Tag Archives: Judge Vaughn Walker

ProtectMarriage Goes INSANE: Argues That If Prop 8 Backers Are Not Allowed To Appeal Then Judge Vaugh Walkers Verdict Would Only Apply To TWO Couples, Not ALL Same-Sex Couples In California

In the latest bit of INSANITY from protectmarriage.com they are now arguing the INSANE notion that if  backers of Proposition 8 are not permitted to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling overturning the measure, the effect of that ruling must be limited to the two same-sex couples who brought the challenge, sponsors of Proposition 8 argued Friday.  Which they say means only the two couples could marry. Other same-sex couples in California would continue to be barred from marrying.

In written arguments before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the sponsors, called protectmarriage insisted they had legal authority to appeal last month’s ruling even though the gay couples sued the state, not the proponents.

Now  protectmarriage.com said the court need not even reach a decision on whether it can appeal and that the appeal can by lodged by Imperial County, which has been trying to intervene in the case against Proposition 8. Imperial County voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8 and is being represented by another Christian group aligned with protectmarriage

They argue that if the 9th Circuit decides that neither the sponsors nor Imperial County have standing, Walker’s decision should affect only the couples who sued because the lawsuit was not brought on behalf of all gay couples in the state.and if the ruling were limited, only the two couples could marry. Other same-sex couples in California would continue to be barred from marrying.

A 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to hold a hearing on the arguments in December. Until then, the court has decided that Walker’s ruling should not be enforced. (They should also hold a mental competency hearing for ProtectMarriage while they are at it)

Homo Say What? – Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: "Judge Walker is creating a LEGION of same-sex couples"

Well looks like “Princess Tiny Meat” Tony Perkins has her kickers all in a twist about Judge Vaugh Walker lifting the stay on same-sex marriage in California on August 18th.  (Does Miss Tony think that they won’t be able to get “stay” out of the 9th Circuit Court?  If she was so confidant why the big hissy?)

“Once again, Chief Judge Walker has disregarded the will of the people of California by interpreting the U.S. Constitution in a way that imposes his own personal beliefs. We support Protect Marriage’s immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit to stay this decision until the conclusion of the case. Voters in 30 states have protected marriage in their state constitutions because they understand the importance of a mom and a dad to children. The social science data is overwhelming and clear – children do best when raised by a mom and dad. Judge Walker’s opinion completely stepped over these findings by the international research community. Now, by refusing to stay his ruling until all appeals are adjudicated, Judge Walker is cynically attempting to limit the options of the appellate courts by creating a legion of same-sex couples whose marriages could be nullified. In essence, Judge Walker is presenting an unnecessary challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

As Layfette from “True Blood” would say:  “Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase BITCH.”

Tony get yourself a baggage handler and go to Europe.  Or better yet.  How about you let us tie you face down on the pool table at the D.C. Eagle on Bear Night.  That will loosen you up!

Judge Vaugh Walker Sets August 18th As The Date That The Prop 8 Stay Will Be Lifted And Gays Can Once Again Marry In California (Ruling Documents Included)

Judge Vaugh Walker ruled tofay that the Stay which is still preventing same sex couples to marry even though he overturned Prop 8 will be lifted on August 18th.  Unfortunatly over the next 6 days the Ninth Circuit Court which will be hearing the appeal (If it is accepted) can re-issue a stay if it is to hear the case..

So don’t pop that champaign just yet.

Once again really we wait. Now unti 12:01am of August 17th……….

Judge Vaughn Walker To Rule On Prop 8 "Stay" Decision This Morning – West Hollywood and Other California Cities Ready To Perform Marriages Immediately

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said he would issue his decision Thursday by noon (PST) on requests to impose a stay that would keep Proposition 8 in effect while its sponsors appeal his decision.

California cities like West Hollywood and others are prepared to start issuing marriage licenses and performing same sex wedding’ss the minute the ruling comes down. That is if Walker lifts the stay.  It will be interesting because of the fact that the real “named” defendants in the case  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s Attorney General Jerry Brown, wouldn’t defend the case and won’t appeal the decision Judge Walker made to overturn.  And have publically asked for the stay to be lifted. 

Here we go again kids. 

As soon as I know somthing.  You’ll know something.

The Prop 8 Trial (Non) Secret That No One Talked About Until Now. – Judge Vaughn Walker Is Gay.

Thats right.  Judge Vaughn Walker, the man in charge of deciding the fate of  Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 Trial) is GAY!

This is the biggest NON SECRET of the trial.  Walkers sexual preference was and has been really no secret since well before the trial and it’s only NOW that the media is beggining to pick up on it and report it.  Regardless of the fact that  the Prop 8 case was assigned to Walker at random, and Walker has ruled against gays in cases past.  National Center for Lesbian Rights head Kate Kendell thinks the judge’s sexuality will likely be brought up by Prop 8 supporters should they lose the case, a notion that general counsel for the Prop 8 side Andrew Pugno denies.  But objections to the ruling if the Prop 8 supporters lose because of the judge’s sexuality seem unlikely to get very far legally.  But will be more hyperbole homophobic propaganda.


Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to us when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit.

Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.

“Life is full of irony,” the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.

And did he have any concerns about being characterized as gay?

“No comment.”

Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker’s. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that “people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality.”

“He has a private life and he doesn’t conceal it, but doesn’t think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn’t bring it to bear in any decisions,” said the judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the Prop. 8 trial.

“Is it newsworthy?” he said of Walker’s orientation, and laughed. “Yes.”

He said it was hard to ignore the irony that “in the beginning, when (Walker) sought to be a judge, a major obstacle he had to overcome was the perception that he was anti-gay.”




