After Prop 8 ruling, judge's personal life debated
Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker has always been characterized as a conservative with libertarian leanings. But after he struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban this week, the Associated Press reports, he was accused by some of being something else entirely: a gay activist.
Rumors have circulated for months that Walker is gay, fueled by the blogosphere and a San Francisco Chronicle column that stated his sexual orientation was an "open secret" in legal and gay activism circles.
Walker himself hasn't addressed the speculation, and he did not respond to a request for comment by the AP on Thursday. Lawyers in the case, including those defending the ban, say the judge's sexuality — gay or straight — was not an issue at trial and will not be a factor on appeal.
But that hasn't stopped a public debate that exploded in the wake of the 66-year-old jurist's Wednesday decision. Most of the criticism has come from opponents of same-sex marriage.
"Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution," said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund the ban, known as Proposition 8.
In response, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political action committee for gay candidates, launched an online petition accusing Gallagher's group of "gay-baiting."
But the debate raises the question: Why is sexuality different from other personal characteristics judges posses? Can a female judge rule on abortion issues? A black judge on civil rights?
"The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal," Walker wrote in his exacting, 136-page opinion.
Gerard Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, published a Fox News column in the hours before Walker filed his opinion faulting the media for not forcing Walker to address his sexual orientation.
And Byran Fischer, issues director for the American Family Association, urged the group's members to contact their congressional representatives about launching impeachment proceedings because Walker had not recused himself from a case in which "his own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling."
William G. Ross, an expert on judicial ethics and law professor at Samford University in Alabama, said that a judge's sexual orientation has no more relevance to his or her ability to rule fairly on a case involving gay marriage than it would for a deeply religious judge or a judge who had been divorced multiple times.
"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.
Months before Walker struck down Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of gay Americans' civil rights, members of the team defending the ban in court had complained about what they perceived as judicial bias.
Over their vigorous objections, Walker pushed to have the proceedings televised live, a plan the U.S. Supreme Court quashed at the last minute. Then, he refused to excuse as a witness a Proposition 8 supporter who had compared gays to child molesters during the 2008 campaign. Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the ban had called him as a witness to try to prove the measure was fueled by anti-gay prejudice.
Nevertheless, the defense does not plan to raise the specter of the judge's sexual orientation as they appeal his ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Jim Campbell, a lawyer with the defense team.
"The bottom line is this case, from our perspective, is and always will be about the law and not about the judge who decides it," Campbell said. "It's just something that collectively as a legal team we have decided and going up, that's what this case is. The appellate courts are going to focus on the law."
Walker has ruled in at least two other cases involving gay rights issues during his two decades as a judge. In 1999, he rejected arguments from the parents of a San Leandro boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son's teacher had made in the classroom.
In the other case, he dismissed a free speech claim by two Oakland city employees whose managers had confiscated a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted "natural family, marriage and family values." The city had "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals," Walker wrote in his 2005 ruling.
Until this week, though, Walker had come under more criticism for representing the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit against a gay ex-Olympian who had created the so-called Gay Olympics. Walker won, forcing the Gay Olympics to become the Gay Games. He also aggressively pursued legal fees by attaching a $97,000 lien to the home of the organization's founder while he was dying of AIDS.
Gay activists cried foul, and his appointment to a federal judgeship was delayed for two years in the waning days of Ronald Reagan's presidency.
Civil rights groups also opposed Walker's nomination because of his 15-year membership in the Olympic Club, an all-male athletic club that had only recently admitted its first black members. California's senior senator at the time, Democrat Alan Cranston, used the club issue to question Walker's fitness for the bench.
Observers usually describe him as a maverick who delights in keeping people guessing. They still are.
On the day of closing arguments in the gay marriage ban case, Walker said it was appropriate that the case was wrapping up in June.
"June, after all, is the month for ... " He let his deep voice trail off, and smiled at the predominantly gay courtroom. Many froze, wondering if he would refer to the month in which San Francisco celebrates gay pride like Mardi Gras. Would that be a nod to rumors he was gay?
Walker waited a beat longer, savoring the moment. The he settled the suspense.
"... weddings," he said.
Comments
In order to contextualize the views of over-the-top "thinkers" like Maggie Gallagher one should keep in mind the following about our beloved Founding Fathers. Amongst the things that would have shocked them would have been a popularly elected Senate. If the modern world can deal with the likes of Sharon Angle running for Senator, then certainly it can deal with two guys loving each other.
And by the way, by word and demeanor let us understand Ms. Gallagher for what she is truly, a thug.
Posted by: Peter Paul Fuchs | August 6, 2010 5:14 PM
So ... I guess, were Judge Walker heterosexual (and I don't think his sexuality is a matter of public record in any event), this would also disqualify him...'cause, after all it would predispose him in another direction.
