- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- March 2009
- October 2006
- July 2002
America's Leading Gay News Source
-

Tensions high as Senate panel considers immigration reform
-

U.K. House of Commons approves marriage bill
-

Gay DC psychiatrist named head of APA
-

Gay judicial nominee confirmed to Oregon federal court
-

Capital Trans Pride
-

Sally Ride to receive Presidential Medal of Freedom
-

‘Love Song’ singer to headline LGBT DNC gala
Legal Experts: attempt to overturn Walker decision in Perry v Schwarzenegger expected to fail
While proponents of a Constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriage in California believe that Judge Vaughn Walker was biased in striking down California’s Proposition 8 because he did not disclose publicly that he is in a same-sex relationship; most legal experts believe a district judge hearing arguments in favor of overturning the decision is unlikely to do so.
“Just as every single one of the attempts to disqualify judges on the basis of their race, gender, or religious affiliation has been rejected by other courts,” wrote California Attorney General, Kamala Harris in a brief filed in opposition to overturning the ruling, “this Court should similarly reject Defendant-Intervenors’ effort to disqualify Judge Walker based on his sexual orientation.”
Harris concluded, “the fact that Judge Walker is, like many individuals, in a long-term relationship that might or might not result in marriage is insufficient to show either that he has a disqualifying interest in the outcome of this litigation or that his impartiality may be questioned.”
According to the L.A. Times legal experts from around the country are nearly unified in the belief that the ruling will not be overturned, while still disagreeing over whether or not the Judge had an obligation to disclose his relationship status before the trial.
“A judge should always disclose facts that are not publicly available, as in public financial disclosure filings,” New York University Law School Professor Stephen Gillers told the Times, “to give the parties a chance to seek recusal.”
Tagged with Homepage Headlines, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8, Vaughn Walker
We welcome your thoughtful, respectful comments. Please read our 'Terms of Service' page for more information about community expectations.
Comments from new visitors, flagged users, or those containing questionable language are automatically held for moderation and may not appear immediately.

view print edition
This move by the Prop 8 proponents is a clear sign of just how desperate they are. It has no chance.
They have no legal standing to represent the states interest so vacating Judge Walker’s decision is their only shot. Even if the case should go to the Supreme Court the defense clearly has a very weak case.
[Translate]