Proposition 8 appeal judge Vaughn Walker's gay agenda

Mercator ^ | Feb 10, 2010 | Brian S. Brown

[DesertRenegade]

In a story last Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Proposition 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.

Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case, are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.

But Judge Walker's bias from the bench includes:

A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant "fishing expeditions" into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn't six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8, it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.

Even though the Prop 8 supporters were forced to turn over private, internal documents and emails, Walker has refused to demand the same from opponents of the measure. In fact, Walker has refused to even rule on a motion to compel the discovery of this information, even though he has already closed testimony in the case. That alone is an unbelievable tilting of the playing field.

Walker has presided over a show trial designed to generate sympathetic headlines and news coverage for gay marriage supporters.

[DesertRenegade]

This takes the issue of liberal activist judges legislating from the bench to new heights. It boggles the mind that this is being allowed in our supposedly unbiased legal system. Would a proud openly alcoholic judge be allowed to preside over DWI cases? Would a card carrying NAMBLA member be allowed to rule in cases of child rape and molestation?

[skeeter]

Doesn’t matter - everyone knows this trial is a farce. If he throws the proposition out it’ll be appealed and be re-affirmed.

[massmike]

Very sad there are a few freepers that can’t understand that logic.

[SoldierDad]

How the HELL does this happen that an obviously biased judge gets to preside over a case involving an issue he is intimately involved with? Serious breach - he should have 1) recused himself, or 2) defendants should have requested he be replaced. Grounds for appeal to say the least.

[Wuli]

If the allegations are true, the judge, if he were an honest judge, would have recused himself from the case.