Battle over Proposition 8 judge's sam...

Battle over Proposition 8 judge's same-sex relationship heads to court

There are 256 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Jun 12, 2011, titled Battle over Proposition 8 judge's same-sex relationship heads to court. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

For years, former San Francisco Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a same-sex relationship with a doctor, attending court functions with him and hardly treating it as a secret within the Bay Area legal community.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 13
Next Last
Christina

Mesa, AZ

#1 Jun 12, 2011
This is such bull, leave the man alone. So what if he's gay, he's more than qualified as a judge and that's all that matters.
Family Law Scholar

Roy, WA

#2 Jun 12, 2011
Homosexuals are un-qualified to rule on such cases as they stand to benefit personally.
Conflict-of-interest.
Homosexuals have no place in any official capacity where they might invent new rules in their favor, as this notorious and blatant pervert Walker did in ignoring the CA constitution and the voters.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#3 Jun 12, 2011
What's interesting about this article is Richard Painter's legal opinion the ruling was in error because that's rat making a biased comment BIG time.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#4 Jun 12, 2011
Family Law Scholar wrote:
Homosexuals are un-qualified to rule on such cases as they stand to benefit personally.
Conflict-of-interest.
Homosexuals have no place in any official capacity where they might invent new rules in their favor, as this notorious and blatant pervert Walker did in ignoring the CA constitution and the voters.
Wow, can we maybe spot the closet case?

I guess you're not bright enough to figure out if you're the 2nd person to post on a LGBT forum then it's a sure sign you're trolling these threads 24/7 and have major, major issues.

btw, is it helping? Do you feel any less gay by posting here and trying to convince yourself you're not gay at all?

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#5 Jun 12, 2011
The great majority of the experts agree that this motion to vacate Judge Walker's decision is spurious and unlikely to succeed. I suspect that it is simply an act of desperation and will make the proponents look really bad (worse than they already do).

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6 Jun 12, 2011
Family Law Scholar wrote:
(nothing worth repeating)
By what you attempt to pass off as logic here, a heterosexual would be even more unqualified to rule in this case, because it had been argued that all heterosexuals received a direct benefit from the prohibition of same sex marriages. A heterosexual's conflict of interest in the outcome of this case would be far more obvious and far more egregious, if he or she were to rule in favor of the amendment. By your "logic" the only qualified judge would be one who could attest that they were and always had been completely asexual. You call yourself a "Scholar", when all you really are is a complete idiot.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#7 Jun 12, 2011
btw, I did a quick Google search as to how Prop 8 could legally be upheld but didn't find much.

Anyone?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Jun 12, 2011
McMike wrote:
btw, I did a quick Google search as to how Prop 8 could legally be upheld but didn't find much.
Anyone?
The best outcome that the proponents can get from this hearing is a do-over on the trial and the case would be heard again by a new Judge. IF the Judge hearing the motion tomorrow were to determine that Walker was biased in his ruling, the case goes back to square one, except for the appeal of what would be an incredibly ridiculous ruling.

“Queer love is here to stay.”

Since: May 07

Los Angeles

#9 Jun 12, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>By what you attempt to pass off as logic here, a heterosexual would be even more unqualified to rule in this case, because it had been argued that all heterosexuals received a direct benefit from the prohibition of same sex marriages. A heterosexual's conflict of interest in the outcome of this case would be far more obvious and far more egregious, if he or she were to rule in favor of the amendment. By your "logic" the only qualified judge would be one who could attest that they were and always had been completely asexual. You call yourself a "Scholar", when all you really are is a complete idiot.
The attornies who are making this ridiculous argument are actually proving that unconstitutional bias does exist and that Prop 8 deserves to be tossed.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#10 Jun 12, 2011
The proponents of Prop 8 could have asked Judge Walker to recuse himself in pre-trial motions when it was first rumored that he might be Gay......but this stunt is nothing more than a ploy to try and get the ruling tossed because they know that they have lost on appeal!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#11 Jun 12, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The best outcome that the proponents can get from this hearing is a do-over on the trial and the case would be heard again by a new Judge. IF the Judge hearing the motion tomorrow were to determine that Walker was biased in his ruling, the case goes back to square one, except for the appeal of what would be an incredibly ridiculous ruling.
Do you seriously believe that Judge Ware is going to grant this motion by the proponents? I doubt he will......there truly is no grounds for it and IF he did......he would be setting up a real mess in the Court system!!!

