Judge James Ware Denies Motion to Vacate Anti-Proposition 8 Judgment

No surprises here. US District Court Judge James Ware has issued a 21 page order denying the California's Proposition 8 defenders' motion to vacate former district judge Vaughn Walker's anti-Prop 8 judgment on account of Walker's failure to recuse.

Ware, rather than directly taking on Prop 8 proponents’ argument, rejects it out of hand by mischaracterizing it. For example, he states that the argument for recusal rests merely on the grounds that Walker "could be affected by the proceedings" and that "it depends upon the assumption that a judge who is in a relationship has an interest in getting married which is so powerful that it would render that judge incapable of performing his duties."

In fact, the core of Prop 8 defendants' argument is that Walker had a "significant legal interest" at stake in the case.  He was deciding whether to confer on himself a legal right to marry his same-sex partner. The argument also states that Walker has no exemption from the long-held legal principle that no one can be a judge in his own case and no one is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.

Ware ignored the defenders' argument to favor identity politics over the rule of law.

Of course, all the leftist media now mischaracterize the order to vacate, promoting headlines such as this from the New York Times: "California Judge Upholds a Ruling on Gay Marriage."

There are several problems with the bias and propaganda shown by the press:

1) The news headlines all make Judge Ware's order sound as though gay marriage is now legal in California or that it soon will be. This is pure and simple propaganda for the masses who do not carefully follow the news.

2) Judge Ware did not "uphold" any ruling. He denied the Prop 8 proponents' motion to vacate the decision. There is a world of difference between the two.

3) Judge Ware's order was not a "ruling on gay marriage." It was a ruling on a motion to vacate Judge Walker's biased and legally dubious opinions about Prop 8 and about California voters.

4) Prop 8 doesn't have anything to do with "gay marriage." It is a California constitutional amendment stating that California only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman. Even in the case of same sex marriage, there is no test or proof of "gayness" required. To insist that the debate is about "gay marriage" is to deny the problem of intrusive provability (How does one "prove" gayness?) and to deny the myriad ramifications of neutering the marriage relationship.

Proposition 8 will now go back to the federal circuit court, on its way to the Supreme Court. Same sex marriage advocates and gay activists will consider this to be a great victory in the struggle to promote gay identity.

The rest will see this for what it is. Another judicial attack on marriage and the family, tearing at the very fabric of our society.