American Foundation for Equal Rights

New York Times Editorial Says Attempts by Prop. 8 Supporters to Toss Out Court Ruling are “Preposterous” and “Bogus”

Press Contacts
Amanda Crumley 213-785-5352
Brandon Hersh 202-412-9766

Los Angeles — In a strongly worded editorial entitled “Fit to Rule on Same Sex Marriage” The New York Times today calls efforts by Proposition 8 supporters to throw out the historic decision that ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional “bogus” and says that “The idea that a seasoned, Republican-appointed jurist was unfit to hear the case, and that his decision should be set aside on flimsy ethics grounds, is preposterous.”

Last August, Prop. 8 was ruled unconstitutional in U.S. District Court after a three-week trial presided over by Judge Vaughn Walker. Last week, Prop. 8 supporters attempted to have Walker’s ruling tossed out.

The New York Times’ editorial excoriates the lack of evidence presented by Prop. 8 supporters and points out their faulty legal rationale:

“Given ample chance during a 13-day trial to offer an argument apart from prejudice, proponents of Proposition 8, the prohibition against same-sex marriage in California, found no evidence. Now they are trying to disqualify Vaughn Walker, the now-retired Federal District Court judge who ruled that the measure was unconstitutional.”

“Indeed, following the open-ended logic of Proposition 8′s lawyers, it is hard to think who, if anyone, is qualified to rule on this case. Certainly not wedded heterosexual judges whose marriages stand to be somehow diminished, according to the antimarriage crowd, if Judge Walker’s ruling survives appeal in federal circuit court.”

Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is the sole sponsor of the Perry v. Brown case said, “Legal experts, former judges and news organizations across the nation have strongly criticized the Prop. 8 supporters’ desperate action, calling it ‘absurd,’ ‘slimy’ and ‘deeply offensive.’ This is their latest baseless attempt to divert attention from the weakness of their constitutional arguments and the utter lack of evidence they provided in support of Prop 8.”

Read the full editorial >