Judge's personal life debated after gay ruling

[Shana A]

Judge's personal life debated after gay ruling

By LISA LEFF (AP) – 6 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5imVbAXWsQfXhysRLqmUENFo27TfQD9HDUAAO0

SAN FRANCISCO — The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban this week is a Republican who once came under fire for his membership to a powerful all-male club that had only recently allowed blacks to join.

But after Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8, he became something else in the minds of some: a gay activist.

snip

"Under the logic of the people challenging the judge's fitness to rule on a case involving gay rights because he or she was gay, one would have to find a eunuch to serve on the case, because one could just as easily argue that a heterosexual judge couldn't rule on it either," Ross said.

[Julie Marie]

No surprise here.  Regardless of his sexual orientation it was almost a certainty that he, or any judge, who overturned Prop 8 was going to be attacked by the religious right (which are neither!)  And if you think this not an issue divided by religious beliefs I offer this excerpt from the ruling when Kenneth Miller, witness for the proponents of Prop 8, was on the stand:

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on data showing 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes on Proposition 8, 54 percent of those who attend church occasionally voted no on Proposition 8 and 83 percent of those who never attend church voted no on Proposition 8. Tr 2590:10-2591:7; PX2853 at 9 Proposition 8 Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008, CNN).  Plaintiffs also asked about polling data showing 56 percent of those with a union member in the household voted yes on Proposition 8. Tr 2591:25-2592:6; PX2853 at 13. Miller stated he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the polling data.

Page 52 of the ruling.

[spacial]

Reactionaries seem to have a tendency to do this sort of thing.

They lack proper arguments.

[ClaudiaJ]

They had their chance to motion that the judge to recuse himself, and they did not. If there is any legitimacy in their claims and what their claims suggest (that any non-straight individual is entirely incapable of impartiality), then any competent lawyer would have motioned for the judge to recuse himself. Either the lawyer got his law degree from a cereal box or they had no grounds and they knew it.

They make a big hoopla about it now because they might still be able to raise an angry mob up to combat the justice system. They know they're screwed now, very logical facts were presented that must be accepted by a higher court if they try again. These facts are not going to be easy to just brush aside in favor of ancient prejudice, and the Prop 8 supporters are going to throw all the propaganda they know how at this.