3118
(0 votes, average 0 out of 5)
Written by Lisa Neff, Staff writer
Jun 16, 2011
Now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker. – Photo: Courtesy
A federal district judge in San Francisco denied on June 14 a motion to vacate a ruling that declared unconstitutional the anti-gay Proposition 8.
The defenders of California’s Prop 8 argued the day before that a federal ruling overturning the ballot measure should be vacated because the now-retired judge on the case is in a long-term same-sex relationship and might want to get married.
A majority of California voters approved the constitutional amendment in November 2008, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and bringing to a halt same-sex marriages in the state.
But by August 2010, then-U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and “gravely harmful.”
Prop 8 proponents have challenged Walker’s ruling at the appeals court level. They also filed a motion to have Walker’s ruling vacated, alleging that the judge couldn’t be impartial because he’s gay and might someday benefit personally by overturning Prop 8.
California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris responded in court, stating, “Courts have seen such recusal requests for what they are: thinly veiled attempts to disqualify judges based on their race, gender, religious affiliation, or in this case, sexual orientation.”
The attorneys for the American Federation for Equal Rights, the group that has funded the court battle against Prop 8, called the motion “an utterly baseless attack on the integrity of the judicial system, on then-Chief Judge Walker, and on all gay and lesbian jurists who faithfully perform their duties and decide cases across this country each day.”
The AFER team said Walker issued his ruling against Prop 8 after a 12-day trial in which those defending the measure called only two witnesses to rebuff the plaintiff’s 17 witnesses.
A day after arguments on the motion, U.S. District Court Judge James S. Ware rejected the motion, finding that Walker justly presided over the Prop 8 case.
Ware wrote, “The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with, other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification.”
He also stated, “Such a standard would come dangerously close to holding that minority judges must disqualify themselves from all major civil rights actions.”
Ware’s rejection of the motion led AFER president Chad Griffin to assert, “Prop 8 is hanging by a thread.”
