Decision on Judge Walker Expected Today

From the later blog post at LATimes.com by Maura Dolan:

"You can be in a long-term relationship without being in it for the purposes of marriage, right?" the judge asked.

Ware noted he was not being asked to determine whether Walker had a duty to disclose his relationship, only whether the Walker should have disqualified himself once he was assigned to the case.

From her print story in today's paper:

Can a gay judge rule on same-sex marriage?

His identity is not the issue. His behavior is the issue. There's a difference, right?

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware, an African American, likened the case to challenges of judges based on race and gender, which have generally failed in civil rights cases. Ware noted, however, that while a jurist's race and gender are usually obvious, litigants may not know whether a judge is gay.

*sigh*

"You can be in a long-term relationship without being in it for the purposes of marriage, right?" Ware asked Charles J. Cooper, the lawyer for the sponsors of Proposition 8.

Cooper conceded that was true, but said Walker should have removed himself because he stood in "the exact same shoes" as the gay and lesbian couples who filed the suit. Like them, Walker was in a committed same-sex relationship, Cooper said.

In a sign of the sensitive nature of the conflict-of-interest allegation, Ware told the packed courtroom that he had married a same-sex couple during the brief period when such marriages were legal in California in 2008. Cooper did not raise any objections.

Well, it was a longshot anyway.

Federal law says jurists can be disqualified from hearing cases because of financial interests, however slight, strong personal friendships with litigants, or a personal bias or prejudice, among other factors.

No financial interest here. Nope. Riiiiight. On the one hand, marriage neutering advocates have told us it is vital for same-sex couples to get state marriage licenses, in no small part due to financial benefits. On the other hand, Walker, in a long-term (notice they never say monogamous) same-sex relationship, couldn't possibly have financially gained from his own decision. Got that?

Cooper argued that a judge must step down if a reasonable person could conclude that he or she might have a personal stake in the outcome.

"If a reasonable person thought a black judge should recuse himself or herself from a civil rights case, would that be sufficient to recuse a judge?" Ware asked.

Identity vs. behavior. Look, we're not saying a white judge can't rule on a case involving country music. But maybe he should disclose the fact that he plays in a professional country music band?

Cooper replied that it would not, nor would the mere fact that Walker was gay be enough to disqualify him. Cooper said Walker should have stepped aside because his relationship put him in the same situation as the plaintiffs who wished to formalize their commitment.

There. Was that so hard? Why was this buried in the article???

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., representing Proposition 8's challengers, called the disqualification motion "frivolous, offensive and deeply unfortunate."

"No matter how they try to camouflage it or how they try to dress it up, they are challenging his sexual orientation," Boutrous said. "They are challenging Judge Walker because he is gay."

So Boutrous is arguing that gay men can't control themselves when it comes to sex or relationships. There's only one way they can behave. Apparently, you're not really gay unless you're in a long-term relationship.

Lisa Leff's later story from yesterday. She got more relevant in the second paragraph.

They insisted that then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have divulged whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he cleared the way for others to marry theirs.

Why this interpretation instead of the direct quote?

"It's not some news flash that Judge Walker was in a same-sex relationship," Boutrous said.

We don't all hang out in homosexual San Francisco legal circles, pride events, or the theatre.

Ware also heard arguments on whether he should prohibit Walker from using videotaped recordings of the trial in public speeches. Cooper said Walker's post-retirement use of the recordings violated a U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring the trial from being broadcast beyond the federal courthouse in San Francisco.

Ware said he would issue a written ruling at a later date but suggested he was disinclined to prevent his former colleague from making personal use of the videos.

Ware said Walker had been given the videos as a parting gift during a "passing the gavel" ceremony.

"It was done under my auspices," he said. So I want to disclose that in case you wish to make an argument that somehow having presided over that event ... I should recuse myself."

Hah hah. Heads I win, tails you lose. Gee, I wonder how he's gonna rule on that question? Or the first one? Hmmmm. Why would he give Walker those specific videos. Hmmm... oh this is a hard one... So I guess telling him they are only for private use is too much, huh? I wonder how many other public servants get to take government property and use it in public for personal gain after they've retired?

There's an awful lot of sleight of hand here. If sexual orientation is as much a part of someone inborn identity as their sex or skin color, does that necessarily mean that certain behaviors will always follow? If so, can someone point me to a behavior that will always follow based on sex or skin color? Are we willing to say Walker's relationship is just like an involuntary body function, like menstruation?

Oh, and despite how the biased media always writes these stories, the California Marriage Amendment, adopted by a majority of the voting governed, was NOT a "ban on same-sex marriage." I can correct them as often as they make that "mistake".

You may also be interested in this post over on my namesake blog:

Bullies and Hypocrites