(KTLA-TV) |
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge upheld a former colleague's ruling that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge James Ware backed the original ruling, despite questions raised about Judge Vaughn Walker's ability to impartially decide the controversial question of same-sex marriage in California's Proposition 8.
Just before retiring from the federal bench this year, Walker revealed he is gay and in a committed relationship, raising ethical questions about whether he should been involved in the case.
"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware ruled.
Proponents of California's gay marriage ban said Walker's ruling should be thrown out.
In a motion to vacate the judgment, proponents of the ban said that Walker's 10-year relationship should have led him to avoid the Proposition 8 case, since he may want to marry.
"Surely, no one would suggest that Chief Judge Walker could issue an injunction directing a state official to issue a marriage license to him. Yet on this record, it must be presumed that that is precisely what has occurred," the motion reads.
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case," it said.
Walker's sexual orientation was quietly commented on during the court trial, but lawyers on neither side made it an issue in the courtroom.
Walker in an April 6 discussion with reporters from Reuters and other news outlets said he had been in the decade-long relationship and that he had not considered recusing himself from the case.
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 at the time, adding, "That's a very slippery slope.
Theodore Boutrous, a lead lawyer challenging the ban, said in an e-mail that the proponents' motion is "absurd. In their view men couldn't hear cases about the rights of men, women couldn't hear cases about the rights of women. Their view is totally anti-gay."
All but a handful of U.S. states explicitly ban same-sex marriage, and Californians in 2008 joined that club by approving Proposition 8, shocking gay rights advocates nationwide and prompting the current case.
U.S. District Court Judge James Ware backed the original ruling, despite questions raised about Judge Vaughn Walker's ability to impartially decide the controversial question of same-sex marriage in California's Proposition 8.
Just before retiring from the federal bench this year, Walker revealed he is gay and in a committed relationship, raising ethical questions about whether he should been involved in the case.
"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware ruled.
Proponents of California's gay marriage ban said Walker's ruling should be thrown out.
In a motion to vacate the judgment, proponents of the ban said that Walker's 10-year relationship should have led him to avoid the Proposition 8 case, since he may want to marry.
"Surely, no one would suggest that Chief Judge Walker could issue an injunction directing a state official to issue a marriage license to him. Yet on this record, it must be presumed that that is precisely what has occurred," the motion reads.
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case," it said.
Walker's sexual orientation was quietly commented on during the court trial, but lawyers on neither side made it an issue in the courtroom.
Walker in an April 6 discussion with reporters from Reuters and other news outlets said he had been in the decade-long relationship and that he had not considered recusing himself from the case.
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 at the time, adding, "That's a very slippery slope.
Theodore Boutrous, a lead lawyer challenging the ban, said in an e-mail that the proponents' motion is "absurd. In their view men couldn't hear cases about the rights of men, women couldn't hear cases about the rights of women. Their view is totally anti-gay."
All but a handful of U.S. states explicitly ban same-sex marriage, and Californians in 2008 joined that club by approving Proposition 8, shocking gay rights advocates nationwide and prompting the current case.
