Attorneys standing up for Californians who voted for marriage (Prop 8) in 2008, have filed a court motion asking the ruling by the homosexual judge against marriage be over-ruled.
For background, read Homosexual Judge Rules for Same-sex 'Marriage' in California and also read Homosexual Judge Says Children Don't Need Parents
UPDATE 2/7/12: U.S. Court of Appeals for 9th Circuit upholds biased ruling saying citizens can't define marriage as one-man-one-woman; appeal to Supreme Court inevitable
UPDATE 6/27/11: Prop 8 backers appeal ruling favoring homosexual judge
UPDATE 6/14/11: "Gay Judge" ruling upheld by successor Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware
-- From "Proposition 8 backers: Gay judge's ruling should be thrown out" by Ashley Hayes, CNN 4/26/11
Supporters of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, are asking that a judge's injunction barring the measure's enforcement be thrown out because the judge failed to disclose his involvement in a long-term same-sex relationship.
In August, then-U.S. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the measure violates the Constitution's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker wrote in his 136-page opinion.
But on April 6, Walker ended months of speculation by publicly disclosing "that he is gay and that he has been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years," said a motion filed Monday by Proposition 8 backers. In previous press reports, according to the motion, Walker refused comment on his sexual orientation.
While the press reports do not address the question of whether Walker and his partner have any interest in marrying, the motion said, Walker should have either recused himself from the case or disclosed his sexual orientation "so that the parties could consider and decide, before the case proceeded further, whether to request his recusal."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Prop. 8 backers: Walker shouldn't have judged case" by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
"No man can be a judge in his own case," said Charles Cooper, lawyer for the opponents of same-sex marriage. Because Walker has never disavowed the possibility that he will marry his partner, he had a "clear and direct stake in the outcome" of his own ruling, Cooper said.
He asked the San Francisco district's new chief judge, James Ware, who has inherited Walker's cases, to set aside the Aug. 4 decision declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Cooper's clients, a religious coalition called Protect Marriage, are also appealing the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Chronicle first disclosed Walker's sexual orientation during the trial, a fact he had neither discussed publicly nor tried to conceal. The 67-year-old judge retired from the bench in February, then met with reporters April 6 and discussed the case and his longtime partner.
Walker said he considered his sexual orientation irrelevant to the case and noted that neither side had asked him to step down after The Chronicle's article appeared.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay-marriage foes: Judge was biased" by Jennifer Epstein, Politico 4/26/11
“The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice,” Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, said in a statement. “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.”
Protect Marriage is leading the charge on defending Prop. 8 because former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and current Gov. Jerry Brown (D) both oppose it, and have refused to permit the state’s attorneys to defend it.
Protect Marriage had already appealed Walker’s ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has, in turn, asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the group has the legal standing to defend ballot measures in court. The state high court’s ruling is expected this year.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read California Homosexualists Fear Public Opinion
