Was Judge Walker bias in Prop. 8 ruling?

[Jack]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge's long-term relationship with another man was the subject of an unprecedented court hearing on Monday that sparked sharp exchanges about whether he was obligated to reveal whether he wanted to marry his partner before he struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for supporters of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, said the decision by Vaughn Walker, the former chief judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco, should be vacated. They maintain that he should have removed himself or disclosed his position on gay marriage in his own relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

"It now appears that Judge Walker, at the time the complaint was filed and throughout this litigation, occupied precisely those same shoes as the plaintiffs," said Charles Cooper, a lawyer for supporters of Proposition 8, referring to opponents who sued to have it overturned. Judge Walker ruled last year that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights, but the ban remains in place pending an appeal.

The judge at Monday's hearing, James Ware, sharply questioned Mr. Cooper, asking him why he assumed Judge Walker had any intention of getting married just because he was in a decade-long relationship.

If the judge did not wish to marry, Judge Ware suggested, his situation would have differed from that of the two same-sex couples who were plaintiffs in the case.

"I'm asking you to tell me what fact you would have the court rely on to suggest that Judge Walker wanted to change, not maintain, his relationship?" Judge Ware asked.

The mere fact that Judge Walker had been in a serious relationship "does not put him in the shoes of what the plaintiffs were doing, unless you cite to me some facts that he was desirous of the relief they were seeking," Judge Ware said.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., part of the legal team representing the plaintiffs, called the effort to disqualify Judge Walker "frivolous, offensive and deeply unfortunate." He derided Mr. Cooper's assertion that it was Judge Walker's relationship status, not his sexual orientation, that called his impartiality into question.

"It's not some news flash that Judge Walker was in a same-sex relationship," Mr. Boutrous said. "They are targeting Judge Walker because he is gay."

NYT: Proposition 8 Judge Accused of

Further evidence that proponents of Prop. 8 in California lack the ability to think logically.

If Judge Walker is ineligible to hear a case involving gays couples simply because he is in a gay relationship then no married judge should be able to hear a case involving married people, no Black judge should sit on a case involving Blacks and no woman judge should hear cases involving women.

We expect our judges to be able to rule without bias in all cases. Judge Walker has no history of biased rulings, in fact his judicial history is exemplary. This frivolous lawsuit has been brought for the sole reason that the losing party does not agree with his ruling and they're unable to find any valid or reasonable grounds to challenge it.

A ruling in this challenge has been promised to be coming soon. I sincerely hope for the sake of reason and the standards of law that this challenge is dismissed as the pointless and illogical case it is.

[Angry Citizen]

This is the direct result of thinking sexual orientation is an ideology. Rather sad, actually, but it betrays their motives.

[lsbskins1]

Yeah, I guess we need a council of Great Apes to rule on any issue that might effect a human.

[el ايمان]

I suppose he was biased. Of course, I think that the unbiased decision was the decision he chose, so I can't say for sure that his bias affected his ruling. For the reasons you've listed, Jack, we cannot reasonably bar this Judge from presiding over cases that involve gay people.

[grandpa]

I suppose he was biased.
Of course, I think that the unbiased decision was the
decision he chose, so I can't say for sure that
his bias affected his ruling.

So, they want to uphold the ban because an opponent may have been BIASED? Well, I guess that makes sense. People should be able to slap me in the face! After all, my opposition to it would rest on personal bias, right? A henhouse will be biased against a fox.

Seriously, though, how isn't it biased to tell homosexuals their substantial
rights shall be disregarded?

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Yeah, I guess we need a council of Great Apes to rule on any issue that might effect a human.

I second the motion for a council of Great Apes....all those in favor say "Aye"

[Apeman81]

I second the motion for a council of Great Apes....all those in favor say "Aye"

I am Apeman. Must I recuse myself from this vote?

[Apeman81]

This is the direct result of thinking sexual orientation is an ideology. Rather sad, actually, but it betrays their motives.

With so many people clamoring about the "gay lifestyle" and referring to the "gay community" and 'gay activism", you somehow find the fact that some believe ideology is involved is surprising?

[Dieval]

I am Apeman. Must I recuse myself from this vote?

Well, if everyone's assuming this guy wasn't biased, than why should we think you would be? So, no...your vote counts!

[Apeman81]

Well, if everyone's assuming this guy wasn't biased, than why should we think you would be? So, no...your vote counts!

With this affirmation, I vote in favor of said council.

[el ايمان]

People really have no excuse to get all butthurt about a gay judge rulling in favor of gay rights.

[Dieval]

People really have no excuse to get all butthurt about a gay judge rulling in favor of gay rights.

Soooo..would you be "butthurt" if a judge had a stake in <Insert company here> and ruled in favor of this company, directly benefiting him? That wouldn't be a conflict of interest?