A group opposed to gay marriage says Judge Vaughn R. Walker should have disclosed that he was in a long-term same-sex relationship and recused himself from presiding over the Proposition 8 case.Welcome to the mind of the homophobe, in which being gay makes you biased, but being opposed to gay marriage is apparently the very definition of impartiality.
I think my favourite quote is this:
A spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage said Walker's conflict was not his sexual orientation, but the fact that he was in a serious same-sex relationship that could conceivably lead to marriage.Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine law school dean, does his best to highlight the bullshit-
[Chemerinsky] likened the legal maneuver to an argument that black judges cannot decide race discrimination cases or female judges preside over cases involving sex bias.- but actually this doesn't go far enough. The better analogy is telling female judges they can preside over cases involving sex bias, but not if it's over an employment issue. After all, those grasping bitches are bound to want more money, huh, lads? Can't trust those addle-minded harpies to decide whether a woman deserves equal pay!
Naturally, the "ProtectMarriage" argument (bet the KKK wishes it had had the forethought to call itself "ProtectFreedom") leads to the immediate corollary that if a legislature ever became insane enough to outlaw marriage, only single judges could be allowed to judge its constitutional validity. Well, them and gays, obviously.