Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory."

This should be mention. Had he been a fundamentalist Christian who had upheld Prop 8, that would've been mentioned. NotARepublican55 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the central article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Walker isn't mentioned here. The gayness of that Bush appointee is mentioned on the case's page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a great idea to look at legal rulings that way. For the most part, that kind of stuff is not considered relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Walker being gay means that he has major conflicts of interest in this case and should have recused. Federal law provides for required recusal in the following circumstances:

1. "any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4))
2. "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (28 U.S.C. § 455(a))

As a point of criticism - and a very strong analogy - I offer the following quote. Admittedly, it wouldn't fit into the article except in a "criticism of ruling" section. "His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute."

At the very least, the following phrase should be added to the end of the Post-Election Events section: "pro-Proposition 8 groups have condemned the conduct of the trial and the ruling's content on the basis that Walker, who is openly gay, should have recused himself from the case for a conflict of interest." Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Walker's member of a protected minority class affected by the case was not an issue in the case, and is not related to the question of the constitutionality of the ballot measure. If that can be sourced as a major political argument, it might be appropriate in a "public reaction" section of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the article about the case, but it would have to be put in context with a sourced statement that judges who are members of a protected class (blacks, gays, straights, Christians, whatever) are not required to recuse themselves from rulings on the basis of affecting the civil rights of the class. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. Native94080 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You all might want to overlook the U.S. Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which deals with a Christian group wanting recognition from a public law school in San Francisco. The Christian group is anti-gay. Their website here explains their own analysis of the SCOTUS decision. Native94080 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are not a native English speaker, "Native94080", unless you are actually asking us to ignore the case in question? Perhaps you wish us to "look over", "look into", or "look at" the case, meaning to observe and inspect for relevant information to the topic at hand?

I'm also not entirely sure what relevance the case you point out has regarding Walker's being gay, his duty under Federal code to recuse himself from cases in which he has a personal or financial stake, and questions now being raised in regard to the fairness of the trial as conducted and the legitimacy of Walker's decisions of fact and law thereby. Could you clarify that please? Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he's gay was well known before this case. If the defendants thought they had any hope of winning on that argument they'd have asked him to recuse himself; they didn't. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this isn't a WP:FORUM. What's to be discussed here is the editing of this article -- and since the matter at question is a single aspect of the public response to the ruling in a case related to this Prop which has its own web page, the correct place for possible inclusion of a mention of this response is on the case's web page... as Wikidemon noted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposition for an edit to be made to this article. At the very least, it should be noted here that Walker's ruling is controversial. But why are you so afraid of an open discussion that you must scream to try to shut people up on a talk page? Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rulings in lawsuits are assumed to have controversy, elsewise there would not have been a lawsuit, and in this case the possibility of appeal is mentioned. The P v. S section should be spun off into its own header, a short paragraph summary style with a "Main article" link. (And if you disagree with the WP:FORUM policy, that is the proper place to raise that disagreement.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I object to the dishonest misuse of WP:FORUM. I have proposed two different versions of a change for the article, and you are claiming WP:FORUM to avoid discussing them. That is dishonest.

Elsewise there would not have been a lawsuit - oh please. Lawsuits can be launched for anything at any time. This ruling is particularly controversial, as is the larger situation surrounding it. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Before anybody wants to highlight one aspect, him being gay, lets then also mention that he was first nominated by Reagan, then the elder Bush before he was finally confirmed. Main opposition argument was that he was anti gay, because of the gay Olympics case etc. He is a libertarian, and generally conservative. It is easy to cherry pick a single aspect to do some politics.... Balance is essential. -- Kim van der Linde 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User WTWU, if you want to discuss controversy about the judge's sexual orientation, please refer to the judge's wiki-talk page by clicking here. Native94080 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Got an axe to grind trying to minimize something, "Native"? Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell: he didn't recuse, wasn't asked to recuse, no significant reliable source has suggested he should have, it is not being discussed as a grounds for appeal by relevant parties. It is also a total non-issue, per Wikidemon and others. His sexuality is as relevant as his shoe size. Oh wait, has someone got a source for that? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And it should be noted that there is some question about whether he is openly gay, which makes inclusion of such a statement even more problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. We do not know if he is gay, and if he is, he is certainly not "openly" so. The one local political gossip / scandal / hot news tidbit column from which all the other sources get this says it is an "open secret", which is different than being openly gay - almost the opposite. WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't really be speculating about the sexuality of a person who chooses to keep it private, so I suggest we wind this down and archive the discussion, unless and until there is some strong sourcing on this. And even there, it belongs in a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How does being gay have anything to do with a conflict of interest. In this case, based on your logic, a straight judge would also be in a conflict of interest. So we would have to find a bisexual judge to take on the case? And doesn't this section also fail WP:NOTFORUM, and Fox News isn't really a trustworthy source for factual information. AGiorgio08 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)