Creative Commons/mlinksva

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

The shifting nature of human relationships and the fickle human heart were rather comically on display at a contentious hearing in a San Francisco federal courtroom Monday morning.

For more than an hour, proponents and opponents of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, argued over whether marriage is the goal of a couple involved in a long-term relationship.

One couple — one member of that couple in particular — was at the center of the debate. Both sides argued over whether Judge Vaughn Walker's relationship with a man was in any way relevant to his ruling last year declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional.

Attorneys for Prop. 8 supporters argued that Walker should have recused himself from the case when he was assigned to it, because Walker and his partner must have wanted to tie the knot, since they had been together for so many years. At Monday's hearing, they asked that his decision on the proposition be vacated. Walker has since retired.

Attorneys representing proponents of same-sex marriage flatly rejected the notion that Walker’s same-sex relationship is relevant to the case. They argued that Walker's ruling should stand.

Judge James Ware, the federal district court judge presiding over the hearing, pointed out that the duration of a romantic relationship is no proof that anyone in it wants to get married. 

Charles Cooper, the attorney for Prop. 8's proponents, argued that Walker “occupied precisely those same shoes as the plaintiffs” in the case, four same-sex California couples who were seeking to right to marry.

But Ware questioned whether the duration of Walker's relationship, which is now a decade old, means that he and his partner, a physician, wanted to get married. “It doesn’t necessarily follow that a long-term relationship is for purposes of marriage,” he said, pressing Cooper for evidence that Walker wanted to tie the knot, without getting an answer.

“This motion is frivolous, offensive and deeply unfortunate,” said Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing Prop. 8's opponents. “Their motion is targeting Judge Walker’s sexual orientation no matter how they try to camouflage it.”