Gay judges: totally biased, right? Can’t trust ’em! Why can’t they just go back to dressing windows?
Mark your calendars for June 13th, because that’s the day that a California district court will hear some fabulously insane arguments about how those fags just can’t be trusted. According to the Prop 8 people, San Francisco Judge Walker should have recused himself from the California case because he is a gay homosexual who loves another gay homosexual.
For example, Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, wrote, “If the judge ain’t straight you must vacate.” Barber also predicted that his organization would soon be designated a hate group, filed an FCC complaint about Adam Lambert, and advanced a report that gays are “moral perverts” who should be kept out of the army due to emotional instability or moral weakness.
Obviously, these people are mental. But don’t take our word for it! Pretty much everyone is in shock that the Prop 8 folks would make such a ridiculous claim. From law experts to newspaper editorial boards to just your average man on the street, the entire world has responded to their latest gambit with a collective and delicious WTFBBQ.
We’ve rounded up some of the tastiest disbelief for your reading pleasure. Peep it, emphasis all ours:
- “I don’t think this judge had any more duty to disclose his sexual orientation than a Christian or Jewish or Muslim judge has a duty to discuss their religion or a heterosexual judge has his duty to discuss their sexual orientation.” — Retired Illinois state Judge Raymond McKoski
- “Opponents of gay marriage getting slimy and desperate … Aside from the faulty legal reasoning, supporters of the law aren’t doing themselves any favors when it comes to convincing anyone that their position on marriage amounts to anything other than prejudice.” — Greg Sargent, Washington Post
- “Yes, ladies and gentlemen, at long last the anti-gay marriage movement has been unmasked for what it is; disgusting homophobia and bigotry wrapped up in voter referendums and moving documents.” — Elie Mystal, Above the Law
- “The group’s assertion that a gay judge in a relationship is less able than a heterosexual married judge to render a fair decision on a sexual-orientation case says more about the pervasiveness of discrimination against homosexuals than it does about Walker’s fitness to hear the matter. ” — Los Angeles Times editorial
- “If these substantive arguments were not enough, the motion to vacate is just bad strategy. It is telling of how desperate the Prop 8 Proponents must be that they are willing to cry bias, an argument that usually offends judges. Absent obvious evidence of a conflict of interest, judges are loathe to have their impartiality — or that of their well-regarded colleagues — questioned.” Ari Ezra Waldman, California Western School of Law in San Diego, California
- “…it is nonsense to say that Judge Walker did anything wrong by hearing the case, which was randomly assigned to him, and by deciding the matter. Those who are attacking the decision by attacking Judge Walker should be ashamed.” — Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law
- “…if you accept the logic of the anti-gay-marriage side, then straight married people living in California—indeed, straight unmarried people who might someday marry—would have just as much of a personal interest in the case. They’re the ones who Prop. 8 defenders insist would suffer, along with any children they might have, from the undermining of traditional marriage they say would come about if gay marriage were legalized. On those grounds, a heterosexual judge should have recused him or herself, too. If that sounds ridiculous, then so should the argument that Walker is somehow guilty of misconduct.” — Margaret Talbot, The New Yorker
Anyone else want to take a shot at unpacking this latest anti-gay legal gambit?