Nullary Sources

Remember California’s Prop 8? Somehow it’s been two and a half years since the state’s voters passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman. That proposition was overturned in 2010, and that decision is currently under appeal.

The judge in that case, Vaughn Walker, retired in February. During a farewell meeting earlier this month, he revealed that he was gay and had been in a relationship for ten years. So naturally backers of Prop 8 furiously latched onto this:

… they argue that he had a potential conflict because he has been in a relationship with the same man for a decade and might want to get hitched himself.

…

“We are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” attorneys for the backers of Proposition 8 wrote in a motion to overturn the landmark ruling.

Rather, they said their doubts about the impartiality of Walker arose because he did not disclose the relationship while he presided over the case, and that he has not yet disclosed whether he has any interest in marrying his partner.

Thankfully, at least two people quoted in the AP’s article on this feel that this line of attack won’t go anywhere:

Retired California state Judge Jeffrey Rothman said bias claims have arisen in the past surrounding judges with strong religious views. But he noted that the bar for disqualification is purposefully set high. Lawyers representing a clinic that performed abortions, for example, would not be able to challenge a devoutly Catholic judge, he said.

“They would get absolutely nowhere with such a challenge unless that judge had gone out and made statements or speeches saying he believed that Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned if that case ever came before them,” Rothman said. “The question is, can the beliefs be set aside and the judge decide the case on its merits and be fair.”