Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:A retired federal judge's long-term relationship with another man was the subject of an unusual and possibly unprecedented court hearing that began Monday involving California's same-sex marriage ban. 
  
 Lawyers for the sponsors of the voter-approved ban asked the chief federal judge in San Francisco to vacate a decision issued by his predecessor last year that declared Proposition 8 an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights. 
  
 They maintain that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status before trial because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from Walker's verdict. 
  
 Attorneys for both sides were presenting arguments on that question to Chief U.S. Judge James Ware, who could rule from the bench or at a later time. 
  
 Walker publicly revealed after he stepped down in February that he is in a 10-year relationship with a same-sex partner. Rumors that he was gay had circulated before and after he presided over the Proposition 8 trial in early 2010. 
  
 Ted Olson, one of the lawyers for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to overturn the measure, said he was unaware of any other cases in which a ruling was challenged because of the issuing judge's sexual orientation. He called the move to disqualify Walker frivolous and demeaning and said that expecting judges to reveal parts of their personal lives when hearing gay rights cases would set a dangerous precedent. 
  
 "What would a judge do who was Mormon knowing the Mormon Church took such an active role" in campaigning for Proposition 8, Olson asked. "What would a judge who had a nephew or niece or son or daughter who was gay or lesbian do? We have an unlimited number of permutations of what a judge might be asked to disclose." 
  
 Many legal scholars have said they do not expect Ware to overturn Walker's decision. They point out that while having a judge's impartiality questioned because he is gay is new territory, efforts to get women judges thrown off gender discrimination cases or Hispanic judges removed from immigration cases have failed. 
  
 Nonetheless, in a fundraising appeal to Proposition 8 supporters Friday, Ron Prentice, chairman of the religious coalition that qualified the gay marriage ban for the November 2008 ballot, said, "We are much more hopeful for success with a judge presiding over the case who has greater respect for legal precedent and the rule of law." 
  
 Ware also heard arguments on whether he should prohibit Walker from using videotaped recordings of the trial in public speeches. Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the ban's backers, said that Walker's post-retirement use of the recordings violated a U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring the trial from being broadcast beyond the federal courthouse in San Francisco. 
  
 Lawyers for the gay couples that sued to overturn Proposition 8 and for the news media are asking Ware to now make those recordings public. 
  
 Ware said he would issue a written ruling at a later date but suggested he was disinclined to prevent his former colleague from making personal use of the videos. 
  
 Ware said Walker had been given the videos as a parting gift during a "passing the gavel" ceremony. 
  
 "It was done under my auspices. Technologists of the court presented him with a copy of the videotape for his personal possession, so I want to disclose that in case you wish to make an argument that somehow having presided over that event ... I should recuse myself," he said. ||||| A federal judge weighing whether another jurist should have recused himself from the Proposition 8 case because he was in a long-term same-sex relationship took the question under review Monday after three hours of arguments by lawyers.U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware, who is deciding a request by backers of Proposition 8 to throw out last August's ruling against the ballot measure, said he would try to issue a ruling in the next 24 hours."This is the first case where a same-sex relationship is the subject for disqualifying a judge, so it is important that we treat it seriously and get it right," Ware said.Ware did not disclose how he would rule, but many of his comments during arguments suggested he would rule that retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker was not required to step aside when he was assigned to hear the Proposition 8 challenge.Protect Marriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, filed the challenge after the jurist told reporters in April that he had been in a 10-year relationship with his partner. The sponsors contend that the relationship amounted to a conflict of interest that Walker failed to disclose.Charles Cooper, an attorney for Protect Marriage, contended Walker stood "in the same shoes" as the two gay couples who sued to overturn Proposition 8. But Ware appeared skeptical."You can be in a long-term relationship without being in it for the purposes of marriage, right?" the judge asked.Ware noted he was not being asked to determine whether Walker had a duty to disclose his relationship, only whether the Walker should have disqualified himself once he was assigned to the case. |||||
Solution:
A court will decide whether to strike Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on California’s Proposition 8 from the legal record because he is in a committed homosexual relationship, the Los Angeles Times reports. Gay marriage critic ProtectMarriage argues that because Walker was in said relationship when he struck down the same-sex marriage ban, he should have recused himself. A federal district judge in San Francisco scheduled a hearing on the matter; it began today. Click for more on the argument against Walker.