Close this search box.

Honestly! Delusional Ruling in Prop. 8 Case

By June 15, 2011Legal
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Yesterday, Judge James Ware did as expected, formally denying a Motion to Vacate Judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the homosexual “marriage” case in California because in his mind there was no impartiality or appearance of impropriety on the part of presiding Judge Vaughn Walker. I say “as expected,” because Judge Ware’s hostility to reason during oral arguments was evident to all present. Those defending marriage had no chance with him: he had made up his mind long before he entered that courtroom.

Very briefly, the defendants of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment protecting the traditional definition of marriage, wanted Judge Walker’s decision in Perry vacated after the judge finally disclosed publicly in April his ten-year homosexual relationship. Judge Ware heard this motion and sees no problem with Judge Walker’s judgment.

Judge Ware wrote: “It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings.” But we are not presuming anything. The trial already happened! Judge Walker has already written his opinion! And his bias was, and is, apparent to any reasonable person.

We pointed this out in The Prop. 8 Case Charade and Biased Judge on California’s Proposition 8 Marriage Case as it was happening at the beginning of last year. The appearance of impropriety was undeniable.

And it’s not that the decision “could” have affected him. It does affect him!

Judge Ware made a big deal out of the fact that there is no evidence that Judge Walker intended to marry since he had been in his homosexual relationship for ten years. But that is inconsequential. The judge did not have the legal ability to marry; after his ruling, he does! That’s what he is gaining! Whether or not he takes advantage of the opportunity he himself created out of nothing is immaterial.

This decision is being appealed, as it should be, and the case on the merits also continues. Let us remain in constant prayer. As you can see, much more than a winning legal strategy is needed to win this fight.

And as we have previously discussed, the Prop. 8 case strikes at the heart of democracy.