No surprise here. Should the judge, who is openly homosexual, have recused himself?

The ensuing court battles will simply generate more revenue for the lawyers.

Ralph - I did not know that the judge was an avowed homosexual.  Is this an undisputed fact?  I guess I have to hope so or you’re saying it would be potentially libellous.  Assuming it to be true for purposres of testing your next sentence, however, why would a person’s sexual orientation require recusal in a case of this nature?  If a homosexual judge would be ethically barred from passing on the constitutionality of this measure, would not a heterosexual judge be subject to the same disability?  And, if so, who (or what) would be able to hear the matter without conflict?

“Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.

“Superior couples” is one way to interpret it. Doesn’t really touch on the definition of marraige, though.

Um #1 might want to turn off Fox News and study the facts a bit. Judge Walker is married to a woman and has three children. The #1 post should be deleted by the editors immediately - that’s how false information gets disseminated quickly as fact.

No. 4 - it is dispiriting the way this kind of stuff gets thrown around so carelessly.  Of course, it’s totally irrelevant to the underlying issue, and it’s virtually impossible (unless one recruits judges from the ranks of the eunuchs in the Seraglio) to find judges who are neither homosexual nor heterosexual.  But people just pop off with this sort of thing with absolutely no compunction or apparent embarrassment.  We seem to live in a world of complete urban legend.

#4. See what Jim the Puritan wrote in the preceding entry. Apparently the judges homosexuality is real. One might suppose this would create a bias, no?  Larry

“Um #1 might want to turn off Fox News and study the facts a bit.”

That’s interesting. Indeed, Fox News reports that he is “...one of three openly gay federal judges in the country.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

If the judge were a practicing homosexual, I would speculate that his involvement in the case might potentially pose a COI in that overturning Proposition 8 might allow him to marry his partner. However, I’m no expert in the professional ethics of the legal beagles, and there are others who post here who are experts. So, I will rephrase the question in #1:

If the judge is a practicing homosexual, should he have recused himself?

It rather reminds me of the recent HOB theology committee report. Those supporting SSBs (etc.) included individuals who are practicing homosexuals. That part of the document made no attempt whatsoever to examine both sides of the issue in an objective manner.

IF the judge is gay, yes he should have recused himself.  Him hearing the case would leave the judge open to charges of conflict of interest and would taint the decision.  If he is gay and wanted to “marry” he would be open to charges that he decided the issue based on his personal desires.  Nothing good will come of him deciding this issue if he is in fact gay.
As for a heterosexual judge, he/she wouldn’t really have a direct issue in the case. Good judicial judgment would tell the judge to not hear the case if he is gay.  That is the true issue, his judgment in taking the case.  As the chief district judge, he could have passed it on to another judge and avoided the appearance of a conflict of interest.