Apr 262011
 

I couldn’t care less that Vaughn Walker is gay, what I do care about are the extreme statements – especially those against the Church in his ruling. I do believe that Judge Walker’s rage against the Church is indicative of the culture war pitting Homosexuals against any traditions of society.

I received a press release yesterday – it is simple. Judge Walker should have recused himself before ruling on Prop 8. It’s called a conflict of interest – especially so for Judge Walker who has been in a relationship for years with his domestic partner.

Date: April 25, 2011    

Contact: Carla Hass 916-834-9969

Prop 8 Proponents Move to Throw Out Same-Sex Marriage Ruling –

Cite Judge’s Long-Term Gay Relationship, Failure to Disclose.

SACRAMENTO – Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com filed a motion today asking the U.S. District Court to vacate former Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision invalidating Prop 8, on the grounds that Walker failed to disclose a long-term, same-sex relationship, and should have recused himself before trial.

Federal law requires a judge to disqualify himself whenever the judge knows that he has any personal interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the case, or any other circumstances in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 

“The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice,” said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the official proponents of Prop 8.  “Judge Walker’s ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires.  He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case.  These circumstances demand setting aside his decision.”

The core issue presented in the Perry v. Brown case is whether the U.S. Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships.

“Under governing California law Judge Walker currently cannot marry his partner.  But his ruling in this case, if ultimately upheld, would give him a right to do so,” Pugno pointed out.

“We deeply regret the necessity of this motion.  But if the courts are to require others to follow the law, the courts themselves must do so as well,” Pugno added.

“We are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” Pugno said.  “Rather, our motion is all about the fundamental principle that no judge is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome. Surely, no one would suggest that Judge Walker could order state officials to issue a marriage license to him and his partner.  Yet it must be presumed that that is precisely what has occurred.”

Proposition 8 was approved by over 7 million California voters in the 2008 general election, to reaffirm marriage in the California Constitution as only between a man and a woman.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.