Shortly after Judge Walker made his historic decision in the California Prop 8 case, there was an uproar when his sexuality was disclosed. Those supporting Prop 8 came out saying that since he’s apparently gay, how can he be impartial in the case?
It went away for a while then came back when Walker came out himself, publically. Now another push is underway to disqualify Walker and ultimately, his decision, based on these grounds.
Dustin Lance Black sent out an email blast yesterday urging the community to rail against the current movement.
Let’s face it, the entire thing is ludicrous. There’s no basis for disqualifying Walker based on his sexuality, and that was stated over and over the first time it reared its ugly head. No one saw any integrity in the argument and no one does now. We can all really let this one go and concentrate on other things far more important.
An editorial in the New York Times said it well today…
After the trial, Judge Walker said he is gay and involved in a long-term relationship. Last week, Proposition 8’s lawyers argued that the ruling should be tossed out because he had had a duty to recuse himself, or at least disclose the relationship at the start of the case.
The claim is bogus. It is well established that personal characteristics, like race, sex, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, do not by themselves invoke the rule that judges must step aside if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Our justice system relies on trusting members of the nation’s diverse bench to put aside their personal characteristics and abide by their duty of even-handedness. Any other approach would invite foolish and unacceptable results — female judges being kept from hearing rape or sexual discrimination cases, or black judges from hearing cases involving racial bias or civil rights.
Author