In Maggie Gallagher's world, only straight white Christian men are without prejudice.
Just bizarre.
Posted by: BankStreet | August 6, 2010 7:22 PM
Good point, BankStreet,
and if you extend out the thought a bit you come to this. The implication of Maggie Gallagher's focus on his sexuality leads to logically to another assumption. If somehow his sexuality -- which of course has not been verified one bit to my knowledge! - were a a prima facie problem in his deciding of this case, that would mean the same if were sit on a case involving a gay drug dealer, or a gay fraudster, or a gay murderer, etc. Of course that would be ridiculous. Only the most prejudicial nut would suggest that . But this is the implication of Ms Gallagher's point. But Ms. Gallagher who constantly bemoans being treated poorly by her adversaries, in fact engages in the absolutely worst form of demeaning objectifying thought possible. In her world, humorless, and unenlightened, a gay person would not be competent to handle a variety of matters just for being gay.
I want to highlight the connection of Professor Robert George with this awful woman and her intellectual propensities. . George is a man who is clever enough to understand the tendencies of these lines of thought , and yet he participates with them! He is, at this point, a disgusting blot on the very idea of scholarship. He ought to be shamed out of participating in serious discussion in my opinion. . But fortunately he is gradually doing that for himself, having been given some proverbial rope, he is hanging himself.
Posted by: Cultural Historian | August 6, 2010 8:03 PM
Often when a minority of some sort (or a female, who in fact comes from the gender majority) gains a position of power, the majority fears that said person couldn't possibly be fair in issues concerning equality. Of course, only members of the majority can be impartial, they think -- they see themselves as "the norm."
The judge made a cogent, thoughtful, strong ruling, and the pro-prop 8 folks couldn't really come up with anything other than "because that's the way we want it."
Nobody gets turned gay. Or straight. And all attempts to the contrary lead to pain and suffering -- the lesbian who falls for her straight friend will get her heart broken and the friendship will be hurt, the gay guy who marries a women whom he loves as a friend will break both their hearts.
Insisting that homosexuality is wrong or inferior does nothing to stop it. It simply gives playground and grown-up bullies ready-made victims to beat up, makes people hate themselves and each other, forces people to go underground where real love difficult to find, and puts an icy wedge between people and happiness.
As for Christian people who harp on leviticus, but don't follow all the other rules proscribed therein, I think I know why.
1. If you're not gay, it's really easy not to be gay. ("Sure I cheated on my wife that one time, but at least I'm not gay. That would be really bad. Please pass the crab legs.")
2. If you grew up in this country, you know that the worst taunt in Middle School is "faggot." And those who appear to have sympathy for the recipients of this slur are similarly branded.
3. If you are gay, and a Christian of a sort for whom this is a big problem, you crusade against it to keep attention off you while you battle your own "demons." Which aren't really demons at all.
I am a follower of Jesus -- what's not to like? Be good to each other. Take care of each other. Be forgiving and compassionate. Love. In many ways doing the right thing is a lot harder than not doing the wrong thing. I strive to reach out with love, which is not always easy.
I find comfort in a loving, merciful God.
Jesus, who spoke about many different sins, didn't mention homosexuality. Because there wasn't any around for him to make a parable about? Nope. I suggest that it wasn't important to him.
Love is rare enough in this world. Love provides strength and comfort. Love allows us to see beyond ourselves and give generously. We become empathetic. The love I have with my husband does not diminish or demean your love. The love you have for your child does not take away from the love another parent has for her child. Love multiplies.
Those who insist that all love between two men or two women is just about sex are absurd and have closed their hearts to what their eyes see.
Those who seek to repress or oppress love are wasting the most precious gift God has given us.
Posted by: Marf | August 6, 2010 11:14 PM
Here is an example from the ramblings of the lunatic fringe opposing gay marriage. Take note of their logic on another topic, and judge their perspicacity on the gay marriage issue accordingly:
" If a girl becomes the victim of a date rape and takes the morning-after pill, is she excommunicated?.....
And if so, why is she excommunicated and not the rapist?" ---
Rapists are not excommunicated for the same reason that arsonists, embezzlers, rioters, bank robbers, drunk drivers, counterfeiters, polluters, traitors—the list could go on—are not excommunicated: because states adequately punish these crimes. In contrast, abortion has always been difficult for civil authorities to detect and prosecute, and today, most modern nations have simply abandoned preborn babies to abortionists’ fury. The Church steps in to defend as best she can those most vulnerable to being killed."
from:
Edward Peters, Roman Catholic Canon Law specialist.
Posted by: Cultural Historian | August 6, 2010 11:28 PM
I don't care if a surgeon has a good bedside manner, I want him to have a steady hand. I don't care who sleeps next to the judge, as long as he has a good nights' sleep before hearing my case.
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | August 7, 2010 12:48 AM