Last year, when California’s Supreme Court upheld the state’s gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8, there was little speculation about the sexual orientation of the seven justices or the possible heterosexual biases they might harbor.
But when federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, reporting and commentary treated claims of Walker’s gayness as a matter of fact–and a newsworthy subject. This despite Walker’s never having addressed his sexual orientation publicly. As gay activist Michelangelo Signorile noted on the Huffington Post, “Most major media organizations, from the New York Times and ABC News to the Washington Post and National Public Radio, have reported on him as gay or had commentators saying it.”
This treatment, which was in sharp contrast to the the rules journalists normally use to determine if they will or will not report on a subject’s sexual orientation, provided a service to anti-gay groups who wanted to claim that Walker’s ostensible sexuality made him biased and unfit to rule on Proposition 8. In the twisted logic of the homophobes, of course, heterosexuals’ views on gay marriage are unbiased.
While no one has come forth with actual evidence suggesting bias on Walker’s part, what do you call it when journalists treat sexual orientation (or even rumors of such) as newsworthy when judges’ decisions’ favor gay rights, but unworthy of mention when they don’t? Isn’t that a bias?
As Signorile concluded on the Huffington Post (in an article that oddly referred to the allegation of Walker’s gayness as a “smear tactic”), this is more than a story about the tactics of the anti-gay rights right: “It’s a testament to how easily the media is manipulated by the right into doing things about which editors and reporters claim to be staunchly opposed.”
Truthfully, whether or not the media said a peep about Judge Walker’s sexual orientation would make no difference. When I tried to peruse the judge’s ruling, I was shocked again and again as his gross bias oozed and reeked from every line of that thing.
The slurs, the insults, the relentless pejorative innuendos, the outright condemnation against the citizens who in best conscience brought Prop. 8, against those who hold the kind classic, timeless moral values that built this nation — this kind of unprofessionalism, injustice and gross partiality on the part of a judge should have the ruling thrown out cold.
Over and over again the judge disparages and dismisses these deeply held and enduring values as “private moral views” of no “state interest,” with no end of insults against those who hold them; while he upholds the personal feelings and desires of gays as being of legitimate “state interest” and entitled to constitutional protection.
I really appreciate what FAIR does and accomplishes, but your partisan promotionalism on this issue really takes you down in my estimation.
First, KACalder misses the point of your article here – there was no factual evidence about Walker’s supposed orientation, and even if he was gay, it would have absolutely no bearing on the case. Would anyone argue that if Walker was straight, he would be unsuitable to hear the case, because he’d be biased AGAINST the gay community? Should women not hear cases about women’s rights; should African Americans not hear cases concerning racial bias? What kind of democracy would be left if we picked judges that were ‘suitable’ for each issue?
Regarding Walkers case, he applied legal standards to the arguments, and found that there was no ‘rational basis’ for the prop 8 amendment. In the past, judges have overturned majority views that were out of step with our constitution, including the bans on inter-racial marriage. These too had ‘no rational basis’.
The most damning part of his judgement is this: that the defendants were unable to prove that any harm had ever come to a straight marriage through the granting of those rights to same-sex couples. They could show no studies that linked same-sex marriage with increase straight divorce rates, or a decline in the number of applications for licenses from straight couples. He concluded that the state does have an interest in the raising of children, but not one reputable study was introduced to show that children do less well in the care of a same sex couple than they do in the care of a straight couple.
The state view of marriage has changed immensely just in the last few hundred years. Polygamy is heavily supported by the Bible, but that was rejected hundreds of years ago. In its place, marriage was used as a means of brokering power among families, and of securing property rights. Married women having no vote and no right to own property saw all their possessions signed over to their husband. There is a myth that the current view of marriage, between one man and one woman, married for love, and solely intended for procreation, is the only view we’ve ever had. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Religions must always be free to set the standards for who they will marry, and who they will not; but the state cannot determine the granting of financial benefits to couples based on their religious beliefs.
