U.S. District Court Judge who Struck down Prop. 8 Confirms He's Gay

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Apr 9, 2011.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    In probably the most damaging move that could undermine the entire gay marriage movement, former 9th Circuit judge Vaughn Walker comes out.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/07/3536180/judge-who-struck-down-prop-8-confirms.html

    Granted he is retired now and can say/do what he wants, and I commend him for coming out, but I have to question the timing. He's stated his case regarding not recusing himself, but now that he's done this, I worry that it undermines the anti-Prop. 8 supporter's case. The pro-Prop. 8 camp should be all over this.

    Would the Pro-Prop. 8 camp have any legal ground to stand on with this now in the light, and would they still have any ground even if SCOTUS strikes Prop. 8 down?

    BL.
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Probably the same legal ground that would overturn any judge's ruling against gay marriage if that judge were found to be straight.

    :rolleyes:
     
  3. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #3
    I don't think this will make a difference in the final ruling. How would it be anymore fair if a straight judge decided the fate of gay marriage?
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    While I agree with the judges argument on why it should not make a difference I do think it was a piss poor idea for him not recuse himself from making a ruling because he should of known it would turn into a political **** storm when it came out he was gay.
    While yes he could easily move is personally feeling aside for looking at the law in terms of it still should of step aside and let another judge handle the case.

    Reason why is DO NOT give the people who are pro prop 8 another weapon to use against the ruling.
     
  5. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #5
    I don't see why this matters...either he is able to rule on cases or he isn't.

    It's like requiring only non-whites or non-blacks on race issues between the two.
     
  6. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #6
    No.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Or eunuchs in divorce cases. ;)

    Silly.
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Judges and are supposed to be neutral no matter what they might personally believe. I wish the people that make the laws were the same way. Once you get elected or appointed to do a job you do it with no bias or personal opinion. Either the law is correct or it isn't. This is a big reason why partisan politics is so bad. A persons views should be left at the door for the good of the country.
     
  9. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    Of course, and we all know that.

    My concern is that the Prop. 8 supporters could claim a bias on the judge and his judgment based on the judge's sexual orientation and tie that back to his ruling. Whether that will work or not is an unknown, but there will always be that question in the back of everyone's mind now, and if this should be retried altogether because of that bias.

    BL.
     
  10. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    So black judges can't rule on cases involving blacks?
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    Only in the minds of those who think homosexuals are ruled by their sexuality above all other things. It's an irrational POV and one that should not be attributed to "everyone".

    Likewise should only hermaphrodites be deemed capable of judging divorce cases? Wouldn't a male or female judge be biased against one side? :rolleyes:
     
  12. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #12
    As I said above, eunuchs.

    Read, don't MattScott.
     
  13. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #13
    Doesn't matter. The judge could be a straight Mormon with eight wives and 23 kids (not very likely, I know) and they'd still claim bias.
     
  14. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    Agreed! What happens when a straight judge rules against a gay law, does that make him automatically prejudice? Or is he just using his experience and values to make a ruling? Isn't that what all judges do?
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Doesn't matter. This is already over. Equal marriage rights will happen.
     
  16. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #16
    So wait, heterosexuals can sign institutionalized discrimination into law, but a gay judge can't vote against it?

    Unless I'm not getting something, that seems kinda weird.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    No kidding.

    He was serving at the pleasure of The President of the United States, an "elected" official.

    These other people should just piss-off.

     
  18. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #18
    In defense of the OP, I can easily see the Becks and Limbaughs of this world making a big ****ing deal about this. They're very good at turning relatively meaningless crap into giant conspiracy theories. See Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and global climate change.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Good.
     
  20. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #20
    According to people supporting gay marriage, gay marriage doesn't affect straight marriage thus a heterosexual would have nothing to recuse himself about. OTOH a homosexual has a vested interest in Proposition 8 not passing.
     
  21. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #21
    And a heterosexual who believes gay marriage DOES effect straight marriage has a vested interest in prop 8 passing.
     
  22. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #22
    Yeah but according to people who don't support gay marriage, they don't do so because they think it does has an affect on straight marriage. Why else would they oppose it?
     
  23. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #23
    The odds of an impartial heterosexual are higher than an impartial homosexual
     
  24. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #24
    Do you have data to support this, or are you just prejudiced?
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    By what measure do you come to that unfounded opinion?
     

Share This Page