The far-right shit rag The National Review is already calling for Walker to step down. The linked editorial cites Walker’s attempt to have the trial televised, then closes with this:

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial. Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8. Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause. And so on. Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Perry vs. Schwarzenegger – Olsen & Boies ReadyTo Rest Case Monday 1/25/2010

Lawyer David Boies tells the Wall Street Journal today that his side will rest their case tomorrow.  After they rest, the religious freak bigots are expected to present a short defense as four of their six witnesses have withdrawn over claims that violent homosexuals will attack their families if they do.

From the WSJ:

“We’re pleased with the way it has gone,” said David Boies, an attorney for the gay couples who want to wed. He said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples. “We’ve proven all three of those,” he said. Judge Vaughn Walker will decide whether the 2008 voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman codified discrimination or protected a legitimate state interest. This is the first federal challenge to state gay-marriage bans. Defense lawyer Andrew Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.

LDS – Mormon Church BUSTED As Documents Surface At Prop 8 Trail Prove They Tried To Hide Their Involvement

In an explosive moment at todays Prop 8 Trial a document from the Church of Latter Day Saints to the Proposition 8 campaign was introduced that revealed that contained these instructions:

With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.

So in opther words the LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8.”

Julia Rosen, blogging for the Courage Campaign reports that the attorneys battled over what documents could be revealed as evidence of the coordinated efforts between Prop 8 campaign and Catholic, LDS, and Evangelical churches. Which caused Judge Walker to make the following statement:

 “Not to make light of this, but the reason people want to produce documents is that they are revealing.”

EXPOSED – The REAL Reason William Tam Wanted Out Of The Prop 8 Trial – The Dirty, Vile, Homophobic and Bigoted, Lies He Spread

Last week  Hak-Shing William Tam wanted to remove himself as a defendant-intervenor in the Prop. 8 trial citing reasons including that it would be “too time consuming” and that he feared “retaliation”. 

Well yesterday in Day Three of the Trial the REAL reasons became apparent. Tam’s deposition was introduced into evidence.and it’s ugly and shows the intense hatred that Tam and his colleagues had toward the LGBT community and was full of homophobic lies that they spewed to get votes.

Via Lisa Leff:

Seeking to strengthen arguments against a ban on same-sex marriage, trial attorneys have introduced statements from a supporter of California’s ban warning voters in 2008 that gay rights activists would try to legalize sex with children if same-sex couples had the right to wed.

The material was presented Wednesday in the third day of a trial brought by opponents of the state’s same-sex marriage prohibition.
San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam, a defendant in the case, discussed a letter to Chinese-Americans church groups during a legal deposition taped last month.

Tam wrote in the letter issued during the 2008 campaign that legalizing same-sex marriage was part of a broader gay agenda.

“On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children,” states the letter, which also cautioned that “other states would fall into Satan’s hands” if gays weren’t stopped from marrying in California.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples introduced the footage to buttress their contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays.

Since the trail is not being televised many wil miss the disgusting real reasons behind our foes fight to deny us gay marriage and equal rights.  WE MUST PUBLICIZE THIS TRIAL AND THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST IN THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA.

I find it amazing that such liberal mainstream outlets such as The Huffington Post has not had more coverage of the Trial.  Write and email HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, and write to the newspapers and magazines.  This exactly what needs to get out about those who are against us.  the prrof of thier lies, hatred, and homophobia.    This is the REAL reason that that they fought not to have the trial televised so it is up to us to spread the word of whats happening and to get the mainstream media to report on it as well.

Prop 8 Defense Cites Will & Grace and Brokeback Mountain To Prove Lack Of Discrimination Against Gays And Lesbians (Now THAT Is Seriously Demented)


David H. Thompson, the defense attorney in Perry representing supporters of Prop 8, today cross-examined plaintiff witness Dr. George Chauncey, the Yale history professor about how not everybody discriminates against gays and lesbians.  Namely, that the journalistic and entertainment media.

Read the transcript from FireDogLake because I can’t evenm bring myself to post such GARBAGE here.

The overall insanity of that whole line of questiuoning is beyond me.  I suppose African Americans weren’t discriminated against before the 1965 Civil Rights Act because of Amos ‘n’ Andy on the radio and Bill Bojangles dancing with Shirley Temple in the movies, and Hattie McDaniel getting an Oscar.

I also guess Thompson he failed to watch all of “Brokeback Mountain” because the main character is murdered for being gay. “

Prop 8 Trial Updates – Opening Statement, Courtroom Tweets, News Outlet Coverage

The New York Times reports that the trail opened with some sharp words from Judge Vaugh Walker who repeatedly interrupted the opening statements of both Mr. Olson and the lead defense counsel, Charles J. Cooper, admonishing them to provide hard evidence — not just rhetoric.

Ted Levine aka FedCourtJunkie liveTwittered the following from the packed coutroom today and also talks about a little letter war between Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington, D.C. The folks back East asked Kozinski to “consider” conference policy against cameras in the court. Kozinski, who has a turbulent history with Conference oversight (Internet firewalls, anyone?), fired back a missive defending the Ninth Circuit’s power to broadcast.

Among other things, Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.

“If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?” the judge asked.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who represent two same-sex couples who filed the suit, answered that he did not think such a move would be politically feasible.

“I suspect the people of California would not want to abandon the relationship that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent a tremendous amount of resources describing as important to people, and so important it must be reserved for opposite-sex couples,” he said.

Olson quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s own lofty description of matrimony to demonstrate what his clients were being denied.

“In the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life and of fundamental importance to all individuals,” Olson told a courtroom packed with witnesses, reporters and members of the public…..

Also, in his opening statement Theodore Olson went right after common right-wing arguments against marriage equality:

“And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.”

It was a busy and eventful dayand the rest are sure to be just as full