Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:12 pm

California voters approved Prop 8 way back in 2008, and the legal fight over it is still on. First the constitutional amendment was challenged in California Supreme Court. That court let the amendment stand, but grandfathered in gay marriages that predated the 2008 general election. Then the amendment was challenged in federal court (as a violation of the equal protection clause of the US constitution.) San Francisco US District Court judge Vaughn Walker overturned the proposition citing concerns about due process and equal protection. Anti-equality groups immediately appealed the ruling at the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That case is still being considered by the court of appeals.

In a soap-opera like twist, seven months after his original ruling, Walker admitted to being gay when he retired as a judge. Now proponents of Prop 8 want Walker's ruling thrown out. And the case is being heard in federal district court by an African American judge who asked whether the issue is similar to suggesting black judges can't rule on civil rights issues.

Who needs TV court dramas when you have California to count on?

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:08 pm

Looks like we won't have a redo of Prop 8 on the 2012 ballot. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/13prop.html?_r=3

by Mosquito Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:13 pm

charvaka wrote:California voters approved Prop 8 way back in 2008, and the legal fight over it is still on. First the constitutional amendment was challenged in California Supreme Court. That court let the amendment stand, but grandfathered in gay marriages that predated the 2008 general election. Then the amendment was challenged in federal court (as a violation of the equal protection clause of the US constitution.) San Francisco US District Court judge Vaughn Walker overturned the proposition citing concerns about due process and equal protection. Anti-equality groups immediately appealed the ruling at the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That case is still being considered by the court of appeals.

In a soap-opera like twist, seven months after his original ruling, Walker admitted to being gay when he retired as a judge. Now proponents of Prop 8 want Walker's ruling thrown out. And the case is being heard in federal district court by an African American judge who asked whether the issue is similar to suggesting black judges can't rule on civil rights issues.

Who needs TV court dramas when you have California to count on?

Walker was openly gay. Prop-8 opponents didnt object to it that time.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:28 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:Walker was openly gay. Prop-8 opponents didnt object to it that time.

I don't think so. NPR said this morning that he publicly mentioned his gay partner only on retirement. Wikipedia says the same thing. This Reuters report from April confirms that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/gaymarriage-judge-idUSN0625669220110406

BTW, I support Walker's decision to hear this case. I don't believe he needed to recuse himself.

by charvaka Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:31 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:Walker was openly gay.

I don't think so. NPR said this morning that he publicly mentioned his gay partner only after retirement. Wikipedia and this Reuters story say the same thing: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/gaymarriage-judge-idUSN0625669220110406

BTW, I think Walker made the right call in not recusing himself. He didn't need to recuse himself any more than a woman judge needs to recuse herself from a gender discrimination lawsuit.

by Mosquito Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:Walker was openly gay.
I don't think so. NPR said this morning that he publicly mentioned his gay partner only after retirement. Wikipedia and this Reuters story say the same thing: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/gaymarriage-judge-idUSN0625669220110406

BTW, I think Walker made the right call in not recusing himself. He didn't need to recuse himself any more than a woman judge needs to recuse herself from a gender discrimination lawsuit.

I remember hearing it on Forum that Judge Walker was gay the day after judgement came out. Wikipedia says otherwise. I will post the link if I find that podcast. I am with you he not having to recuse himself.

by Mosquito Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:28 pm

Here is the article about his sexual orientation published in Feb 2010.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-09/opinion/17872020_1_anti-gay-san-francisco-gay-olympic-games

by Sponsored content

Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts

Re: Proposition 8: a tragicomedy in n+1 acts