California Family Minute

In 2008, hundreds of thousands of Californians actively participated in the Prop 8 campaign, and more than seven million citizens spoke by their “Yes on 8” vote.

Still, since the day after Prop 8 was passed on November 4, 2008, marriage’s meaning has been embroiled in courts of law. Three years later, the battle continues.

In the federal district court ruling last year that overturned the will of the people, now-retired Chief Judge Vaughn Walker disregarded all established case law, basing his opinion almost entirely on the testimony of a few. In fact, Walker also ignored hours of cross-examination that brought out contradictory statements by those same witnesses. It was a real circus.

Walker’s ruling is now on appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is likely that the constitutionality of Prop 8 will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday legal briefs appealing yet another decision by the federal district court were submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court. 

Long after Walker had issued his ruling, he confessed to the press that he has had a same-sex partner for now going on 11 years. In other words, Walker’s personal circumstances mirrored those of the plaintiffs, two same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry.

Are Walker and his partner also seeking to marry? Walker didn’t disclose this; but it is quite possible that he had the same interest in the case upon which he ruled - marrying his same-sex partner - as the interests of the plaintiffs!

On this the law is clear: to avoid “even the appearance of impropriety,” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988), federal law requires a federal judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (taken directly from the Prop 8 Defense Team’s brief)

Walker’s replacement as the chief judge of the district court, James Ware, quickly dismissed our legal team’s motion to vacate Walker’s ruling, saying Walker’s personal circumstances were “irrelevant” and “not reasonably related” to the question of potential bias. Honest, he said that.

In our appeal to the Ninth Circuit, we argue that Ware’s decision is “at war with clear statutory text, uniform precedent, and common sense,” and we redouble our points that Walker should have recused himself from this case from the start.

The Ninth Circuit Court currently awaits the legal opinion of the California Supreme Court regarding whether the proponents for Prop 8 should have standing to defend it in a court of law. There is no set timeline for when the Ninth Circuit Court will hear our appeal of Ware’s decision on judicial bias, or when it will issue its ruling on Prop 8’s constitutionality.  

Thank you for your continued support of California Family Council, allowing me to chair the executive committee of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund. We covet your prayers for the attorneys working on behalf of California’s citizens and the historic meaning and purpose of marriage.

Reminder: Click here to read last Friday’s announcement of a challenge grant to CFC, and please consider participating. Thank you.