The sponsors of California’s gay marriage ban continue to attempt to have Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (left) disqualified because of his same-sex relationship, but they met a skeptical audience in an appeals court panel Thursday, The Washington Post is reporting via Associated Press. An American judge’s sexual orientation has never before been cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Gay rights activists got a major victory when a federal judge overturned a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California in 2010. Walker ruled that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection and due process rights clauses.
The lawyers for a coalition of religious conservative groups who are challenging Walker’s decision told a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have revealed he had a long-term male partner and whether he had any interest in getting legally married before he presided over a trial on the measure’s constitutionality.
Because Walker failed to reveal his sexual orientation or his personal relationship, his impartiality is being questioned and Charles Cooper, an attorney for the ban’s backers, is fighting for Walker’s Prop 8 overturning to be reversed.
Interestingly though, the judges on the panel don’t seem to be buying Cooper’s argument.
“In May 2009, when Judge Walker read the allegations of the complaint, he knew something the litigants and the public did not know: He knew that he, too, like the plaintiffs, was a gay resident of California who was involved in a long-term, serious relationship with an individual of the same sex,” Cooper said in court. “The litigants did not have any knowledge of these facts, and it appears that Judge Walker made the deliberate decision not to disclose these facts.”
According the AP, Judge R. Randy Smith, who represents Idaho on the 9th Circuit, interrupted to forcefully ask why a gay judge would be any more obligated to divulge his relationship status and views on matrimony than would a married straight judge who opposes same-sex marriage.
“So a married judge could never hear a divorce?” Smith asked.
“Your honor, I don’t see the difficulty with a married judge hearing a divorce action,” Cooper answered.
Smith replied: “Would he have to disclose, ‘Oh, I’ve been married, and we’ve been married for 24 years and we have a relationship that’s kind of difficult’? That’s what you are arguing here?”
So far, the court has yet to reach a decision on Walker’s impartiality, but it appears that the judges might rule against the anti-gay challengers or allow the case continue up to the Supreme Court, which will bring even more light to the fight for marriage equality and certainly thrust it into the 2012 presidential election.
On that note, The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus wrote an article on Thursday entitled “The good politics of gay marriage,” stating, “Now is the time for President Obama to complete his evolution on the subject of same-sex marriage. Supporting the right of all Americans to marry the person of their choice would be the right thing to do. Strange as this may sound, it might also be good politics.”
Photo: Equally Wed Archives
