Oh no, the judge is gay
Straight marriage defenders allege "a textbook conflict of interest"
Oh no, the judge is gay
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Earlier this week, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the federal judge currently presiding over a potentially landmark gay marriage trial is himself gay. According to the Chronicle, it has long been "the biggest open secret" that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a 21-year veteran of the federal bench, shares the same sexual orientation as the plaintiffs - who have been arguing in his court for weeks that Proposition 8, the successful '08 California ballot measure banning gay marriage, should be overturned because it unconstitutionally discriminates against gays.
After reading that story, I braced for the inevitable reaction from the religious right. It didn't take long for heads to explode.
The Christian Broadcasting Network put the news on the air in a graphic ("Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay. Conservatives Say: Pro-Gay Bias"). The National Organization for Marriage put the news on its home page, then sought via sleight of hand to link Walker's sexual orientation to his courtroom behavior: "We have no idea whether the (Chronicle) report is true or not. But we do know one really important fact about Judge Walker. He's been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee."
And yesterday, a prominent right-wing litigation group, Liberty Counsel, demanded that Walker, "as an active practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle," remove himself from the case. Matt Barber, the group's "cultural affairs" director, declared: "At worst, Judge Walker's continued involvement with this case presents a textbook conflict of interest." He argued that having a gay judge preside over a gay marriage trial "is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case." Therefore, "Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker's personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices," and his inherent interest in helping "his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs." Therefore, Walker should quit the case, pronto.
So much nonsense is packed into the preceding paragraph that it's hard to know where to begin. For instance, on a minor point, I'd bet the ranch that gun owners have presided over Second Amendment gun-rights cases since time immemorial, without a peep of protest from conservatives. I'd bet that some of those judges, in their private lives, have indeed been avid gun collectors without ever advertising the fact...just as Judge Walker, according to the Chronicle, "has never taken pains to disguise, or advertise, his orientation."
The broader argument, most explicitly insinuated by Liberty Counsel, is that a gay judge is somehow inherently less professional than a straight judge; that a gay judge, by definition, is emotionally compelled to abandon the canons of his job and come to the aid of those who share his "alleged lifestyle choice." This argument must surely be a source of amusement for the gay community, which was ticked off at Walker for years; before he became a Republican appointee - tapped for the federal bench in 1989 by President George H. W. Bush - attorney Walker represented the U.S. Olympic Committee when it successfully sued San Francisco's Gay Olympics for poaching its name. (As Walker himself quipped to the press the other day, "Life is full of irony.")
If one cares to extend the logic of Walker's conservative critics, no black or Hispanic judge should be permitted to preside over a race-discrimination case, no female judge should be allowed to handle a sex-discrimination case, and no Jewish judge should go anywhere near a case involving the placement of a Christmas creche on public property - just to ensure that instinctive emotion doesn't trump the jurisprudential imperative.
But, with respect to the California trial itself, what Walker's critics are really suggesting is that a straight judge - lacking such a "textbook conflict of interest" - would be inherently more credible. In practice, of course, the defenders of traditional marriage have no problem with straight judges who rail against gays in accordance with their own ideological or religious convictions. I don't recall any conservatives getting upset with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who assailed, in a now-famous dissent, "the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
Clearly, Walker's conservative critics are trying to pre-spin a trial defeat, by suggesting in advance that if the judge indeed rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional, he was swayed not by the law, but by his "lifestyle." The defenders of traditional marriage need not fear, however. If they lose the trial, they'll surely seek relief from as many as 20 (presumably straight-thinking) judges at the federal court of appeals - and in the highest court of all. No doubt Justice Scalia, as an active practitioner of the man's man duck-hunting-with-Dick-Cheney lifestyle, would weigh in on the gay marriage case without a shred of preconception.