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#12 Jun 13, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The best outcome that the proponents can get from this hearing is a do-over on the trial and the case would be heard again by a new Judge. IF the Judge hearing the motion tomorrow were to determine that Walker was biased in his ruling, the case goes back to square one, except for the appeal of what would be an incredibly ridiculous ruling.
What I meant to ask is how could Prop 8 be upheld legally? I'm sure there could be some way but the trail was so lop-sided with the Prop 8 supporters having no evidence what-so-ever.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Jun 13, 2011
The Golem wrote:
The attornies who are making this ridiculous argument are actually proving that unconstitutional bias does exist and that Prop 8 deserves to be tossed.
If I were among the proponents, I'd seriously be questioning why we ever hired Cooper & company to make our case for us. This has to be the most self-defeating argument that I have ever heard. If they prove that as a homosexual, Walker is biased and personally benefits from the amendment being overturned, they prove that the intent of the amendment was to do harm to homosexuals like Walker to begin with. All they will succeed in doing is winning a right to a new trial, but by doing so, proving the central tenet of the plaintiffs case even before it begins.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14 Jun 13, 2011
RnL2008 wrote:
Do you seriously believe that Judge Ware is going to grant this motion by the proponents? I doubt he will......there truly is no grounds for it and IF he did......he would be setting up a real mess in the Court system!!!
Only if he is the single most incompetent person ever appointed to the federal bench or has completely lost his mind. This is the single most absurd and downright obscene legal argument ever raised and why they are doing it in the first place almost makes me wonder if they are trying to set up a competence of counsel appeal. This doesn't stand a prayer and will be given the sound judicial beat down that it deserves. I doubt that it will even be appealed by the proponents when they lose, it was an act of supreme desperation and once they get their head handed to them on it by Ware, they are going to scurry off with their tails between their legs on this one.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Jun 13, 2011
McMike wrote:
What I meant to ask is how could Prop 8 be upheld legally? I'm sure there could be some way but the trail was so lop-sided with the Prop 8 supporters having no evidence what-so-ever.
The only things which are keeping the Amendment from being declared dead right now are completely tangential issues, like this one and the question of whether the proponents have anything resembling standing to appeal. It remains on life support until the Appeals Court panel finds itself without any possible way of avoiding having to sign off on Walker's death certificate for it. Once the Cali Supremes reject the standing issue, there will be no more wriggle room and they will have to sign off on what Walker found. The ONLY way that any way can be conjured up for the Amendment to be upheld is if the Appeal hearing actually took place and technically it still hasn't.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#17 Jun 13, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only if he is the single most incompetent person ever appointed to the federal bench or has completely lost his mind. This is the single most absurd and downright obscene legal argument ever raised and why they are doing it in the first place almost makes me wonder if they are trying to set up a competence of counsel appeal. This doesn't stand a prayer and will be given the sound judicial beat down that it deserves. I doubt that it will even be appealed by the proponents when they lose, it was an act of supreme desperation and once they get their head handed to them on it by Ware, they are going to scurry off with their tails between their legs on this one.
I totally agree with your viewpoint........in fact, I believe that this WAS their only hope in keeping the video sealed and trying to keep Prop 8 in place......it could seriously have the opposite effect on them!!!

I mean if Judge Ware does toss them out on their collective azzes........this could also lead to the CSSC doing the same with the Standing issue, don't ya think?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#18 Jun 13, 2011
So all judges ruling over a gay rights case have to be straight? Where does it say that in the law?
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#19 Jun 13, 2011
AquariusNSF wrote:
The great majority of the experts agree that this motion to vacate Judge Walker's decision is spurious and unlikely to succeed. I suspect that it is simply an act of desperation and will make the proponents look really bad (worse than they already do).
I agree. It's a nonsensical argument. Following their logic, a Protestant judge could not preside over cases involving Protestants, black judges couldn't preside over cases involving black people, divorced judges couldn't preside over divorce cases, etc.

It's nonsensical and shows how desparate these nuts really are.

“Queer love is here to stay.”

Since: May 07

Los Angeles

#20 Jun 13, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. It's a nonsensical argument. Following their logic, a Protestant judge could not preside over cases involving Protestants, black judges couldn't preside over cases involving black people, divorced judges couldn't preside over divorce cases, etc.
It's nonsensical and shows how desparate these nuts really are.
Hell, human judges should not be allowed to make any rulings that favor humans over animals. What judge allowed euthanasia for animals but not humans? Doesn't he stand to gain by such a decision?

Oh that's right. Cooper is a potted plant.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23 Jun 13, 2011
Family Law Scholar wrote:
Homosexuals are un-qualified to rule on such cases as they stand to benefit personally.
Conflict-of-interest.
Homosexuals have no place in any official capacity where they might invent new rules in their favor, as this notorious and blatant pervert Walker did in ignoring the CA constitution and the voters.
Heterosexuals are un-qualified to rule on such cases as they stand to benefit personally.
Conflict-of-interest.
Heterosexuals have no place in any official capacity where they might invent new rules in their favor, as this notorious and blatant pervert Walker did in ignoring the CA constitution and the voters.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Davis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sheriff's Dept.: Suspect ID'd in July stabbing ... (Aug '10) Aug 22 Primo 11
News 7 amazingly weird things that happen to your bo... Aug 20 brandon 10
roaring sound early evenings or late at night -... (Mar '13) Aug 19 Robert lindley drive 11
News Dixon Unified School District leaders poised to... Aug 4 Birds Landing Bob 1
News California to certify low primary turnout, Clin... Jul '16 Just Sayin 8
News UPS employee dies in workplace collision (Jan '16) Jul '16 crash 8
News Officials: Solano residents can expect roads to... Jul '16 Birds Landing Bob 1

Davis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Davis Mortgages