Ruling soon on gay judge in California same-sex case

A ruling is expected within a day or two on whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have disqualified himself from presiding over the trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban because he was involved in a gay relationship.

U.S. District Court Judge James Ware said he would rule shortly, perhaps within 24 hours, on a motion by supporters of California’s Proposition 8 contending that Judge Walker’s ruling should be vacated because he had a stake in the outcome of the 2010 trial.

Judge Ware, who replaced Judge Walker after his retirement last year, said this was the first time a court has considered a judge’s same-sex relationship as the basis for overturning a verdict.

“It’s important that we treat it seriously and get it right,” he said.

The motion, filed by attorneys for ProtectMarriage, argued that Judge Walker should have either recused himself from the trial or at least informed attorneys that he was involved in a long-term gay relationship.

California voters approved Proposition 8, which states that marriage is between one man and one woman, in November 2008. As a gay man in a 10-year relationship, Judge Walker was no different from the same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit against Proposition 8, said ProtectMarriage attorney Charles Cooper.

“It now appears that Judge Walker, at the time the complaint was filed and throughout this litigation, occupied precisely those same shoes as the plaintiffs,” Mr. Cooper said.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, argued that Judge Walker was being targeted and said it was well known that he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time of the trial.

“This motion is frivolous, offensive and deeply unfortunate,” said Mr. Boutrous.

Judge Ware saved his toughest questions for Mr. Cooper, asking how he could know that the judge wanted to marry his same-sex partner. If Judge Walker had no intention of marrying in California, then in fact he was not in the same situation as the plaintiffs, said Judge Ware.

“What is the fact you rely on that Judge Walker was in a relationship for the purposes of marriage?” Judge Ware asked.

Judge Ware, who is black, also asked whether a reasonable person would believe that a black judge would be too biased to preside over a civil-rights case. Mr. Cooper replied that a reasonable person would not believe that.

Attorneys for both sides held press conferences after the three-hour trial. Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, cited the Supreme Court’s ruling that “no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.”

“Judge Walker’s decision must be vacated and reconsidered by a neutral judge who has no direct and substantial personal interest in the outcome and whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned, as required by federal law,” said Mr. Nimocks in a statement.

Mr. Boutrous accused Proposition 8 supporters of trying to keep gay judges from deciding important cases.

“Their standard is intended to, and would, prevent gay, lesbian or bisexual judges from impartially presiding over cases involving the rights of same-sex individuals and couples - an offensive suggestion that has been consistently rejected by the courts in similar cases involving race and sex discrimination,” he said.

c This article is based in part on wire-service reports.