Either the state grants marriage rights to all couples, or to none; anything less would be a system of ‘separate yet equal’ which, as we know from our own history, is NEVER equal.
KACalder, sorry, bigotry is NOT a “value”!
KACalder gives as examples of disparaging and insulting remarks by Judge Walker as well as pejorative innuendos such horrific terms as ‘personal moral views’ of ‘no state interest’. The horror.
As for gays raising children where studies show that such children are well adjusted, the only harm that they endure is from people like KACalder and other anti-gay marriage supporters who condemn the marriages of their parents and raise their children to believe that those marriages are wrong so that those their children take those unchristian-like views to school with them. It’s likely that any difficulty children of gay parents would incur at school would come from other children who learned that type of behavior from their own parents and their parent’s culture and environment which may include their place of worship. That’s the true harm. The kids are innocent but will receive abuse from the children of these so-called Kristians.
Don’t like reading long responses but David Wilson drew me in. I have an opinion to add to what he wrote. / A liaison-celebration should be the choice of consenting adults with NO legal ties. We need laws to protect individuals regardless of marital status. We need laws to protect children regardless of whom are the parents. We should pay taxes and receive benefits according to individual merit. / That piece of paper neither guarantees a successful relationship nor well-adjusted children. That piece of paper only serves to let the state manipulate us and the church to stick it’s nose in our private lives. // Jean Clelland-Morin
Considering that the New York Times decided Bradley Manning’s sexual orientation was relevant (FAIR, I’m a little scandalized you ignored this), none of this is surprising.
hey folks i can’t wait for the expendables the movie to come out! Its gonna be awesome!
Please delete the preceding spam comment.
in case KACalder has forgotten, it is the duty and special obligation of the judiciary to uphold the constitution as well as reasonable standards of fairness/equity. Any legislated statute which contradicts these two sources of value MUST be found invalid and struck down. Judge Walker was merely doing his job, which only comes into play when the state courts fail to do theirs or when citizens of different states wish to sue each other.
This being my first review of FAIR’s offerings I was immediately taken by its blatantly pro-perversion slant and total disregard of the first amendment rights of those – like myself – who voted for proposition 8.
As Chief Justice; Vaughn Walker positioned himself to insure that he would be the one that heard Perry v Schwarzenegger. FAIR’s complete disregard for this well publicized fact in addition to FAIR’s disinterest in Walker’s complete disregard for the rights of the defendants throughout his circus trial – SCOTUS/9th Circuit intervention – clearly demonstrates your bias for same sex enthusiast.
KACalder is right to be outraged by Walker’s blatant support of same sex enthusiasts and his demonstrated contempt for the 1st Amendment right of conscience and the free exercise thereof.
In their 2006 Nebraska ruling the 8th Circuit opined:
1) There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage
2) Procreation is a rational basis…
Freedom of religion is an expressed right enshrined in the United States Constitution’s 1st Amendment; whereas the freedom to force the acceptance of your perversion onto the children of those whose immutable faith could never accept such a thing is not.
Religious bigotry is what led to the drafting of the United States constitution in the first place, but even back then same sex relations was punishable by death.
Your tyranny will not stand.
Missing in Walker’s decision are DAMAGES.
While Walker held a trial of why gay values should incluse the WORD marriage, he failed to show any actual DAMAGES incurred by gay’s that used the California option of Civil Unions.
For those uninformed few, in California Civil Unions, which were adjusted in ALL California codes, match in application every feature of Marriage. For example a civil union allows for inheritence by the surviving spouse. Civil Unions were created to address 2 problems. One being ATHIESTS that REFUSE to use the religously connected word marriage, and the other being for Gay unions.
This leaves the word marriage tied only to the religous, and it specifically does NOT have ANY special benefit, over civil unions, in the EYES of the State.
What this lawsuit is actually about is the HATRED that some gay people have towards religion.
Look for the court system to eventually toss out all rulings from courts outside of California’s own Supreme court. This is a California issue.
And of course, expect to see new propositions to change the use of the WORD marriage in Ca as well.