In an upcoming book written by Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Jo Becker, Judge Vaughn Walker — the U.S. District Court judge who declared California’s anti-gay marriage law Proposition 8 unconstitutional — reveals that he underwent 'ex-gay' reparative therapy as a young man.
SF Gate has more:
Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality describes Walker blinking back tears as he listened to the man's testimony in 2010, recalling the therapy he had undergone three decades earlier to try to unsnarl uncertainties about his own sexual orientation – but it was a nightmare not revealed publicly until now…
Becker writes that Walker told her the psychiatrist – after some counseling that Walker no longer remembers in any detail – ultimately determined he was not actually gay because he had not yet had sex with a man.
"And he pronounced me cured," recalled Walker – who "wanted badly to believe that was true," the book says…
The "conversion" therapy episodes are among several the book reveals as Walker recalls his internal struggles over his sexuality – and whether, or how, to disclose it.
He says he had "faux romances" with women, entered his first relationship with a man in his late 30s, and was thinking of coming out publicly – but pulled back when he found himself representing the U.S. Olympic Committee in a trademark suit against a San Francisco organization that wanted to call its athletic competition the Gay Olympics.
… After some years on the bench, as Becker describes it, he "began to live a little more openly," occasionally visiting a gay bar, and being seen at social events with his partner, a physician. But he went public with his orientation only in April 2011, more than two months after his retirement.
Shortly after ruling on Prop 8, Walker came out and anti-gay supporters of the law tried to have his decision thrown out on the basis of his inability to be “impartial” as a gay man. That challenge was heard and dismissed by a judge who said that such logic would render female judges unable to rule on gender bias cases.