The former federal judge, Vaughn Walker, who presided over the federal case regarding California Prop 8 and same-sex marriage let the cat out of the bag.
Mr. Walker is G A Y.Not that there is anything wrong with that. It had been one of those open secrets that until now never confirmed or denied by Mr. Walker.
But is there something wrong with it? That Mr. Walker, as a gay man that can not marry legally in the state of California presided over a trial that could determine that possibility?
One of the arguements that those filing on appeal are making is that Mr. Walker bent over backwards for the proponents of same-sex marriage and was tough on the opponenents during the trial.
That is for an appeals court to decide.
But I do believe that Mr. Walker needed to recuse himself because he was not just an arbitor of law. He was an interested party. By not having a jury trial, he was going to make the decision as to the validity of Prop 8. Again, if he believes that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the United States constitution, that is fine. But it is not his role to be the final say on the matter.
And he did try to do that in his ruling. He used brilliant legalese to make it very hard for further courts to over rule his decision.
Thus as a really interested party, he needed to recuse himself.
This could be an important decision that will overturn the stated will of the majority of Californian who voted on how the state recognizes marriage.
And that should not have been made by one that could indeed benefit from it.
1 comment:
Yeah, I see your point. It's a slippery slope. You have to admit that all appellate judges are, in one respect or another, at one time or another, invested parties in the case before them. Are gays judges any less like to be impartial than others? Do we only distrust gay judges?
Post a Comment