More

Judge Vaughn Walker, Who Struck Down Prop 8, Never Considered Recusing Himself From Case Due To His Own Homosexuality

Prop 8 Judge

First Posted: 04/06/11 08:54 PM ET Updated: 06/06/11 06:12 AM ET

April 6, 2011 11:33:59 PM

By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban never considered his own homosexuality as a reason to recuse himself from the case, he said Wednesday.

Former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's comments were his first on what legal observers have been been intensely -- but quietly -- discussing since the blockbuster case was filed. Some wondered whether his sexual orientation would affect his decision and how it would be received.

However the group defending California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, refrained from raising the issue in court. Walker eventually struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.

The Republican-nominated judge, who had a stormy history with the local gay community, calmly controlled his courtroom during the trial, adding dollops of humor as well.

The case could set national policy if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and is being watched throughout the nation, where same-sex marriage is legal in only five of 50 states.

Gay rights advocates won a major victory late last year when a ban on gays serving in the U.S. military was overturned in Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Walker retired at the end of February, and he talked with a handful of reporters about issues like the Prop 8 case, cameras in the court, and his once-strained relationship with San Francisco's gay community.

It would not be appropriate for any judge's sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case, he said.

``That's a very slippery slope,'' Walker said.

Walker had never previously discussed his sexual orientation in the press, but on Wednesday said he was in a 10-year relationship with a physician.

A Midwesterner, Walker was born in 1944 in Watseka, Illinois, about 90 miles south of Chicago. He worked for years at one of San Francisco's top law firms before being nominated to the federal bench in 1989 by George H.W. Bush.

Seated at a table in a charcoal suit with a white handkerchief, Walker remembered how the gay community had once vilified his nomination to the federal bench.

As a lawyer, Walker represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a bid to prevent a local gay group from calling itself the 'Gay Olympics.' Walker put a lien on the house of the founder of the group who was dying of AIDS. On Wednesday he said he had just tried to be a successful advocate for his client.

``I was the ogre of the gay community when I was nominated, and a hero when I leave,'' he said.

Walker made for an unpredictable jurist, ruling against the government in a widely watched state secrets case. In another matter that has become lore at the San Francisco federal courthouse, Walker sentenced a mail thief to stand outside a post office, carrying a sign with the words: ``I stole mail. This is my punishment.''

During the Prop 8 trial, one witness said an anti-gay marriage ad -- featuring a man, woman and child -- depicted a ''heterosexual'' couple. ``How do you know they're heterosexual?'' Walker deadpanned, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

Walker also tried to push the boundaries of courtroom protocol by permitting cameras, but the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed it.

``A pretty extraordinary decision,'' Walker said of the ruling, adding that cases like Prop 8 -- and the recent criminal perjury trial involving baseball home run king Barry Bonds -- should be available on video.

Walker served as chief judge in the Northern District of California for six years before retiring. He said he would open a law practice focusing on alternative dispute resolution and counseling clients on litigation risk.

As for the Prop 8 case, Walker said he had little regret.

``I'm glad that we had the trial,'' he said. ``I think that was the way to air these issues and get them on the table.'' (Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Peter Henderson, Sandra Maler and Eric Walsh)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST LOS ANGELES

April 6, 2011 11:33:59 PM By Dan Levine SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban never considered his own homosexuality as a reason to recuse hi...
April 6, 2011 11:33:59 PM By Dan Levine SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban never considered his own homosexuality as a reason to recuse hi...
Filed by Adam Goldberg  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 885
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
11:07 PM on 04/26/2011
By the bigots logic, any hetero judge should have recused him/herself on the grounds that hetero marriage was being threatened by gay marriage, unless of course, their entire argument is bunk.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
07:33 PM on 04/26/2011
I dont understand conservatives. They make such a big deal about abortion and gay marriage, you would think they want big governement to force their views upon people! Get ith the times , there are too many people in this world as it is , to wrorry about fetuses!! We should be en- forcing birth control big time! How about getting with the times, old white folks just want to stick to h their past hatreds instead of evolving and moving forward adapting to new info and science and a new generation of more urgent problems we should be worrying and doing something about like climate change!, new energy sources.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coloradem
Christian, Gay, Democrat
04:12 PM on 04/07/2011
Walker should no more recuse himself from this case than anyone who is straight should recuse themselves from it.

Frankly it is absurd that he was even asked the question....
07:26 PM on 04/11/2011
I think most people get this. There were only a few arch conservatives (i.e., psychos who'll say anything) that made a fuss about this months ago, when it was all still just speculation. I haven't seen any serious commentary on it since...which I think idicates they realized they were on really thin ice and WAY out of step.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knight7se7en
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger....
01:17 PM on 04/07/2011
I suppose Thurgood Marshall should have been silent during the Civil Rights Movement.
01:15 PM on 04/07/2011
I can't respond to everyone who is apparently angry with my comments on this issue - I just don't have time and the posting system doesn't really allow for lengthy individual threads, but I would ask you to take a look at my responses to a couple of posters to get a fuller idea of my opinion on this issue. In a nutshell, I think a judge should be like Caesar's wife - above any suspicion. There should be no appearance or hopefully, reality, of bias in making decisions. Therefore ANY judge who has a history of activism or strong opinions in a field, or who stands to benefit in any way, present or future, should definitely recuse themselves from any case where their personal bias could be called into question. I used specifically the case of Christian evangelical judges who should recuse themselves on any matters relating to faith based issues. The same would be true of an activist atheist.

Judges must be - and SEEM to be - as free of bias as possible - otherwise their decisions will always be suspect and in question. As indeed, is the case here.

