According to the news report, an anonymous tipster revealed the sexual persuasion of his Honor, to set the record - um - straight.
Due to the sensistive nature of the case - the caller was reluctant to provide many details (including his or her identity) - save to state the following:
"He (Judge Walker) has a private life and he doesn't conceal it (the fact he is gay), but doesn't think it is relevant to his decisions in any case."
On the contrary, one could easily argue that it is especially "not true" in this instant case, which arises from the Prop 8 initiative banning same-sex marriage.
For instance, early on in the proceedings, Judge Walker ruled that there would be "no jury".
.
Why is that?
So he could control the outcome, of course!
The National Organization for Marriage was quick to jump on the issue.
The spokesperson for the group asserted that Judge Walker was more "akin to an activist than a neutral referee."
I agree!
Andy Pugno, who is the lawyer in charge of general counsel for Prop 8 supporters, has allegedly taken sides with Judge Walker.
For the record, NOM has stated that if they lose the case, they will not make his sexual persuasion an issue.
I have to wonder, though, is that just a political posture they've taken to avoid angering the Judge before he hands his ruling down?
News at 11!
No comments:
Post a Comment