A date has been set for the hearing on a motion to nullify the decision to overturn Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment 
passed by voters in 2008 in the US state of California that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The motion to set aside Judge Vaughan Walker’s decision to strike down the measure has been set for June 13, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Proponents of Prop 8 have filed the motion because they argue that Judge Walker had a conflict of interest when hearing the case, as he is a practicing homosexual who is cohabiting with another man.
The legal team for the group protectmarriage.com, which is filing the motion is “urging the district court to vacate retired Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that marriage is a constitutional right for same-sex couples based on new evidence suggesting he was likely prejudiced because of his own long-term same-sex relationship.”
The attorneys pointed out that Walker failed to disclose that he was involved in a ten-year homosexual relationship, a circumstance they argue severely tainted his ability to rule impartially in the case.
“The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com. “Judge Walker’s ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires.”
Judge Walker ruled in August 2010 that Prop. 8 violated the constitutional rights of homosexuals to marry their same sex partners.
His ruling set aside the votes of 52 percent of Californians who voted for the amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
In his 136-page opinion striking down the amendment, Walker wrote, “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.”
According to the Post, in August 2009 Salon.com reported “that Walker had been reportedly seen with his same-sex partner at professional and social events. Reuters also published details of the relationship, describing Walker’s partner as a physician and asserting that the relationship had been going on for 10 years.”
In early April of this year Walker confirmed that he is, indeed, a practicing homosexual, but insisted that the fact had no bearing on his ability to rule impartially in the Prop. 8 case. “I don’t think it’s relevant,” he told reporters. “I never thought it was appropriate to recuse myself from that case.”
Equating his homosexuality with race and nationality, Walker told reporters that it would “not be a positive development if you thought a judge’s sexuality, ethnicity, national origin, or gender would prevent a judge from handling a case.”
At least one constitutional law expert agreed with Walker’s reasoning. Time magazine quoted Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the law school at the University of California-Irvine, as saying that the latest motion by the pro-marriage team is “offensive” and has “no chance of success.”
But Matt Barber of the legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel argued that given Walker’s homosexuality and his involvement in a same-sex relationship, the judge should have immediately recused himself from the case, and the fact that he did not offers a strong case for vacating his ruling.
“With Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven,” Wrote Barber in an online commentary. “His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.”