Gay Activist Judge Defies Will of California Voters

From the Associated Press article:

Gay judge, Vaughn Walker, strikes down a bill passed by a majority of California voters that upheld a ban on gay marriage.

What's wrong with this picture?

Proponents of California's same-sex marriage ban filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate the historic ruling that overturned Proposition 8 because the federal judge who wrote it is in a long-term relationship with another man.

Lawyers for the ban's backers said that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case, or at least disclosed his relationship status, to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.

"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote.

They are now asking the judge who inherited the case when Walker retired at the end of February to toss out Walker's August 2010 decision. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already is reviewing its legal merits at the request of the voter-approved measure's sponsors.

Walker has said that he did not consider his sexual orientation to be any more a reason for recusal than another judge's race or gender normally would be. A spokeswoman said Monday that the judge wouldn't comment on the motion.

American Foundation for Equal Rights President Chad Griffin, whose group has funded the legal effort to strike down Proposition 8, scoffed at the notion that the judge's personal life could imperil his ruling.

There is a legal condition known as "similarly situated" that helps establish when certain parties share common circumstances that might indicate the presence of a conflict of interest. How Judge Walker's long standing homosexual relationship does not make him "similarly situated" defies all reason. Only his recent retirement should provide him with any opportunity to escape judicial censure for such an obvious violation of ethics.

Where are the gays who think that such a blatant conflict of interest should be scrutinized for judicial misconduct? It is remarkable how the Left continues to selectively demand legal action only in cases that challenge their own agenda.

American gays are doing their cause tremendous harm by not monitoring their own ranks for violations of ethics. In recent years my own support for gay rights has undergone some serious recalibration due to this exact sort of activism.

There are numerous parallels with respect to this issue. American Blacks seem to have no problem with the so-called "reverse" racism ― in reality, just plain old racism ― of Affirmative Action, despite how it clouds the record of true achievers within the Black community.

American Muslims have no problem with undermining Freedom of Speech even as they use that Constitutional right to protest any censorship of their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Nor do American gays have the common sense to raise any hue and cry over blatant cases of dubious ethics, such as the case of efforts being made by Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel to have their 11-year-old adopted son undergo sex change surgery.

Again, the parallels are as disturbing as they are numerous. How do gays think that they can remain silent over such egregious parental misconduct and still retain the trust or respect of heterosexual America?

One may as well ask how it is that American Muslims can hope for any respect while they, too, remain largely silent over the more than 17,000 fatal terrorist attacks since the 9-11 atrocity.

As a Spanish journalist once said:

"AFTER A WHILE, TO REMAIN SILENT IS NO LONGER JUST CONSENT. TO REMAIN SILENT IS TO LIE."