Since Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, we’ve been waiting for his ruling on whether same sex marriages can resume. Yesterday he ruled that gay marriages can resume starting Aug. 18. The msnbc article indicates that gay and lesbian couples will have to wait until the 18th to give gay marriage opponents time to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unless this higher court imposes a stay, marriages can resume beginning on this date. So the drama continues, as this is sure to go to appeals court.
There is also drama around Judge Vaughn. Some say he should recuse himself. Why? The logic is rather ridiculous but here goes.
John C. Eastman, law professor at Chapman University School of Law had an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle. He says that “the mere fact that Judge Walker may be homosexual would not necessarily have required recusal. But the fact that he “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician,” and may therefore be in a stable homosexual relationship of the kind that could lead to marriage, is an entirely different matter.”
So if he is in a long-term, same-sex relationship, he certainly has an ‘interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding’ – he and his partner are now permitted to marry! – and that, according to Judge Walker’s own finding, has financial benefits as well.”
So according to Eastman, he did not need to recuse himself because he was gay but he should have if he is in a long term relationship and would benefit from throwing out prop 8, so his judgment should be annulled. 
Like J. Marie Witte who wrote an insightful response to this piece, “by this logic, should a female judge of child bearing age recuse herself from any case involving reproductive freedom? Should a judge of color recuse him/herself from a case involving civil rights issues? Should any judge who owns property recuse him/herself from cases involving home ownership?”
She goes on to say that ”the bottom line is few judges have impartiality beyond reproach, regardless of the issue” — on this one, it seems to me that the facts speak for themselves. I am not lawyer to be sure, but read the defense’s case. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that they have strong argument to prevent same sex marriage. Read the Constitution. Read the ruling. It does not take a legal expert to see that not allowing same sex couples is discrimination. Why can’t proponents of prop 8 accept this? Relentless non-acceptance of homosexuality.
It amazes me that this discrimination issue will likely have to taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Going after Judge Vaughn too seems a stretch– like he is the first judge to be affected by an outcome of a ruling…impartiality is a cornerstone of a Judge’s job, and in this case, the facts and the law, not his personal life, clearly drive his rulings.
What do you think?
