World

Is Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker Gay? Does It Even Matter?

by NowPublic Staff | August 6, 2010 at 11:11 am

1636 views | 4 Recommendations | 8 comments

Reports That Proposition 8 Justice, Vaughn Walker Is A Homosexual Is Causing A Controversy

The sexual orientation of Judge Vaughn Walker, the federal judge who overturned California's Gay Marriage Ban, Proposition 8, is being scrutinized.

Wrote Walker in the beginning of the 138-page ruling, " Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined."

Rumors have circulated for months that Walker is gay, fueled by the blogosphere and a San Francisco Chronicle column that stated his sexual orientation was an "open secret" in legal and gay activism circles.

The news that Judge Vaughn Walker may be gay has supporters the ban on same sex marriages in California outraged.

"Judge Walker should have recused himself from this case since he is a practicing homosexual," wrote Bryan Fischer of the American Families Association. He added: "His own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling in this case."

Others say the sexual orientation of Judge Vaughn Walker is not relevant.

Larry Levine a law professor speaking to the Sacrmento Bee said judges have a legal and ethical obligation to render verdicts impartially and that is exactly what Judge Walker did in the case of Proposition 8.

"I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear cases," he said.

"Are they saying that an African American judge can never rule on an affirmative action case and a Muslim can never rule on a case dealing with religious expression? If you follow their logic, that's exactly what they're saying."

Walker, 65, was nominated by Ronald Regan, confirmed by George Bush and is considered to be an independent thinking Conservative.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Jordan Yerman

at 12:42 on August 6th, 2010

I don't see the controversy here. If this is true, would Vaughn's being straight be somehow more fair?

Karen Hatter

at 15:05 on August 6th, 2010

Jordan, it seems questions regarding the judge's sexuality would be an indicator, to some on the Right, that the judge's ruling, if he is gay, was arrived at from a position of bias, predisposed to favoring or reflecting the view of the majority of the gay community, the belief that gay people's unions should be considered marriages same as heterosexual unions.

Elli J (not verified)

at 00:38 on August 10th, 2010

Karen, anyone who was heterosexual could also be presumed to have a bias, albeit a more common one. Who then would be fit to rule in this case? A bisexual? A lemur? This is not an issue of 'which opinion is more popular' i.e. what the California voters said. The judge looked at the facts, looked at the constitution and used his years of knowledge and experience to determine that voting away (yes, away, as same-sex couples had already gotten married) the rights of a minority was not, in fact, constitutional. So frankly, the ambiguity of his sexuality (that's right, because he's never openly stated that he was gay) probably makes him a pretty reasonable judge for this job. When it finally gets to SCOTUS and this whole thing is over, and the bigoted right grits their teeth while happy men and women walk down the aisle, finally allowed the same rights to protect their children and families as you or I have, I'm sure that any judge who voted against prop 8 will suddenly also find themselves to be quite, quite gay.

Karen Hatter

at 09:34 on August 10th, 2010

Elli J (not verified), please note my comment regarding the judge included the qualifying words " .... some on the Right ....".

The belief or opinion re: the judge's alleged bias because of his sexuality is not one I would embrace.

Karen Hatter

at 15:11 on August 6th, 2010

Re: the American Families Association:

The American Family Association (AFA) has been a long-time promoter of "traditional moral values" in the media, particularly television. AFA built its reputation on organizing boycotts against sponsors of TV shows with "anti-Christian" messages and ideas, or against companies it claims support the so-called "homosexual agenda" or marriage equality.

Alex L (not verified)

at 19:52 on August 6th, 2010

I think this is rediculous. What does it matter if he is straight or gay? If he was straight, would you see the LGBT crying out against him? The AFA and other similar hate groups are all upset because they didn't get the outcome they wanted. If he had ruled in their favor, it wouldn't have mattered if was straight or gay. So why is it just because he didn't? The fact of the matter is that Prop 8 is VERY unconstitutional and quite frankly against the law, seeing as the constitution states that no law shall be made or passed based on religion ideology. And that is exactly what this is. Christian (and other similar religions) ideology of what THEY precieve to be right. What's next? Laws removing women's rights? Are women supposed to go back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant? Let's all remember what "traditional marriage" (what this right wing-nuts like to promote) is between one white man and one white woman, where the man works and the woman stays at home with the kids. No interracial marriages, no women rights, and everything is property of the man - including the woman. THAT is "traditional marriage". And let's not also forget that the majority of the arguements used against gay marriage are the EXACT SAME used against interracial marriages, women's rights, freedom of the slaves... The list goes on. The right wing-nuts are nothing more than broken record in a windstorm of change. And that which does not change stagnates and dies. THAT is also a part of nature.

Biff Blendon (not verified)

at 13:54 on August 7th, 2010

Would appointing a pedophile to adjudicate pedophilia law be any different? How about a drug user to oversee drug abuse? Seems pretty simple. Perverts ruling on perversion. Foxes guarding hen houses.

Bill Bounds (not verified)

at 22:11 on August 16th, 2010

If Levine , the law professor, think Walker's orientation is not relevent since Walker is bound to judge impartially, then under which circumstances is a judge NOT expected to judge impartially? Seems there would never be a case where a judge should recuse himself, right?