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:
10 Comments •
Comments:
I am happily retired from days at the Justice Dept, but I vividly recall that most federal trial judges have jammed dockets, backlogged cases—frequently pressing criminal cases with enforced deadlines. It is staggering to contemplate a federal judge taking time to create this show trial designed apparently for maximum publicity. The basic concept of plaintiffs’ case—I think—that the unavailability under state law of same sex marriage is a denial of (federal) constitutional rights, should have been dealt with as a matter of law, and does not give rise to triable issues of fact. So the very premise of the trial seems absurd.
If the judge is himself homosexual, I think he should have at least given the parties notice, and asked if any party objected to his handling the case. (Maybe he did, and overruled the objection, and sealed the record.)