Prop 8 runing - 7: The other side squawks

They just cannot see their own bias. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and a spokesman for the American Family Association (to say nothing of Maggie Gallagher's NOW which has already squawked) are saying that Judge Walker should have recused himself from hearing the Prop 8 case because he is (supposedly) gay.

This is great !!! It forces the issue to be faced square on. All they can do is squawk and bleat about "compromise of judgment" by his own "sexual proclivities." As if they as (presumed) heterosexuals would not have a comparable "compromise of judgment" from their own "sexual proclivities." As someone suggested: we'd have to have eunuchs for judges if that were the requirement.

What it will of course come down to, in court anyway, is whether the opinion stands the test of findings of fact and findings of law. If it does, then the judge's sexuality is irrelevant. In the opinion of most legal scholars who have commented, it does. There may be some judges (maybe even four of the Supremes) who will say the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry.

That's ok. Walker's ruling makes it clear that plaintiffs are not asking for a "new right" but for equal treatment to marriage that others enjoy. He did not hang it on "right to marry" but on "right to equal treatment under the law." Simply asking to have their relationships recognized as what they are: marriage.

Perkins made a bizarre claim that I can't even unravel:

"Had this guy been ... an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case, so I do think [his homosexuality] has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent."

Is he talking about Ted Haggard? A (possibly) closeted gay man who violated his church's moral code, created a scandal, and lost his position of leadership because of it? How is that comparable?

Judge Walker is a senior federal judge in a court of law, not a church. He breaks no law nor brings any dishonor to the court by being gay, which would be comparable to Haggard's breaking the church's moral code. Homosexuality is no longer against the law, nor is it a reason not to be a judge. There is no scandal involved or dishonor to the courts.

So they can only mean one thing: that he won't have the right kind of bias in making his decision. They want a judge who shares their own heterosexist bias.

I think the more they squawk and show their true lack of logic, the more people are going to see the clarity of Walker's decision. At least thinking people will and young people will. Too bad they don't make up a majority.

Ralph