The reference article regards a Californian Judge, Vaughn Walker, who made a decision that permitted same sex marriages in that state. The California Public had approved a ban on these kinds of marriages but the judge made a ruling that overturned the ban. Shortly, after leaving his stature as Federal judge, he made a exposé that he was in a long-term gay relation.
Challengers of single sex marriages grabbed this opportunity to dispute the validity of his ruling. The challengers questioned the integrity the judge as he gave a verdict that later benefited him. Opponents have filed a motion the aims at overturning the judgement.
“Same sex marriages” have generated discussions in many states in the US. The controversy generated by these marriages has been around for significant periods and reveals how long this debate has lasted. Vaughn’s verdict only brought this debate back to public limelight. The five states that have sanctioned gay marriages have received a lot of condemnation.
Many legal suites are filed and the resulting verdicts have completely changed the face of the family laws in the US. Various churches have been embroiled in this controversy as they expressed their objection to the marriages. This debate extended to the characterization of marriage with some recommending that union between same sex couples should not be taken as marriage.
Legal ethics that govern the conduct of Judges state that a judge is not supposed to step aside from a case due to “gender, ethnicity or religion” (Hayes). Judges put aside their affiliations and depend on their legal knowledge and experience as they make their verdict. This implies that the opponents of gay marriages attempt to have ruling overturned are futile (Hayes). The challengers further argued that the Judge ought to have disclosed his sexual orientation before the beginning of the hearings.
A New York Professor in legal ethics further reaffirmed that opponents would not manage to overturn Vaughn’s verdict. This due to a precedent set in the 1970s that permitted Black and female judges to preside over cases that related to racism and rape respectively. However, had Vaughn sought a marriage licence during the time of the hearing he would he deemed to be reasonably interested in the issue under determination by the court hence not eligible to preside over the case(Hayes).
In as much as I am a believer of freedom, that is do what you heart pleases in the context of law, I do not support same sex marriages. Judge Vaughn was within his constitutional rights by being in gay relationship. The opponents’ challenge of the verdict on basis of sexual orientation was uncalled for as ethics state that a judge’s capability to fairly, determine a case is not subject to ethnicity or gender. The opponent on several occasions had put pressure on the judge to reveal his sexuality (Hayes).
This is very inappropriate as the judge in question was presiding over a case in which “opponents of same sex marriages” were the appellate party(Hayes). Credit is accorded to Vaughn for not succumbing to pressure to reveal his sexuality. He set a precedent for other judges to emulate by waiting until he was retired to reveal it. The opponents of single sex marriage must show due respect to the court by not putting the judge in a position that would compromise his integrity.
In any society like California, choices will not conform to the norms of the community. Vaughn is such an example, as his decision to get into a gay relationship did not go down well with the largely Christian society.
It is unfortunate that some members of this community show minimal tolerance for such individuals. Marriage is a personal matter thus Vaughn and persons of similar opinion should not be victimised for their choices in marriage. Vaughn is an example of a bold and ethical judge who is not afraid of controversy in the course of execution his duties.
The opponents of single sex marriage have filed an action to have Vaughn’s verdict overturned. The verdict was disputed since the presiding judge was reasonably interested in the matter as he later disclosed that he was in a gay relationship. The opponents further argued that he ought to have voluntarily stepped side in such a case.
In essence, the opponents of single sex marriage touch on matter of ethics with regard to the conduct of judges. This will mean that the ruling in relation to this motion will extensively depend on ethical matters, thus clearly stating when a judge ought to preside over a case. This will go a long way in entrenching ethics in an organ of the government, which ought to be professional.
The US is both racially and religiously diverse and this case only brings the issues that have long divided this country to the lime light. The ruling will set a precedent on the effect of religion and race on a judge’s career. As most professionals in ethics have stated the motion is, most likely to be defeated thus showing that the law protects minority.
In view of the above discussion, it is evident that same sex marriages have generated debates. It would therefore be imperative for the state organs that formulate laws to consider such a matter carefully. Evidently, citizens should accommodate people who are not in heterogeneous marriages in their society. The court system plays an imperative function in direction of justice. It is thus essential that it is accorded due respect.
Works cited
Hayes, Ashley. Proposition 8 backers: Gay judge’s ruling should be thrown out. CNN Heroes. 2011. Web.