13 Aug Judge Rejects a “Stay” on Same-sex Marriages in California
Same-sex marriages could be performed in California as early as August 18, as Judge Vaughn Walker rejects the request for a “stay” on his overturn of Prop 8. The attorneys for Protect 8 have already filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that they prevent same-sex marriage from being performed in California until after the appeals work their way through the court system. If the Ninth Circuit denies the motion for a stay, the Protect 8 attorney will immediately file a motion with the Supreme Court. Legal experts state that the odds are very good that one of those two courts will honor their request.
The language in Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 smacks of a person overwrought with an agenda. United Families International will be running a series of blog articles giving rebuttal to Walker’s assertions; so watch for them. The BuzzTab blog has called Walker “the apple of gay advocates’ eyes.” We can certainly see why! Even pro-gay marriage supporters are taken back by Judge Walker’s aggressiveness and warn that his tactics could backfire on the entire gay rights movement.
A few months ago, the L.A. Times was the first to report on Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexual orientation. According to The San Francisco Chronicle since Judge Walker is a gay man in a stable relationship, he should have recused himself from the Prop 8 trial.
“[T]he mere fact that Judge Walker may be homosexual would not necessarily have required recusal. But the fact that he “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician,” and may therefore be in a stable homosexual relationship of the kind that could lead to marriage, is an entirely different matter… Judge Walker’s failure to disqualify himself or at least to disclose his potentially disqualifying relationship to the parties requires that the opinion in the case be vacated and a new trial conducted before a different judge.”
The author of The San Francisco Chronicle article questions the wisdom of Walker and adds:
“Given the high-profile nature of this case, the threat to the public’s confidence in the judicial process is particularly acute. Judge Walker has unilaterally neutered the votes of more than 7 million Californians. A contentious step under the best of circumstances, such a decision should only be rendered, if at all, by a judge whose impartiality is beyond reproach. Judge Walker’s, unfortunately, is not.”