Prop 8 proponents have filed to have Vaughn Walker's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage vacated because he's gay and, according to them, may benefit from his own ruling.
Opening a new front in the battle over Proposition 8, its proponents said former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's recent comments about his 10-year relationship, which he had not disclosed during the trial, show that his "impartiality might reasonably have been questioned from the outset."
"No man can be a judge in his own case," said Charles Cooper, lawyer for the opponents of same-sex marriage. Because Walker has never disavowed the possibility that he will marry his partner, he had a "clear and direct stake in the outcome" of his own ruling, Cooper said.
This sort of argument seems to ban most judges from judging most cases, as a case involving income tax law for its basis or the plaintiff's standing wouldn't allow any judge who pays income tax to preside, a case about voting rights would disqualify any judge who has voted or plans to vote, or a case where a judge sentences a dangerous criminal who could, one day, live in the same city as the judge.
Also, by the Prop 8 supporters reasoning, all straight people who are married or who may ever marry should recuse themselves from this case. If they really believe their argument that same-sex marriage destroys opposite-sex marriage, then anyone who plans to marry is affected by the ruling.
The linked San Francisco Chronicle article has some quotes, and it sounds like this is the sort of thing other judges are reticent to rule in favor of. It certainly doesn't endear the Prop 8 lawyers to anyone but their donors.