Russell and Duenes

Anti-Prop 8 Judge Turns Out to Be In Long-Term Gay Relationship. Who’da Thunk?

with 3 comments

Well, well, here comes a shocker: Judge Vaughn Walker, who wrote the atrociously bad decision to overrule California’s pro-marriage amendment, Prop 8, has had a ten year same-sex relationship, a fact he failed to disclose while he was writing his opinion. As such, he was clearly compromised in his judicial capacity, and should have recused himself from the case. This is the kind of deceptive shenanigans we’ve come to expect from the pro-gay “marriage” people. Not content to let people decide things straight up, based on sound and loving moral principles, they have to resort to lies, smearing, judicial chicanery, and even violence in order to impose their destructive social policies on the whole society. For more on this, check out this piece by Ed Whelan, who has written extensively on the matter. An excerpt,

Two weeks ago, former federal district judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled last summer in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, publicly disclosed for the first time that he has been in a same-sex relationship for the past ten years. A straightforward application of the judicial ethics rules compels the conclusion that Walker should have recused himself from taking part in the Perry case. Further, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, the remedy of vacating Walker’s judgment is timely and necessary…At the same time that he disclosed his long-term same-sex relationship, Walker stated — according to a reporter’s paraphrase — that it “would not be appropriate for any judge’s sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case.” The article quotes Walker as declaring, “That’s a very slippery slope.” But Walker’s slope is “very slippery” only for greased red herrings. Walker vastly overstates the principle that requires his recusal. The proposition that a judge should not decide how the law in the jurisdiction he lives in would directly govern his own individual rights on a matter that a reasonable person would think was very important to him personally is much narrower than the proposition that a judge of a particular sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or gender may not decide any case involving those issues. The former proposition flows directly from section 455(a); the latter doesn’t.

Of course, you have large swaths of the church saying, “Who cares? This whole thing doesn’t matter because the gospel isn’t about politics.” But doesn’t the gospel teach us that all arenas of life are under the lordship of Christ? And doesn’t love demand that we advocate for the truth and speak about the truth in both the public and private spheres? When Jesus is relegated to private, personal spirituality, we should no longer wonder when the people around us consider him a kind of religious “guru” who is totally irrelevant to their lives.

-D

Advertisements

Written by Michael Duenes

April 19, 2011 at 11:21 am

Posted in Duenes, Government

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Indeed, we must defend the truth.

    For those who disagree that the decision should be vacated, I have one question.

    Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that persons in a polygamous union apply for a marriage license in Oklahoma, and are denied a license by a district court clerk. They file suit in federal court, alleging that Article I, Section 2 and Article 2, Section 35 of the Oklahoma Constitution violate the U.S. Constitution and asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court clerk to issue the marriage license. The judge in the case denies the plaintiffs’ claims, citing Reynolds v. the United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), and Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) as binding precedent compelling denial of the plaintiffs’ claims. Six months after the district court judgment, it is revealed that the judge was married to one of the legislative sponsors of Oklahoma’s Question 711, the ballot question that placed Article 2, Section 35 into the state constitution. Would the judge in that case have had a duty to disclose, if not recuse?

    If the answer is “no”, then there is no further ground for discussion.

    Michael

    April 26, 2011 at 2:05 am

    • A well-made argument, my friend. Thanks much.

      -D

      russell and duenes

      April 26, 2011 at 11:45 pm

      • You are welcome.

        Michael Ejercito

        April 27, 2011 at 8:50 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: