Creative Commons/mlinksva

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

The federal judge who declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional last year did not need to recuse himself from the case just because he was in a long-term relationship with another man, another federal judge ruled Tuesday afternoon.

The ruling came one day after opponents of same-sex marriage argued that Judge Vaughn Walker, who has since retired, should have refused to take the Proposition 8 case when it was assigned to him, because he was in a long-term same-sex relationship.

This latest ruling does not put an end to the long-running legal battle over the legality of California's same-sex marriage ban.

Tuesday's decision was fairly narrow: it only pertains to Judge Walker's role in the case, not the merits of his decision.

Chief Judge James Ware found that Judge Walker had no obligation to refuse to take the case: “The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” he wrote in his decision.

Opponents of same-sex marriage insisted that they were not opposed to Judge Walker ruling on the case simply because he is gay. Rather, as The Bay Citizen reported, Charles Cooper, the attorney for Prop. 8’s proponents, argued that Walker “occupied precisely the same shoes as the plaintiffs” in the case, four same-sex couples who were seeking the right to marry. Yet, when pressed by Judge Ware, Cooper could cite no evidence that Judge Walker wanted to marry his long-term partner, a physician, when he took the case. 

Judge Ware found that merely being in a same-sex relationship of long-standing is not grounds for recusal: “To hold otherwise, and require recusal merely based on the fact that the presiding judge is engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship, is to place an inordinate burden on minority judges,” he wrote.

“The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief," he continued. 

Supporters of same-sex marriage hailed the ruling.

On Twitter, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi wrote: “Justice prevails in #Prop8 ruling today – all families deserve equality now.”

"Judge Ware’s opinion made clear that personal characteristics such as sexual orientation cannot be fodder for personal attacks on judges’ integrity. This ruling will protect all judges from similarly desperate and unwarranted attacks from parties who lose their initial case and unfairly seek a second bite at the apple," said Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in a statement.

The foes of same-sex marriage vowed to appeal Judge Ware's ruling. "The ProtectMarriage.com legal team obviously disagrees with today's ruling," said attorney Cooper in a statement. "Our legal team will appeal this decision and continue our tireless efforts to defend the will of the people of California to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman." 

Judge Ware inherited the Prop. 8 case when Judge Walker retired from the bench earlier this year.

Prop. 8 supporters are trying to appeal Walker's decision, but their case is tied up over the question of whether they have the right to defend the state law, when the governor and attorney general refuse to do so.