Prop 8 Proponents Move To Vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's Ruling Because He's Gay

They've been talking about it for weeks and today Prop 8's backers officially filed to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning the ban of same-sex marriage in California. Because a gay judge cannot possibly be impartial about gay issues.

The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned. Lawyers for the ban's backers filed a motion in San Francisco's U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." "Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote.

Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson reacts:

To say that Judge Walker's should have disclosed his ten-year relationship with another man or that it made him unfit to rule on Proposition 8 is like saying that a married heterosexual judge deciding an issue in a divorce proceeding has to disclose if he or she is having marital problems and might someday be affected by legal rulings in the case. Or that any judge who professes any religious faith is unable to rule on any question of religious liberty or, at a minimum, must disclose what his faith teaches. Much like a suggestion that a female judge could not preside over a case involving sexual harassment or an African American judge could not preside over a case involving race discrimination, Proposition 8's supporters improperly are suggesting that a judge will rule in favor of any litigant with whom he shares a personal characteristic.

American Foundation for Equal Rights reacts:

"This motion is yet another in a string of desperate and absurd motions by Prop 8 Proponents who refuse to accept the fact that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right. They're attempting to keep secret the video of the public trial and they're attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision. Clearly, the Proponents are grasping at straws because they have

NCLR's Shannon Minter reacts:

"This is a desperate and ill-advised move that underscores their inability to defend Prop 8 on the merits. This is not likely to win them any points with the courts, who understandably do not appreciate having the integrity of judges called into question based on such outrageous grounds. This is part and parcel of the underhanded way the Prop 8 campaign itself was run-based on lies, insinuations, and unsupported innuendo."

Protect Marriage Maryland Explains "Counterfeit Gay Marriage"

Prop 8 Judge Refuses To Recuse Himself

Ninth Circuit Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt has refused to recuse himself from next week's hearing of the appeal of the overturn of Proposition 8. Here's his legalese-laden refusal.

“Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED. [7564262]”

NOM and Protect Marriage will be furious!

CALIFORNIA: Protect Marriage Files Request For Recusal Of Prop 8 Judge

Protect Marriage has filed a formal request for the recusal of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reindhardt, who is scheduled to be part of the three judge panel hearing the appeal of Proposition 8 on Monday. As I noted yesterday morning, at issue is Reinhardt's wife and her involvement with the No On 8 campaign via her job with the ACLU.

In papers filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, lawyers for Proposition 8's supporters said Judge Stephen Reinhardt's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" because his wife heads the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. In that role, the judge's wife, Ramona Ripston, has been an outspoken opponent of Proposition 8 and taken part in legal proceedings to overturn the voter-approved law, the lawyers said. They cited the friend of the court brief the ACLU filed on behalf of the plaintiff's in the case pending before her husband as an example.

According to the above-linked story, Reinhardt has recused himself from past cases involving the ACLU.

CALIFORNIA: Prop 8 Attorney Andy Pugno LOSES Race For State Assembly

Protect Marriage lead attorney Andy Pugno has lost his bid for the California Assembly, despite the heavy backing of NOM. Icing on the cake: winner Richard Pan is a strong supporter of LGBT rights. SUCK IT, NOM!

(Tipped by JMG reader Ray)

Quote Of The Day - Ron Prentice

"Our opponents have taken hold of the recent attacks against homosexuals – terrible acts that the Protect Marriage executive committee thoroughly condemns on every level – and connected them to Prop 8 supporters! We believe that every person is created in the image of God and that all human life is to be respected and valued. There is never cause for provoking humiliation or assault on a person, and every person is entitled to safety and freedom from fear of harm.

"The passage of Proposition 8 did one thing: it placed the traditional definition of marriage into the California Constitution. The work to pass Proposition 8, and now to defend it in the Courts, has not and will never be targeted at the homosexual population. We may never convince all homosexuals of our sincere concern for their wellbeing, but we cannot remain silent in the face of heinous attacks upon them. Please join us in denouncing such persecution, pray for its end, and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" - Protect Marriage chairman Ron Prentice, in a fundraising letter.

NOM Backs Protect Marriage Lawyer Andy Pugno For California Assembly

NOM issued a press release today to announce their TV ad campaign for Andy Pugno, the lead counsel for Protect Marriage who is running for the California Assembly.