Tom: Geez, you are lobbing some big time softballs. "If this federal judge is gay, and if he could receive some benefit from siding with one side or the other, then he should recuse himself." By that logic, a straight judge would have to recuse himself also.— p-diddy- I get it now. Gay marriage is a tax issue! And all this time I thought it was about moral qualms with homosexuality. Good to know.— p-diddy
- So, Tom, if a black judge has to hear a racial discrimination case, he should recuse himself? Is that how you people think? If that's really the case, shouldn't any Republican judge who took money from the general fund recuse themselves if a person who works for a corporation involved in the case donated to that fund? Slippery slope, don't you think?— HandNik
- Nigel- You have not spewed but here is a line from one of the left leaning bloggers on here " I agree that the Christian right are largely crazy people"............... Comments from the left like those are nothing new. It is reiterated on a nightly basis on MSNBC by Keith Olberman, Christ Matthews, and Rachal Maddow. Calling christians crazy is about as divisive as it gets. And furthermore the narrative that only right wing religious groups are against gay marriage is about as ignorant of the facts as it gets. There is a voting block that votes democrat 90% of the time yet oposses gay marriage 70% of the time. The gay marriage issue is a political loser for the left. I think eventually they will abandon it like they did with their anti gun stance. Remember election 2004 where Kerry is walking through a field with a dead goose and a shotgun?
- Pdiddy- you said " I agree. Marriage should be entirely abolished as a legal status."............ I don't know that I said but what I am saying is that marriage is a religious ceremony not a government ceremony. Government is involved in it because they want to tax it. We've got 12+ trillion in debt, mouting deficits, crippling tax burdens, and Muslim extremists who want to kill us. To sit around and worry about the life style choices of 5% of the population is a waste of time. Gay Americans are among some of the richest citizens in this country. You can be an American Idol judge( Ellen DeGenerous), sell out concerts ( Elton John) or even be a US Congressman ( Barney Frank). I don't buy into the " whoe is me " line about gay people in this country. The problem is they tend to be liberals to they look to goverment for solutions to the marriage issue.
Comment removed.- I have a challenge for James TL: instead of resorting to the standard leftist tactic of name-calling, please explain to us posters here why you think the members of the Christian right are "largely crazy people." On second thought, I'll bet I can answer that question: the Christian right teaches the need for moral virtue, especially on sexual issues, right Jimmy? Right!— George Tomezsko
- Not to change the subject but this a very good column. www.anncoulter.com....... For you leftists there is even some contempt for the Republicans.
- I see the " warmers" are now explaining the snow in the mid atlantic as proof of global warming. Whatever the weather does, it's proof of global warming. Now I wonder if global warming is the reason we just had snow in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and even the Florida panhandle? I am sure they will tell us that was just a weather event. But the lack of snow in Vancouver is proof of global warming? Why of course! The spin coming from the " Warmers" is comical. They should have a " Warming Summit " so they could at least get their story straight. Half of the " Warmers" tell us it has to do with El Nino and the jet Stream and the other half of the " Warmers" are telling us that the storms are because of warming. I find these people to be most amusing. I wish they would just fess up and tell the truth. That being that they are trying us science to further of left wing agenda of wealth redistribution and extreme enviromentalism.
Well then, the judge has to be an atheist too. And un-opinionated... Might as well make it a bloody robot. Just because public opinion likes it, doesn't make it right. Brown v Board of Education wasn't totally accepted at the time either. Contrary to popular belief, we, as a people, do have the capability to be complete jerks as well as a good and understanding people.— Ilmare- In PA unmarried partners do not have the same rights to make end-of-life decisions as spouses as well as the inheritance issue which has a sliding scale of taxation depending on your relationship. Parent- child is less than brother-sister. It is a lot about the money. But society rules called for setting some structure. Marriage was what was agreed upon a long time ago. Government just takes advantage of it now.— JimR
- "While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found." And rightfully so.— LorettaL
- Ann Coulter is Peroxide Palin.— LorettaL
- How's life in that glass box, LorettaL?— camtheman
- LorettaL- So your comment after reading the Ann Coulter article is to call here " peroxide Palin "... Typical is all I can say. Attack the source and not the content.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