The ultimate answer to the issue of gay marriage is to change the culture, which is happening - not to rely on the courts to overrule popular law. That is actually a subversion of democracy. Change the culture itself....don't try to enforce it from the courts. The problem then just goes underground and re-emerges more strongly at
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipB
02:10 PM on 04/07/2011
The only credible criticism of the decision comes from legal scholars (who have in reviewing the decision have lauded it for its rigorous approach and superb reasoning and application)
The anti gay groups who exists solely to deny constitutional protections to same sex couples are in fact far more biased that the overwhelming positive response on strictly legal terms of the actual decision by legal scholars, Prof. of law, etc
The only reason anti-gay groups attack Walker personally is that they can find no holes in the decision.
Also, I want my full citizenship, the ability to marry, federal protections for married coupoles like automatic inheritance rather than costly probate, Social security benefits and many other estate issues not at the whim of the public. I could care less what someone thinks of us, just as long as we have the same protections and benefits and my straight neighbors. I am not going to wait for the mood to change, or try to say pretty please for my rights.
On the other point
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:13 PM on 04/07/2011
Judge Walker has demonstrated no injudicial bias, and to treat his legitimacy differently simply because he is gay would be the same as barring hetero male judges (or female judges, thus ALL judges) from cases involving hetero couple disputes against the husbands. This is an absurd suggestion, based only on the prejudice in a position that "sees" bias in gays more than it "sees" bias in straights. Which is also absurd, of course. There is no argument against Judge Walker's legitimacy to rule the matter simply because of his sexuality, and to yield to simple social bigotry or prejudice in this matter is beneath the standards of a proper democratic judicial system.
11:39 AM on 04/26/2011
Not so. His point was simply that Walker was part of the "injured" class and was a direct benneficiary of the decision. A hetero judge rulling on a hetero couples dispute is not a direct benneficiary of the outcome.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lark817
expat in Mexico
01:14 PM on 04/07/2011
That's ridiculous. Should hetero judges recuse themselves from all hetero divorce cases?
Oneandoneandone
Professional Spitfire
02:31 PM on 04/07/2011
My thoughts exactly. Faved.
12:09 PM on 04/26/2011
If they are somehow a direct beneficiary of the outcome then the question should be raised. At least the possible conflict should be disclosed.
01:07 PM on 04/07/2011
While there was no video, transcripts of the prop 8 case were posted online, as was the final ruling.

It read like a well run and well thought out trial, and Walker's commentary on what qualifies someone as an expert are instructive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:53 PM on 04/07/2011
Let's face it. We all have bias. We're human.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Seymoreclearly
Get your info from more than one source!
12:53 PM on 04/07/2011
Just because he's gay, he should have recused himself? Who is better qualified to fully comprehend the issue of gay marriage -a straight judge? Gimme a break. I suppose that's what opponents of gay marriage would have us believe.
12:43 PM on 04/07/2011
Here's the thing: one recuses oneself if one has reason to be biased, such as a vested interest in the outcome. But if they're arguing that a gay judge should recuse himself because he has an interest in the outcome of the case, then it would logically follow that a heterosexual judge does not have an interest in the outcome of the case.

And if that is true, then what they are basically arguing is that the only people affected by gay marriage being legal are gay people.

So either the judge shouldn't recuse himself because he has no more reason to be biased than a straight judge, or he should recuse himself, and the case should be thrown out on the grounds that it's targeting one specific group, which is unconstitutional.
12:35 PM on 04/07/2011
It was a well written decision and I am glad he did not recluse himself. Moreover although I am in complete disagreement with their viewpoint I think it showed a measure of class by the supporters for Prop 8 that they did not bring up the judge's homosexuality in the case. I have seen lawyers attempt to remove judges for much more tenuous reasons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:41 AM on 04/24/2011
Oh they brought it up alright. If you read more about them you'll also there is no class among them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sociologyst
12:33 PM on 04/07/2011
I don't see how a straight person would have been any less "biased." It's amazing how Walker's sexuality is an issue here. I mean, if we are using this logic, the only reasonable judge to use would be a bisexual/pansexual/or queer person...
Oneandoneandone
Professional Spitfire
02:50 PM on 04/07/2011
Having a sexual orientation at all makes you biased if you follow their line of "reasoning." I think Walker's ruling shows that he did not let any personal bias he may have had impact his decision.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sociologyst
12:20 PM on 04/08/2011
I couldn't agree more with you. I think he did a very good job at putting his personal issues aside and made a very objective and non-biased ruling.
AveragePatriot
I am an Apathetic Agnostic
12:25 PM on 04/07/2011
Walker sounds like a likable and fair person.

Besides, people can argue all they want, but the US constitution says what it says:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" says it all.

Just because a bunch of cry babies don't always get what they want is nno reason to discard someone's civil rights!
thebigbike
ran away to be a cowboy
12:18 PM on 04/07/2011
why the He!! should he have recused himself? did the five dwarves, thomas/alito/scalia/roberts/kennedy recuse themselves from decisions involving catholic school remibursements from tax parer funds? HUH??

nope I thought not.


all animals are equal except some are more equal than others.
12:29 PM on 04/07/2011
Agreed!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:15 PM on 04/07/2011
ditto
12:16 PM on 04/07/2011
I don't think he should have recused himself. What, would we have expected Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves if a civil rights case came in front of the Supreme Court?

It is pretty interesting that this case just "coincidentally" was assigned to a homosexual judge though...
05:33 AM on 05/01/2011
Yep, God indeed has a great sense of humor and timing. One more reason to assume that God loves all of his creatures, not just the ones who claim privilege.