Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed





War of the Whales
S Street Rising


Truthdig Bazaar
Cover

Playing President

By Robert Scheer
Paperback $13.16

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Prop. 8 Supporters Target Judge’s Sexual Orientation

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 26, 2011
Flickr / Andy Birkey

A legal motion filed Monday questions the impartiality of the judge who overturned the California Marriage Protection Act, also known as Prop. 8. The act, passed by voters in November 2008, amended the state’s constitution to limit the definition of marriage to “one man, one woman.”

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is thought by some to be gay, overturned Prop. 8 in August 2010. The group that filed the motion, ProtectMarriage.com, claims Walker could not have ruled fairly because the law affects his own ability to marry another man.  —KDG

The Wall Street Journal:

The brief claimed that Judge Walker is a “judge in his own case” because he has a potential interest in marrying his own partner. Only if Judge Walker “had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case,” it said.

Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is fighting the ban in court on behalf of two same-sex couples who want to marry, said the proponents of Proposition 8 “are grasping at straws because they have no legal case.” He added: “They’re attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said that no U.S. court had ever ruled that a judge’s personal identity was sufficient reason for disqualification. “I think it is offensive to say that a judge can’t hear this case because he is gay or lesbian,” he said. “By that reasoning, a black judge couldn’t have heard challenges to segregation law.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By well informed, April 27, 2011 at 8:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Don’t write on the dog
carry sign
you lazy buggers

Report this

By berniem, April 27, 2011 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

The potentates over at protectmarriage.cum should check their membership to see how many dally with the babes over at ashleymadison.cum!

Report this

By rend, April 26, 2011 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“I think it is offensive to say that a judge can’t hear this case because he is gay or lesbian,”
he said.

the irony is intense.

Report this

By TDoff, April 26, 2011 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

ProtectMarriage.com is totally wrong on this one. Judge Walker is not gay, he/she is a cross-dressing Mormon wife, whose husband insists on living in San Francisco. Since the one husband, one wife law was passed, Judge Walker has had to put up with her horny husband every single night, with no relief, and, in her words, ‘I’m really getting chafed’.
So the true reason she negated the law is so her husband can add to his stable of wives, and give Judge Walker a couple of peaceful, sexless nights each week.
C’mon, folks, have a little compassion.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.