# Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500 "2011-06-14T22:31:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/1 "2011-06-14T22:31:20Z")
A judge today [rejected](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_gaymarriage_california) arguments made by supporters of Prop 8 who challenged that because the original judge in the trial, Judge Vaughn Walker, ruled that Prop 8 was illegal and later came out as gay that he should have recused himself and his ruling set aside. This trial and this proposition has been going on for a long ass time. What’s next? I admit I haven’t kept up with the details of this trial. Is today’s ruling ONLY to settle the matter of whether or not Walker was a valid judge to rule on the case? Does the case go back to the 9th Circuit now to settle the larger issue of whether or the ruling was legal (I think an appeal was made if the proponents had “standing” to contest) or with this ruling today, it settles the entire matter before the 9th Circuit and only the Supreme Court is left for appeal? ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/2 "2011-06-14T22:50:58Z")
This was just the side issue of whether Walker’s ruling should be vacated on the grounds that he he had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself. As the answer was no, nothing changes. The case itself is still waiting for appeal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the California Supreme Court about whether, under California law, the backers of Prop 8 alone have standing to appeal the case when the state officials who normally do that sort of thing decline to do so. Right now we are waiting on that ruling (expected in a few months), and if they rule yes to that question, the case will then be heard in the appeals court. If they rule that Prop 8 proponents lack standing, the issue dies there, Prop 8 is overturned, and same-sex marriage becomes legal in California again – but no states outside of California are affected and no precedent is set. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/3 "2011-06-14T23:27:19Z")
Why would no precedent be set? Walker determined that banning same sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. If the ruling is upheld, wouldn’t that make same sex marriage legal everywhere in the U.S.? If the Prop 8 backers are allowed to appeal, and lose the appeal, then appeal to the Supreme Court and lose there, would that be different? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/4 "2011-06-14T23:43:41Z")
> [@Greg\_Charles](#): > > Why would no precedent be set? Walker determined that banning same sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. If the ruling is upheld, wouldn’t that make same sex marriage legal everywhere in the U.S.? If the Prop 8 backers are allowed to appeal, and lose the appeal, then appeal to the Supreme Court and lose there, would that be different? If the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling (to overturn Prop 8) then it only legalizes SSM in the 9th Circuit (which is CA plus something like NV and AZ). It might cause other circuit courts to fallow suit, but they needn’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/5 "2011-06-15T00:08:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling (to overturn Prop 8) then it only legalizes SSM in the 9th Circuit (which is CA plus something like NV and AZ). It might cause other circuit courts to fallow suit, but they needn’t do that. Unless I am mistaken, the ruling under appeal is not whether SSM should be legal but whether Proposition 8 is legal. Obviously, Prop 8 applies only to the State of California. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/6 "2011-06-15T00:11:49Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Unless I am mistaken, the ruling under appeal is not whether SSM should be legal but whether Proposition 8 is legal. Obviously, Prop 8 applies only to the State of California. I don’t think so. It’s being challenged as falling afoul of the US Constitution. In that case, any similar ban in the 9th Circuit would be affected. Similarly, if the SCOTUS found prop 8 unconstitutional, it would make SSM legal in the entirety of the US. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/7 "2011-06-15T00:15:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling (to overturn Prop 8) then it only legalizes SSM in the 9th Circuit (which is CA plus something like NV and AZ) [Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit) ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/8 "2011-06-15T00:16:26Z")
Now to the Supreme Court… If it strikes down Walker’s ruling will SSM be illegal throughout the US\> ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/9 "2011-06-15T00:19:52Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > [Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit) Thanks, I was too lazy to look it up. And I would have bet money that it didn’t include the North West. Looks like Utah might dodge a bullet, though!! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/10 "2011-06-15T00:21:50Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Now to the Supreme Court… If it strikes down Walker’s ruling will SSM be illegal throughout the US\> No. It will just say that the US Constitution doesn’t require SSM. It won’t say that it forbids it. Just throws it back to the states. That will happen if \*Roe \*is overturned, too. Won’t make abortion illegal, it will just allow states to make it illegal if they choose. