proponents of proposition 8 (i.e. opponents of same-sex marriage in california) are arguing that the decision striking down proposition 8 should be overturned because the judge who ruled in the case was in a same sex relationship and thus had an interest in the outcome of the case. by raising that argument, the pro-prop 8 folks have an internal consistency problem.
the push to outlaw gay marriage was supposedly to protect the integrity of heterosexual marriage. i've never quite understood it, but for some reason they feel that the legal recognition of gay marriage threatens the marriages of non-gay people. if they really believe that's the case, then a heterosexual judge also has an interest in the outcome of the case. the same argument they are using to disqualify judge walker because he is homosexual could be used to disqualify any heterosexual judge. so who does that leave to hear the case?
the push to outlaw gay marriage was supposedly to protect the integrity of heterosexual marriage. i've never quite understood it, but for some reason they feel that the legal recognition of gay marriage threatens the marriages of non-gay people. if they really believe that's the case, then a heterosexual judge also has an interest in the outcome of the case. the same argument they are using to disqualify judge walker because he is homosexual could be used to disqualify any heterosexual judge. so who does that leave to hear the case?
