Prop 8: Back in Court Today To Prove Being Gay Isn’t Reason To Throw Out A Case

Update: Monday’s session has ended.

READ: Prop 8: Judge’s Questions Suggest Loss For Anti-Marriage Equality Group

Prop 8 attorneys for both sides return to federal district court in San Francisco Monday at noon ET to debate whether or not being gay is a valid reason for throwing out a case. The “Yes On 8” anti-equality attorneys are claiming federal court judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban case because he is in a long-term same-sex relationship.

Claiming Walker’s “impartiality might reasonably have been questioned from the outset,” Yes On 8, aka Protect Marriage, demanded the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is already reviewing Judge Walker’s ruling on appeal, vacate the entire ruling.

READ: Prop 8: Anti-Gay Lawyer’s Motion To Vacate Walker Ruling – Complete Text

To be clear, Yes On 8 claims it’s not that Walker is a homosexual, but that he is in a long-term same-sex relationship, that they believe he should have recused himself. Of course, one might argue the exact same thought process for similarly a-coupled heterosexual jurist.

While it is widely accepted that Judge Walker’s sexual orientation was well-known, after he retired from the bench earlier this year he publicly acknowledged he is gay in an interview, and the anti-gay Yes On 8 team, aka, Protect Marriage, petitioned the court to throw out Walker’s decision, The basis of their argument is that Walker had a vested interest in deciding against them because marriage has value, and Walker, according to Yes On 8, stood to benefit from the decision he rendered. Walker’s now famous decision found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.

Of course, Yes On 8’s argument against Walker proves why the decision Walker rendered was accurate and valid in the first place: because marriage has value and there is no equal substitute.

Ted Olson and David Boies, who won the case that found Prop 8 unconstitutional, say Protect Marriage’s stance is, “an utterly baseless attack on the integrity of the judicial system, on then-Chief Judge Walker, and on all gay and lesbian jurists who faithfully perform their duties and decide cases across this country each day.”

“In fact, under [Protect Marriage’s] reasoning, African-American and female judges would have been required to recuse themselves in the most important civil rights cases in American history, … and all judges would be required to disclose their most private thoughts and relationships in order to preside over any case that involves constitutional rights they might conceivably want to secure for themselves and their families,” Olson wrote. “That is not the law—and our Nation is much the better for it.”

Chief Judge James Ware will hear arguments, but don’t expect a decision today.

Follow @AFER on Twitter today for real-time updates.