Conflict of Interest on Prop 8

Hello Readers! As Philip DeFranco likes to say "I love yo faces!"

So, here's the deal today: Look way back in your memories to 2008. Do you guys remember that little thing we voted on called Prop 8? You do? Oh, good! It was that thing that defined marriage in CA as hetero. It also provided for previous same-sex marriages, by recognizing all of them that had taken place before November 2008. It was kind of a big deal, if you guys remember.

Well, in 2010, a District Judge named Walker overturned the proposition in a cases known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. It was deemed that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment, and a stay was put in effect on Prop 8 pending further appeal, aka, its going to the Supreme Court.

This isn't my issue...if you desire to know how I feel about same-sex marriage and relationships, I have a blog  already posted discussing where my thoughts are on the subject. No, what gets me is what's in recent news. Judge Walker, now retired, the guy who overturned Prop 8 and sent it to the Supreme Court, had a back story that the public was only made aware of recently.

Judge Walker is gay.

His 10-month relationship has just been revealed. Now, the issue with this is how it effected the original case and its subsequent judgement. If you look back at the time-line, when Walker initially presided over this case, he was just starting out in his relationship. The argument from the opposition is that this had an effect on how he ruled the case, that he had a Conflict of Interest.

Two things:

1) Why wouldn't he say something? If he didn't have anything to hide, and he was truly interested in giving an honest ruling, why would he not mention in casual conversation "hey, my boyfriend and I...."?

2) Does it change anything? I know this adds more fuel to the fire of the people trying to uphold Prop 8, but does it really change anything in the eyes of the government?

Its not that I think Prop 8 is un-constitutional. It isn't. But before you jump down my throat, let me explain why. Why the heck would you put something that is simple common knowledge, like breathing, into a document about how to run a country? You wouldn't! The definition of marriage never should have even been a question. But in this time and country, it is.

So, guys, here's what I want from you. I am interested in your honest opinions. Should Walker have stepped up and said something? And either way, in light of the present government, does it change anything?

I am, as always, grateful to have you all out there listening.

With love, the Wondering Mind