Judge Walker
My latest at Metro Weekly, “A Judicial Outing?” looks at the new (or not-so-new) revelation about the judge overseeing the trial about whether California’s same-sex marriage prohibition is allowed:
The judge hearing a trial over whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional ”is himself gay,” according to a column that ran in this past Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle.
Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross wrote that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexual orientation was the ”biggest open secret in the landmark trial.”
Is this outing? The views on whether it is or is not are, well, are as plentiful as the colors of the rainbow.
Is this newsworthy? As a fellow judge and friend of Walker’s reportedly told the Chronicle, while laughing, ”Yes.” Although some have suggested otherwise, the judge wasn’t alone.
Will the revelation matter? It’s not yet clear what impact Sunday’s column will have on the trial, where closing arguments remain to be heard by Walker.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political writer at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
I’ve read in the LA TImes that Carol Corrigan is a lesbian. She is a California Supreme Court justice, and we all know how she ruled in that decision. Conversely, she never mentioned her sexuality in her dissent, or any other justice!
There’s no shame in being gay, and thus no offense in discussing a person’s sexual orientation, especially if they are already out.
There’s also not necessarily good reason to expect bias. If sexual orientation were grounds for recusal, heterosexual judges would presumably also be biased in a case where they would have the ability to maintain their monopoly on marriage.