Proponents of California's same-sex marriage ban filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate the historic ruling that overturned Proposition 8 because the federal judge who wrote it is in a long-term relationship with another man.....As Prop8 Trial Tracker comments,
"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote. ...
Walker has said that he did not consider his sexual orientation to be any more a reason for recusal than another judge's race or gender normally would be. A spokeswoman said Monday that the judge wouldn't comment on the motion.
...
Checking in with some top legal minds who are colleagues and friends, there seems to be universal consensus that this was a mistake will piss off the 9th Circuit and probably judges everywhere. The reason why is simple: judges don’t like having their impartiality, or the impartiality of their colleagues, questioned. It’s a very slippery slope: married men who have marital troubles making ruling on divorce proceedings, women ruling on domestic abuse or abortion cases, African-Americans ruling on discrimination. Really, the slippery slope includes pretty much everyone. If there are accusations of bias, let’s see hard evidence. Otherwise, Andy Pugno dug an even deeper hole.
Remember, what Prop8 proponents are REALLY saying is that only straight white Christian men can be objective. Even thought EVERYONE has a religion, a race, an orientation....
1 comment:
As if this couldn't be more bizarre: the claim (by the plaintiffs) "It's not that he's gay---it's that he's in a long-term relationship."
Yeah, like if he were sleeping around, they'd be fine w/ Teh Gay! Give me a break...
Post a Comment