Today, National Organization for Marriage called Judge Vaughn Walker a “rogue judge … who himself was engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship.” This is the handiwork of NOM’s PR firm, CRC Public Relations which has represented NOM since their inception. CRC is known as the attack dog of conservative causes.
While CRC likes to remain in the shadows, they are the firm that represented “Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth,” a group of Navy veterans who launched a disgraceful and dishonest political attack against the war record of John Kerry to thwart his bid for the White House in 2004. Kerry is the recipient of a Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts.
It was CRC that arranged a Washington Post puff piece about Brian Brown in 2009. Shortly after the story appeared, the Post’s ombudsman issued an apology wherein he wrote “I agree that the story fell short.” CRC is currently run by Greg Mueller, the communications director for Pat Buchanan’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns.
Today’s release relates to the decision by a Nevada judge to rule against marriage equality. As I have previously written, this decision (by a Judge who is a Mormon bishop) was a foregone conclusion and his ruling swiftly moves the case to the friendlier 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. John Eastman, NOM’s chairman is quoted as saying:
This important ruling shows how far out of the mainstream the decision
in the Proposition 8 case was, and totally undercuts the legal
conclusions that the San Francisco court used to invalidate Proposition
8. We hope that the decision will help the U.S. Supreme Court to see the
importance of granting certiorari in the case so that the good of
marriage will be maintained across the country, just as it was in
From my perspective, Judge Walker’s ruling in the Proposition 8 case and the subsequent ruling by the 9th Circuit, sustaining Walker’s ruling show just how out of the mainstream the Judge in Nevada is. As for influencing the granting of certiorari by the Supreme Court, Eastman is irrelevant and the Nevada Case has no bearing on entirely different circumstances in the Prop 8 matter. Eastman continues:
Unfortunately, a judge in San Francisco who is engaged in a long-term
same-sex relationship – a relationship that warranted his recusal because
it appears to make him a beneficiary of his own ruling – decided to
substitute his values for those of the people of California who twice
voted in favor of true marriage. This is the height of judicial activism
and we urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the Proposition 8
This ad hominem attack is plainly stated bigotry. By this logic not much would get decided by judges. Indeed, it is oddly ironic given that the Judge in the case that they are heralding was predisposed to bias by virtue of his religious convictions. There was no request for his recusal. Nor, for that matter, was Judge Walker asked to recuse himself in spite of the fact that it was an open secret that Walker is gay. It is also ironic that Walker’s first nomination to the federal bench by President Reagan became stalled in the Senate due to the perception that Walker was insensitive to LGBT issues.
Note that Eastman does not attack any aspect of Judge Walker’s ruling. Nor is he specific about exactly which “values” Judge Walker holds. There is a very good reason for that. Walker’s 136 page opinion in the Prop 8 case was meticulously detailed and carefully researched. It denies any charge of bias. While the ruling by the 9th Circuit to sustain Walker was two to one, the opinion regarding whether Walker should have recused himself was unanimous. There wasn’t so much as a hint of bias.