Brian Brown, Treasurer of the NOM California PAC, told the media Friday: “Andy Pugno has been a champion for the people of California and voters need to know his admirable record. Attempts by his opponents to smear him based on his stance on family values issues only clarify what voters in California already know: Andy Pugno identifies with their values and their rights and will fight for them as Assemblyman. The National Organization for Marriage enthusiastically supports Mr. Pugno and applauds his efforts in the Proposition 8 fight.”

This Week In Holy Crimes

Over the last seven days...

Pennsylvania: Pastor Arthur Schirmer arrested for the murder of his wife. Schirmer is also suspected of having killed his first wife nine years ago.
Ontario: Father Kenneth Gibbs sued by five women for sexually abusing them as children. Last year Gibbs was convicted on eight counts of sexual assault.
Michigan: Pastor William Bendert arrested for attempting to have sex with a woman and her 11 year-old daughter. Bendert told the female undercover officer that he had lots of experience "training" young girls about sex.
Dominican Republic: Pastor Daniel Vasquez arrested for molesting 30 boys.
New Jersey: Father Charles P. Granstrand accused of child molestation.
Iowa: Rev. Timothy Parker confesses to child molestation of a female relative.
Britain: Pastor Malcolm Hoare on trial for molesting an 11 year-old girl.
Florida: Pastor Robert Riddle pleads no contest to embezzling $200K from his church.
Ontario: Father Alex Castillo accused of child molestation by two brothers.
Virginia: Pastor Jennifer Michelle Brennan convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child.
Belgium: Father Eric Dejaeger may be extradited to Canada to face charges of child molestation. Dejaeger has been a fugitive since 2002.

This Week's Winner
California: Pastor Dino Cardelli has been arrested on multiple felony counts of sexual assault on a child under age 14. The victim is Cardelli's adopted daughter. His wife Nancy learned of the abuse in January of this year and committed suicide in March without reporting the attacks to police. Cardelli, who is being held in lieu of $750K bail, was an early proponent of Proposition 8 and signed Protect Marriage's vow to fight same-sex unions in California. Cardelli has been scrubbed from his church's website, but the Wayback Machine tells us that God personally told him to start his church. "During this visit, the Lord confirmed to Pastor Dino and his wife, Nancy, that He was calling them to start and Pastor the Calvary Chapel of Arcata." On his Facebook page, Cardelli is a member of Protect Marriage and the NOM affiliate One Man-One Woman. He faces 16 years in prison. Prosecutors have argued against lowering his bail, saying Cardelli has told family members he is prepared to flee to Canada with his victim.

Olson & Boies May Ask Court To Force Protect Marriage To Pay Their Fees

In the event that Judge Vaughn Walker's overturn of Prop 8 is upheld by the Ninth Circuit, attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies are prepared to demand that Protect Marriage pay their fees. Via Advocate:

In court filings this week, the attorneys requested extended time to consider fees and court costs but have also asked Prop. 8 supporters for an expedited response in the matter—which they opposed in a Wednesday filing. "Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten [our] time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum wrote. "Such a burden shift is unwarranted."

The amount that may be requested has not be disclosed, but you can bet that Olson and Boies do not come cheap.

Protect Marriage Gloats

Via press release from Protect Marriage:

Great news! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just now granted our request to suspend Judge Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8! This legal victory upholds the votes of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. If the Ninth Circuit had not granted our motion, then Judge Walker’s decision would have gone into effect on Wednesday, changing the definition of marriage in California despite the vote of the people less than two years ago. As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

In addition to stopping Judge Walker from imposing same-sex marriage on California, the Court of Appeal also ordered that this case will be expedited. That means our opening legal briefs are due in just 30 days! So please help support our legal team and all their important work. With the Attorney General and Governor refusing to defend the people’s vote for Prop 8, the entire burden of defending Prop 8 falls up our legal defense team. We receive no government funding. We rely exclusively on the generous financial support of concerned citizens like you. Please make a special donation right now to help us keep up with the legal costs of defending Prop 8! Thank you for your prayers and support!

