The folks at the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") has been having the vapors and convulsions since the San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece over the weekend reporting that Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker who is presiding over the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the U. S. Constitution. In a missive from Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher's minion at NOM and one who is making a nice living off of the teet of homophobia, to fellow Christo-fascists Judge Walker is accused of all kinds of bias when in reality all that occurred at the trial was a fair exposure of the real religious and animus motivated campaign to pass Proposition 8. Among Brown's allegations are the following:*
He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That’s no secret at all. Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment. But Judge Walker’s bias from the bench includes:
*
A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant “fishing expeditions” into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn’t six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
*
A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant “fishing expeditions” into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn’t six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
*
Of course, Brown's rants are without foundation as Karen Ocamb points out in a great post that counters the BS being disseminated by NOM. Here are some highlights from Karen's post:
*
After all, if Walker’s sexual orientation is an issue in him deciding an LGBT-related case, well then, what about a straight judge who’s been divorced judging a case involving marital relations? Indeed, US Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas would have to recuse himself from any case involving gender equality or sexual harassment.
*
Brown seemed to miss this part of the Chronicle story, regarding Walker’s supposedly automatic bias in favor of gays: “Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.
Of course, Brown's rants are without foundation as Karen Ocamb points out in a great post that counters the BS being disseminated by NOM. Here are some highlights from Karen's post:
*
After all, if Walker’s sexual orientation is an issue in him deciding an LGBT-related case, well then, what about a straight judge who’s been divorced judging a case involving marital relations? Indeed, US Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas would have to recuse himself from any case involving gender equality or sexual harassment.
*
Brown seemed to miss this part of the Chronicle story, regarding Walker’s supposedly automatic bias in favor of gays: “Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.
*
“Life is full of irony,” the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.” Brown is just plain wrong when it comes to Walker being one-side throughout the trial. Even before the trial began, Walker – who was randomly selected to preside – denied the attempt by LGBT groups such as Lambda Legal to intervene in the case.
*
“Life is full of irony,” the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.” Brown is just plain wrong when it comes to Walker being one-side throughout the trial. Even before the trial began, Walker – who was randomly selected to preside – denied the attempt by LGBT groups such as Lambda Legal to intervene in the case.
*
Also chiming in on the issue is an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that disagrees with the hysterical allegeations at NOM. The bottom line is that NOM cares nothing for the truth and it's all about forcing conformity with one set of religious beliefs on all. Here are column highlights:
*
In the circle of lawyers and judges I know, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is a giant. He is a brilliant jurist, legal eagles will tell you, who has insightful, and often unexpected, opinions. He's funny and charming - and he's gay.
*
Until Sunday, it seemed inevitable that however Walker ruled, the losing side would bring up his sexual orientation. If he overturned the measure, losers would hit the conservative media to argue that with a gay judge presiding, the fix was in from the start. If Walker upheld the measure, angry gay activists would denounce him as a self-loathing turncoat. Now, whatever Walker decides, the public can't complain that he had a sub rosa agenda.
*
There are strong reasons not to [ave Walker recuse himself]. After all, at The Chronicle, gay reporters can and do cover gay issues with the advantage of personal insight. Some might claim that they are biased, but it's not as if there is a neutral identity - straight? white? male? - that is free from bias. And where does it end? Should a Mormon judge have to recuse himself? A devout Catholic?
*
In my view, Walker acted appropriately in building a case transcript that documents the real agenda of the proponents of Proposition 8 and, more importantly, their inability to show in any manner how CIVIL LAW same sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage.
In the circle of lawyers and judges I know, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is a giant. He is a brilliant jurist, legal eagles will tell you, who has insightful, and often unexpected, opinions. He's funny and charming - and he's gay.
*
Until Sunday, it seemed inevitable that however Walker ruled, the losing side would bring up his sexual orientation. If he overturned the measure, losers would hit the conservative media to argue that with a gay judge presiding, the fix was in from the start. If Walker upheld the measure, angry gay activists would denounce him as a self-loathing turncoat. Now, whatever Walker decides, the public can't complain that he had a sub rosa agenda.
*
There are strong reasons not to [ave Walker recuse himself]. After all, at The Chronicle, gay reporters can and do cover gay issues with the advantage of personal insight. Some might claim that they are biased, but it's not as if there is a neutral identity - straight? white? male? - that is free from bias. And where does it end? Should a Mormon judge have to recuse himself? A devout Catholic?
*
In my view, Walker acted appropriately in building a case transcript that documents the real agenda of the proponents of Proposition 8 and, more importantly, their inability to show in any manner how CIVIL LAW same sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment