Prop. 8 Judge is Reportedly Gay: What to Make of That?

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 8, 2010 | Ashby Jones

[DesertRenegade]

The lede from an article out Sunday in the SF Chronicle reads as follows:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Interesting. So, what to make of this fact?

According to the article, folks aren’t making much of it. Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign, rebuffed claims that his group might bring it up if Walker ultimately rules against them. “We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

Others quoted in the article say that Walker, appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush in 1989, say they don’t believe that Walker’s sexual orientation will affect his ruling on Prop. 8.

Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to the Chron when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit.

We can certainly understand why the parties might not want to address Walker’s sexual orientation: No reason to stir more controversy into a case that will ultimately be settled at the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. Plus, it’s not like Judge Walker raised his hand for the case — it was reportedly randomly assigned to him.

But is Walker’s sexual orientation relevant to the trial? Frankly, it’s hard to see how it’s not, especially if you believe that the opinions of judges, try as they might to divorce their personal opinions from their rulings, are invariably colored and informed by their own experiences, just like the rest of us.

[Georgex]

I wonder why we don’t hear more about the sexual promiscuity of homosexuals and their unnatural acts. The gay advocates are trying to paint this picture of normality that does not exist.

[manc]

notice how the homosexuals say marriage equality.

the left loves to pay with words to make out their agenda is a great one on the surface but when one thinks about their wolf in sheeps clothing then we get to know the truth about them..

All it takes is a video camera and an event like folson fair to show the masses what homosexuals are really like and believe me 90% of Americans will be repulsed .

I’ll await for hannity,O.R. Beck etc to show these videos but I will not hold my breath.
Ironic that hannity says taking back America and will not talk or even show anything about homosexuals or taking back America from sick perverts

[DakotaRed]

However this is ruled, you can bet it will be headed to the Supreme Court.

The danger here that I see is the anti-Prop 8 people’s argument seems centered around denying the vote because voters may have voted according to a religious belief.

No one can or should be able to ascertain why someone votes as they do.

Arguing this gay judge should not rule in this case would be tantamount to arguing that White Judges shouldn’t rule in cases involving Blacks, Hispanics or what have you.

Isn’t that exactly what we have argued against for so long?

[DesertRenegade]

“Homosexual marriage is illegal. Homosexuality is not.”

Marijuana is illegal in many states as well as marijuana paraphernalia. Would it be wrong for a judge who owns drug paraphernalia to preside over drug cases? BTW, it was not so long ago that sodomy was indeed illegal. Was Walker a judge at the time and an avowed criminal? Just food for thought.

[DesertRenegade]

“Your logic says that a Christian judge should always rule in favor of Christian churches.”

On the contrary: your logic says that a man who finds the feces and human waste portion of another man to be erotically stimulating is capable of making sound legal rulings. Hello?

[earlJam]

People made the same argument when a tobacco case went to the US Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas is known to smoke cigars. So some wanted him off the case. I didn’t agree then. And I don’t agree now.

Catholic judges should not be automatically kept off cases having to do with priests who molested children.

Judges who smoke should not be automatically kept off cases involving freedom to smoke in public places.

Judges who once ran as a Republican should not be automatically excluded from cases having to do with partisan issues.

And same with this judge. If he has already prejudged the case and compromised himself, that is one thing. If not, the system will sort it out.

[Publius6961]

The judge may have been assigned the case randomly but he could have and, I think, should have recused himself.

There are no "neutral" gays; just quiet ones and 'militant' ones.

[nonsporting]

An honest judge would rule according to the law. Period.

If he is gay, then he has a reprobate mind. (See Romans 1:28-32.) If he doesn't recuse himself, then I wouldn't get my hopes up for a fair and impartial ruling.