They ask, “How can a gay man act impartially upon a law denying him equality?”
The answer: “With every bit as much impartiality as a straight person who wishes to deny a minority group equality.”
In truth a minority groups equal rights should never be put to the vote. Particularly if that minority group is as the late Thurgood Marshall put it, “Despised, discriminated against and dispossessed.”
April 26, 2011
Supporters of Proposition 8, California’s ballot-approved ban on same-sex marriage, filed a motion this week contesting Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that the ban is unconstitutional, because he’s gay man who may have wished to marry his partner.
In August of last year, Judge Walker, now retired, ruled that the 2008 voter initiative banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, because Prop 8 “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
In a filing with the District Court on Monday, the “Yes On 8” campaign argued that Walker should have recused himself from presiding over the case because he has a longtime same-sex partner — whom he may someday wish to marry. This, the filing says, means that Walker went against “the judiciary’s strict fidelity to the ancient maxim that ‘no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.'”
“Given that Chief Judge Walker was in a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship
throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced),” the filing said, “it is clear that his ‘impartiality might reasonably [have been] questioned’ from the outset’.”
The “Yes On 8” campaign also emphasized that it’s not that they’d object to every gay or lesbian judge from presiding over the case — only those that may want to get married one day.