Is Prop 8 Trial Judge Gay? Far Right Accuses Him of Bias

The noise machine of the far right always needs to have an excuse that explains away a possible justified loss in their campaign to turn the USA into a theocracy. In this case, it's allegations that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay, and therefore incapable of making an unbiased ruling in the pending Prop 8 trial in San Francisco. The source of the allegation? A San Francisco Chronicle column that says the judge is gay even thought there is no proof on the issue one way or another. Like most federal judges - I have two former law partners on the federal bench - Walker keeps his personal life private and avoids politics. Nonetheless, the National Review is launching what will likely be a tidal wave of allegations against a ruling rightfully striking down Proposition 8 now that the evidence clearly documents anti-gay animus. Here are highlights from the attack on Walker"

*
According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”
*
In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.
*
From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:
*
Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.
*
Of course, using this type of analysis means that black judges cannot hear cases involving black litigants, that women judges cannot hear cases where a woman or women's organization is a party, and that - God forbid - Christian judges cannot hear cases involving church state issues. I guess Antonin Scalia had better start recusing himself frequently. Ditto Clarence Thomas. Since they see all issues through a Christianist prism, they certainly cannot be unbiased.