Here's Protect Marriage's Final Motion

Protect Marriage's final motion claims that the state's job of promoting "responsible procreation" would be irrevocably harmed by gay marriage. Because in California, there has been ABSOLUTELY no irresponsible procreation so far. Hilarious. Considering that the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference is kicking off today in Hawaii, don't be surprised if we get a ruling before the end of the office day in California. It's important to note that some anti-gay evangelicals don't want this appealed to the Supreme Court. They'd rather "sacrifice" California to the evil homos than risk losing at SCOTUS and seeing same-sex marriage become the law of the nation.
CA9Doc 11

Olson/Boies File Motion Opposing Stay

For those following along, this is separate from the motion opposing a stay filed by Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday. Protect Marriage has until 9am today (California time) to file their final response.
Plaintiffs Opp to Motion to Stay

Here's AG Brown's Opposition To The Stay Request From Protect Marriage

Are you dizzy yet from all these legal docs? Protect Marriage has until 9am Monday to deliver their final response.
CA9Doc 8

Protect Marriage's Prop 8 Appeal Quotes Homocon Writer Jonathan Rauch

The work of homocon writer Jonathan Rauch, co-founder of the Quisling site Independent Gay Forum, is cited in Protect Marriage's emergency motion to maintain the stay on Judge Walker's overturn of Proposition 8. Because even "same-sex marriage advocate Rauch recognizes the wisdom" in holding some states back from full equality. From page 58 of their petition.

Protect Marriage Files 95-Page Emergency Motion For Stay Pending Appeal

Note that the first citation is an article from San Diego's Gay & Lesbian Times.
Protect Marriage Appeal

R-71 Petition Names Remain Sealed

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in June that forcing Protect Marriage Washington to disclose the names on their petitions was not unconstitutional, yesterday a federal judge blocked the release of the names as the bigots continues their bid to show that violent homofascists will rain down retribution if R-71's signers become known.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled Wednesday to extend a restraining order that bars public release of the signatures while the case moves forward. He said that if the names were disclosed before a hearing on the case, it would essentially make the case moot. "The release of the names and addresses could not be undone," he said. Stickney's attorney said that the case centered on how the public records act is balanced against First Amendment issues when people want to voice their opinion on a volatile issue. "If you're talking about a nonvolatile issue, like adjusting the sales tax, in most cases that's not going to rise to a constitutional challenge," said Steven Pidgeon, an attorney for Protect Marriage. "But when you have a situation where people are saying 'I'm not going to sign a petition because if I do, my car is going to get keyed, my windows will get broken,' it becomes a different issue."

Who At Target Donated To Yes On 8?

Abe Sauer writes at The Awl:

The truth is not that Target and its leadership have suddenly turned on their commitment to gay rights. It's more that it never really existed to begin with. Further research shows that Target has funneled significant funding to the most socially conservative of Republicans and that it boasts a frightening culture of anti-gay candidate support from Target's own stable of top executives. We have already noted that CEO Gregg Steinhafel and his wife both maxed out their personal contributions this year to Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer. But Steinhafel is just the captain of the crew. Target's current group of top corporate officers have supported a murderers row of anti-gay politicians. Even more confusing, some of those anti-gay candidates supported by Target's PAC and its executives don't even represent Minnesota.

Read Abe Sauer's complete expose.

The History Of Prop 8

JMG reader Matt Baume sends us his recap of the history of Proposition 8 over the last two years. Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling is due any day now.

PhoboQuotable - James Bopp

"We will now ask the district court to rule on whether we are entitled to a special exemption, if we can prove traditional marriage supporters were targeted for harassment and intimidation. We believe there is more than ample evidence.

"What we have, since the adoption of Proposition 8, is a very transparent nationwide strategy by the gay activists to harass and intimidate, as a means to win their political agenda. There were literally hundreds of people who were subject to death threats, destruction of their property, theft, threat to their families or even fired from their jobs." - Protect Marriage Washington douchenozzle attorney James Bopp, reacting to last week's Supreme Court ruling that the signers of Referendum 71 petitions cannot remain secret.

Bopp is, of course, an Outrageous Christianist Liar™ . Not one single person was ever fired from their job due to Proposition 8 support. Not one. There were some petty property destruction incidents on both sides, largely limited to the theft of yard signs. And as for Bopp's claim of "literally hundreds" of death threats? More repulsive lies. Not one incident of a Prop 8-related death threat was ever cited by, as Good As You blogger Jeremy Hooper calls it, "credible news reporting." But the lies of James Bopp are quoted without question by Focus On The Family. This so-called "ample evidence" of his will be fascinating to see.

Prop 8 Backers Ask Judge To Revoke Recognition Of Existing Gay Marriages

As a precursor to today's closing arguments, Protect Marriage has filed a request for Judge Vaughn Walker to revoke California's official recognition of the state's existing 18,000 same-sex marriages.

Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married. Lawyers for two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Prop. 8, on the other hand, are asking Walker to lift the marriage ban permanently. The measure violates the constitutional guarantee of equality, they argued, and must be struck down "regardless of its level of public support."

Walker's final ruling in the case is not expected for weeks.