Roundup of Los Angeles Times on Ware and Walker

Let's start with columnist Steve Lopez, who knows where his bread is buttered.

I've tried my best, but I never did understand the legal logic of Prop. 8 supporters.

So what else is new? A lot of Proposition 8 supporters can't understand the "logic" of finding some previously undiscovered "right' to a state marriage license absent a bride, or absent a groom... a "right" so strong it trumps the right to vote, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the freedom of association.

But Ted Boutrous, a Los Angeles lawyer who tried to beat back the challenge in court, said you could take the Prop. 8 supporters’ argument to ridiculous extremes.

So? You can take just about any argument to ridiculous extremes. Marriage neutering advocates would have nothing to say without taking arguments to extremes. Okay, that's not fair. They'd also have "But I want it!"

For example, if a judge presiding over a rape case had herself been a rape victim, should she disclose that before hearing the case?

Boutrous said that to his surprise, when he asked this in court, the attorney representing the Prop. 8 crowd said yes, a judge who’d been raped should disclose such a thing.

"I found it remarkable," said Boutrous.

Wait a minute. If the previous rape victim was a potential juror instead of a judge and failed to disclose it before the trial, wouldn't that exclude her from the jury if she was found out? And she'd only be one juror out of twelve, in a criminal case, which has a higher standard of protection for the defendant (beyond reasonable doubt, etc.), meaning it would be more difficult for the earlier rape to influence the outcome of the trial.

Boutrous, taking the logic of his opponent to another absurd extreme, offered this argument:

If a straight judge had heard the Prop. 8 case, he should have disclosed it up front, because surely he might have been biased in favor of heterosexual marriage, perhaps for religious reasons, or because he saw gay marriage as some kind of threat to children.

Fail. The overwhelming majority of people will enter into (bride+groom) marriage at least once in their lives, and identify as heterosexual. The analogy doesn't work for that and many other reasons.

So if you'd have to disqualify a gay judge, and you’d have to disqualify a straight judge, who’s left to hear the case?

I refer back to this post of mine:



At first glance, the editorial board seems to have a point. However, bride+goom marriage is the status quo and has been for all of human history. The vast majority of people will marry during their lives. An individual judge's marriage would not be immediately and directly impacted so much as the overall institution of marriage. So it is not equivalent to compare the harm a judge who is engaged in a common practice might suffer if there is a change in the status quo to the direct, financial benefit a judge engaged in a minority behavior could reap by intervening to strike down the status quo by overturning a direct amending of the state constitution by the people of that state.

For example, most people do not smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes. Let's say the people of California passed a constitutional amendment that reinforced a longstanding prohibition on smoking medicinal marijuana in state parks, and allowing that fines be imposed on those who do. A judge who has never used medicinal marijuana, but has used other medicines, does not have a conflict of interest in the case equal to a judge who regularly uses medicinal marijuana and enjoys hanging out in state parks.

Steve knows what we're all really thinking, because he's special...

And the real objective, for those who have nothing better to do than worry about how other people conduct their lives, is to ban gay marriage by whatever means necessary.

Nice try. State licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state and are not a private matter. Homosexual people are just as free to conduct their lives the way they want as anyone else, and there's no movement to stop that.


Here's Maura Dolan’s LATimes.com blog entry from yesterday afternoon, some of which doesn't make it to today's print story, which is unusual.

Proponents of Proposition 8 argued that Walker's conflict was not his sexual orientation, but the fact that he was in a serious same-sex relationship that could conceivably lead to marriage.

They could also be called defenders of California's constitution.

The chief judge said all Californians share an interest in having the the Constitution enforced. The "single interest" Walker shared with the same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8 "gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits that would exist for any other judge or citizen," Ware wrote.

Did he say it with a straight face (no pun intended)?

The chief judge also said that Walker's failure to disclose his same-sex relationship prior to his ruling could mean that he had considered the situation and decided that no reasonable observer would conclude that his impartiality was questionable.

Okay then, well, if someone doesn't think their own impartiality is questionable, then I guess they must be impartial. Sure. Attention readers: I have decided that no reasonable observer would conclude that my impartiality is questionable. So now you should accept that I'm impartial.

Peter Renn, attorney with Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group, said Ware's ruling "decisively rejected an outrageous attack on the integrity of Judge Walker, not to mention judges in general."

"Prop. 8 was declared unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional -- not because the judge is gay," Renn said.

The circular reasoning is making me dizzy.

Here's today's print article by Maura Dolan.

Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for Proposition 8's sponsors, said the group would appeal the ruling and "continue our tireless efforts to defend the will of the people of California to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

We're sure to hear howls of protest against filing an appeal... from people who are in favor of filing appeal after appeal when rulings don't go their way.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which opposes same-sex marriage, said Walker's ruling remains tainted because he had a stake in the outcome.

Notice that phrasing. They support the traditional and Obamaic definition of marriage as between a bride and a groom. They don't oppose figments of judicial imagination, only the judicial overreach of neutering state marriage licensing.

Chad Griffin, who formed a civil rights group that launched the federal Proposition 8 case, said Ware's decision "sent a powerful message that extreme fringe groups cannot strong-arm the law."

So 52.5% of California voters are an extreme fringe group? His statement is so laughable because we've been seeing extreme fringe groups like Griffin's strong-arm the law. So the law can be strong-armed.

In a separate order Tuesday, Ware said Walker was entitled to keep videotapes of the three-week Proposition 8 trial.

No surprise there. I wonder what public property Ware is planning to run off with when he retires?

Ware said he would hold a hearing later on whether the videotapes of the three-week trial should be made public.

Oh, why bother? So you can make another tape?

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".