, not “I have friends in same sex relationships”. How come all of these people have “gay” friends. Wonder if the “gay” friends consider them friends?

  • Gary B.

    @Carl: I actually have a gay friend who’s in a long-term committed relationship, who is also a republican AND does not believe in same-sex marriage! I recently asked him if they had plans to get married since he moved from South Carolina to the Boston area, and that’s when he told me. Admittedly, I haven’t really grilled him on the subject, but he seems really sincere about it. And oh yeah, obviously he’s also a Christian.

    It’s rare, but there are people like that out there. I don’t get it myself, but what are ya gonna do?

  • Jim D

    @Gary B.:

    Oh, wow. Another guy with a “gay” friend, but this one is “obviously a Christian.” Uh, why would that be obvious, or because you only have “Christian” friends.

  • CJ

    Since when is it a bad thing to say that you have “gay” friends, Jim D? And, it’s also not OK to say that you have a “Christian” friend? What about a “female” friend or a “Canadian” friend?

    I’m not sure I understand your angst or point.

  • Jim D


    I don’t have any angst about this issue and my point is that, be it Sarah Palin or whomever, they always preface their objection to gay marriage, or any other gay issues, by stating that they have “gay” friends and that somehow that lends credence to their position. I wonder whether these so called gay friends actually consider Sarah et al to be friends, or even exist.

    My point re Carl’s statement was that he had “gay” friends in same sex relationships. Obviously if had friends in a same sex relationship they would be gay, unless he was parsing between gay and lesbian.

    Re Gary’s comment, go back and read his post. The first paragraph ends by saying his gay friend is obviously a Christian. Why would it be obvious that his friend is a Christian? Because he opposes same sex marriage? Because only “gay” Christians would oppose same sex marriage? Their is nothing in his post that would leave you to the fact that his friend was obviously a Christian.

    And finally, I introduce my friends as “friends”, not “gay” friends, not “lesbian” friends, and not “straight” friends. Nor when I’m introducing a “female” friend do I feel the need to point out she’s a “female” friend. The same applies to Canadians and Christians, in case you’re wondering.

  • B

    QUEERTY: “the slur ‘MSM,’ …. MSM is a slur? The first time I saw this acronym, it was on a Center for Disease Control web page, and meant “men who have sex with men”. The preferred term now is ‘Male-Male sexual contact”, which is shorter. The idea was to emphasize that it was sexual contact, not sexual orientation, that was of interest – it didn’t matter if two guys were having sex together because they were gay, because they were “curious”, or because they were straight but desperate.

    Other than seeing it in a technical report, I haven’t seen or heard it used anywhere else. Did it somehow turn into a slur after its initial rather innocuous use or did someone overreact?

  • Jaroslaw

    The ruling was 138 pages, and I read it. There is nothing biased in there at all. The religious right look like looooonatics.

  • D'oh, The Magnificent

    If we follow the logic to its core, then Scalia should recuse himself from the S.Ct. case that comes up on marriage equality since he has already made it clear that his being a heterosexual makes him biased against gay marriage. He has no problem discussing our sex lives, but when asked the same about his, he was offended. Apparently he is not objective.

  • Jaroslaw

    #17 I think that MSM was a Queerty attempt at humor…I’m sure they were NOT serious. My take is that the mainstream media is so sloppy these days – as another poster said above – the LAT is a shadow of its former journalistic self… something like that.

  • Molly

    But he came up with an argument that provides logical, non-biased reasons as to why it’s unconstitutional to ban gay marriage…

  • dave

    I thought that MSM meant Main Stream Media.

  • Boo

    It’s too bad Walker doesn’t moonlight as the chair of the RNC. Then the media would obsessively cover up any rumors about his sexuality.

  • randy

    The Rules of the Press:

    1. If you are gay and you do something that benefits the gay community, you must be exposed to show your bias. Example: Judge Walker.

    2. If you are gay, and you do something that harms the gay community, you must be protected, and the press will show nothing but discretion. Ex. Ken Mehlman.

    Evidently, no one would ever do anything nice for gays unless they are gay themselves. But if you are gay and harming everyone around you, then you deserve privacy.

  • j

    @Molly: Pssh, i’m from the good, decent south with two point four kids and I only have sex in the missionary position with the lights out just like the LORD likes it, so why should I care?

  • soundboy_Jeff

    one has to wonder if anyone at the LA Times READ the decision, the basis for which it was reached (various legal precedents/SCOTUS cases), or any of the trial transcripts.

    The Judge reached the rational conclusion ANY Judge without anti-gay bias would’ve reached (gay OR straight) based on the evidence and testimony presented at the trial.

    If it were a straight Judge that came to the same conclusion… would the LA Times dig into his background and see if he had gay relatives or friends and write a different version of the same article?

    seems to me (having READ the transcripts AND verdict from beginning to end) the LA Times is the one with the bias, not Judge Walker.

  • Jaroslaw

    Jeff – your par. 3: it’s done now, but I was thinking in jest – “don’t even put that out in the atmosphere”. Next decision by a Straight judge that is Gay friendly, they’ll say although he doesn’t have any Gay relatives; he was influenced because he has heard there are Gay people on other continents.

  • fagss

    he is gay? or a fag? wats the difference hahaha

  • Dallas David

    @Carl: Ya, well, my USAF chaplain was a flaming queen, and he married some fundamentalist drone for cover (he can’t be gay if he’s married). I spoke with him when I was trying to deal with being gay, and he became “too friendly.” I said, “Wouldn’t that be a sin?” and he smiled really wide and said, “Yes, it would, and we’re both going to Hell!”
    What struck me most about that was he was serious, but he gonna sin anyway, and in his chaplain’s office.

    Craziness . . . it’s all just plain dab-nab craziness.

  • Drake


    Judges interpret the LAW under the Constitution, not “What’s good for their area”. That is mob rule, not the Rule of Law. There is no such thing as a legal stndard of “good for their area”.

Comments are closed.