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/11 "2011-06-15T00:22:26Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Now to the Supreme Court… If it strikes down Walker’s ruling will SSM be illegal throughout the US\> No - at most, propositions outlawing SSM will be legal throughout the US, which is not the same thing at all (especially since I don’t think all states have propositions) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/12 "2011-06-15T00:30:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Thanks, I was too lazy to look it up. And I would have bet money that it didn’t include the North West. It’s a HUGE circuit, the largest in the country. There have been (and continue to be) proposals to split it in to at least two separate circuits, but they haven’t come to anything up to this point. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/13 "2011-06-15T00:48:04Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > A judge today [rejected](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_gaymarriage_california) arguments made by supporters of Prop 8 who challenged that because the original judge in the trial, Judge Vaughn Walker, ruled that Prop 8 was illegal and later came out as gay that he should have recused himself and his ruling set aside. Good. There was no grounds for the challenge, and that’s not how the U.S. legal system is supposed to work. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/14 "2011-06-15T01:24:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t think so. It’s being challenged as falling afoul of the US Constitution. In that case, any similar ban in the 9th Circuit would be affected. > > Similarly, if the SCOTUS found prop 8 unconstitutional, it would make SSM legal in the entirety of the US. The Supreme Court could rule as narrowly or as widely as they like. They could apply their logic strictly to Proposition 8, and wait for a case from another state to work its way through the courts. Or they could outright say that not recognizing same-sex marriages is in violation of the Equal Protection and/or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/15 "2011-06-15T02:03:51Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > The Supreme Court could rule as narrowly or as widely as they like. They could apply their logic strictly to Proposition 8, and wait for a case from another state to work its way through the courts. Or they could outright say that not recognizing same-sex marriages is in violation of the Equal Protection and/or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. I don’t see how the could rule in such a way that it only legalized SSM in CA. If they chose not to take the case, then it would stay legal in the 9th Circuit only. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/16 "2011-06-15T07:00:06Z")
I was kind of disappointed to learn that Judge Walker was gay as it seemed to give ‘credence’ to The Other Side about claims of a gay agenda and whathaveyou. But then I thought about it, and I wondered if gay rights groups would be up in arms if it turned out that Walker was, I donno, a member of a rightwing Christian organization? Somehow the fact that Walker belongs to a tiny minority of the people he’s ruling on seems…odd. Why not just disclose that? So my question (and it’s in GD because that’s where it will end up anywho) is: **Would anyone have really expected Walker to recuse himself/disclose that information? Would the gay rights groups (aka the good guys) be up in arms if it was found that he was a member of the AFK or had very conservative viewpoints on this issue?** Is there any ethical precedent here that sticks? One the one hand, it doesn’t seem right to use someone’s sexual orientation against them. On the other, it seems odd to not notice it. I mean, how many times have I heard pro-choice groups lament, “Oh, if only men could have babies…abortion would be a mandate.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/17 "2011-06-15T07:18:01Z")
How is it any more relavent than being straight? Should female judges have to recuse themselves frrom sex discrimination cases? Black judges from racial discrimination? Every judge is going to belong to a demographic. Their job is to put that aside when they decide a case. A gay judge is no less capable of that than a straight judge. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/18 "2011-06-15T07:30:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How is it any more relavent than being straight? Should female judges have to recuse themselves frrom sex discrimination cases? Black judges from racial discrimination? > > Every judge is going to belong to a demographic. Their job is to put that aside when they decide a case. A gay judge is no less capable of that than a straight judge. I didn’t say anything about who is capable. But not all blacks support affirmative action, and not all women support abortion or think that they’re being discriminated against. Conservatives have proved that. I just feel like 99 per cent of gays support same sex marriage. 😛 And women are _half_ of the electorate, whereas gay men are like 2-3 per cent. When a conservative Republican judge tries a case, the liberals have a cow, right? And aren’t SCOTUS decisions usually analyzed when voted along party lines? I’m asking if there was precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/19 "2011-06-15T07:32:11Z")
Also: What happens when there’s another SCOTUS seat open? Do we filibuster supposed Evangelical approved anti-abortion judges? Because they’re trusted to rule on matters of the law, not personal religious positions, right? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/20 "2011-06-15T07:35:57Z")
Let’s say SF’s circumcision ban gets passed and the matter comes before a Jewish judge. Is there going to be speculation about it? Of course! But does this mean Jews can’t judge on these matters? Or should any circumcised male (oh god, this would be funny if this does come up and opponents to circ demand that the judge is a non-Jewish female or something) recuse himself? Seriously, though, I see this “Judge\_\_\_\_\_\_, who is Jewish…”, forcing an unnecessary query into the status of one’s foreskin. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500.md?page=2)