Does being gay make you more biased than being straight? Take our poll at the end of the story.
A federal judge's ruling that struck down California's gay marriage ban should be vacated because he recently disclosed his own longtime same-sex relationship, supporters of the state's Proposition 8 argued in a Monday court filing.
Though it was widely speculated in San Francisco's legal community that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was gay, his public acknowledgment this month of a decade-long relationship with a man prompted the coalition of religious groups that pushed for the ban to challenge the ruling he made last summer. Walker's relationship, and not his sexual orientation, they say, suggests that he had a personal stake in seeing the ban overturned and that his "impartiality might reasonably have been questioned from the outset" -- a requirement for recusal under federal law.
"If at any time while this case was pending before him, Chief Judge Walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding," wrote lawyers for the coalition, known as Protect Marriage.
Vaughn, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush and retired in February, told reporters earlier this month that he had never considered recusing himself from the case because recusals based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality or other elements of a judge's background are "a very slippery slope."
Though speculation over Walker's sexuality swirled from the case's outset, it was not until Monday's filing that Protect Marriage began to publicly question the judge's partiality. In the past, the group said that any efforts to get Walker's ruling overturned would be based on the merits of the case and not the judge's potential conflict of interest.
"The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice," Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, said in a statement. "Judge Walker's ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires. He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case. These circumstances demand setting aside his decision."
To supporters of Walker's ruling, the filing is just the latest in "a string of desperate and absurd motions by the Proposition 8 proponents who refuse to accept their loss in district court," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the lead plaintiff in the case. "They're attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision."
The Obama administration, Griffin noted, decided earlier this year to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act after determining that it was unconstitutional. Responsibility for defending the law has since fallen to the House of Representatives, though the top law firm representing the House announced Monday that it was dropping the case. The lawyer leading the case quickly followed up, saying that he was leaving the firm for one that would take on the controversial issue.
Protect Marriage is leading the charge on defending Prop. 8 because former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and current Gov. Jerry Brown (D) both oppose it, and have refused to permit the state's attorneys to defend it.
Protect Marriage had already appealed Walker's ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has, in turn, asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the group has the legal standing to defend ballot measures in court. The state high court's ruling is expected this year.
