You know times are desperate when supporters of Proposition 8 file motions that would make even the Westboro clan roll their eyes.
In a motion filed late on Monday, those who oppose marriage equality for all Californians claim that because Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker was in a same-sex relationship during the trial, he was unable to make a logical, just ruling on the matter at hand.
Write the d-bags:
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), it is clear that his “impartiality might reasonably [have been] questioned” from the outset. He therefore had, at a minimum, a waivable conflict and was obligated either to recuse himself or to provide “full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification,” so that the parties could consider and decide, before the case proceeded further, whether to request his recusal. His failure to do either was a clear violation of Section 455(a), whose “goal ... is to avoid even the appearance of partiality.”
So, by the logic of these bigots, it's Judge Walker's relationship status and not his sexuality that made him impartial in the case; therefore, only celibate and single LGBT judges are appropriate to rule on gay matters?
What about a married heterosexual who is presiding over divorce proceedings? Or, better yet, a straight judge presiding over the Prop 8 case—a case that regularly heard defendants of inequality levy (however inaccurate) their perceived threats to opposite marriage? Wouldn't they then be impartial, too?
While the motion is blood-boiling, it is obviously a last-ditch, Hail Mary (Mary in the gay vernacular; certainly not football) effort that displays just how weak the case against love and equality was to begin with. In that case, perhaps the motion is ultimately a good sign?