The case against same-sex marriage in California saw a setback Tuesday when a federal judge ruled that the judge in the landmark case was not required to recuse himself because he is gay.
The day after hearing arguments on the issue, District Court Chief Judge James Ware refused to invalidate last summer’s decision by Judge Vaughn Walker that overturned Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.
Rumors abounded during last year’s trial about Walker’s sexuality, but he did not publicly disclose that he was gay and in a longterm relationship until after his ruling and subsequent retirement.
His ruling was stayed, as an appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is pending.
Supporters of Prop. 8, which voters passed in 2008, filed a motion to vacate Walker’s ruling, however, arguing before Ware on Monday that his sexual orientation would have prevented him from making an objective, legally based ruling on the matter.
In his ruling, however, Ware wrote that it was unreasonable 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.”
“In a case involving law restricting the rights of various members of the public to marry, any personal interest that a judge gleans as a member of the public who might marry is too attenuated to warrant recusal,” Ware continued. “In our society, a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right.”
Jim Carrol, interim executive director of Equality California, welcomed Ware’s decision on Tuesday but said he regretted that it was even necessary.
“Today’s ruling is another heartening victory in our struggle for equality,” he said. “We applaud the court for rejecting the pathetic attempts by Prop. 8 backers to viciously malign Judge Walker. Because proponents of the marriage ban have repeatedly failed to present even a shred of evidence to support the insidious discrimination that Prop. 8 fosters, they tried and failed to hide behind groundless, shameful arguments to discredit Judge Walker — arguments that fail to hold up under even the slightest scrutiny.”
Before deciding whether or not to uphold Walker’s ruling, the 9th Circuit must first consider whether the Prop. 8 backers, a contingent of antigay organizations that stepped into the court case when California officials refused to defend the law, are qualified to intervene.
On this question, the court asked for the input of the California Supreme Court, which is expected to hold oral arguments in September.
Jen Colletta can be reached at [email protected].