USA Today: Prop 8 Judge is Gay. So Whay?

In it's main editorial USA Today slammed the effort by Christianists and Prop 8 supporters to have the District Court ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger overturned because Judge Walker has confirmed that he is gay after the fact. Unfortunately, the publication gave space for an opposing view authored by Klan loving Tony Perkins, head of the registered hate group Family Research Council. While I question USA Today's judgment in giving a platform to someone with Perkins' sleazy background - will the Imperial Wizard of the Klan be next to pen an op-ed? - I do applaud the main page editorial. Here are highlights:
*
The last thing the legal battle over California's ban on same-sex marriage needs is another layer of controversy. But that's just what it got last month, when retired federal judge Vaughn Walker confirmed the rumor that he is gay and told reporters that he has been in a 10-year relationship with a man. Yes, that's the same Judge Walker who ruled last year that Proposition 8, the state's same-sex marriage ban, is unconstitutional.
*
Predictably, opponents of same-sex marriage pounced on Walker's disclosure. ProtectMarriage, a group defending Prop 8 in federal court, is asserting that Walker should never have heard the case and that his decision should be thrown out. Walker should have announced he was gay and recused himself, the group says, because the ruling could benefit him if he wants to marry someday.
*
[L]ook a bit closer at the superficiality of the argument for dumping him. What if the presiding judge in the case had been a devout member of a church that holds homosexuality is a sin? Under the reasoning of Prop 8 defenders, that judge would have to step down, too.
*
What about judges in civil rights cases whose rulings might benefit a broad class of people? Should African-American judges be removed from cases involving affirmative action because they or their children might benefit? What about a white judge whose child might someday be disadvantaged by an affirmative action program at a college or workplace?
*
Or a female judge ruling in a gender bias case? Or a Catholic judge ruling on an abortion case? Once you go down this road, it's hard to see where it ends.
*
In California, opponents of gay marriage had a weak case to begin with, essentially arguing that allowing same-sex marriage threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. Even their standing to defend Prop 8 is under legal assault. And regardless of the outcome on Walker, the case itself will eventually be decided by appeals courts.
*
In the 1960s and '70s, when African-American and female judges were rare, they sometimes faced motions to force them off cases based on race or gender, as if they couldn't possibly be impartial. Such assumptions were as false then as they are today about a judge who happens to be gay and, not surprisingly, has a partner.
*
The Christianist assault on Walker is just another assault on LGBT citizens in general. The number one goal is to keep us inferior and to always have our motivations and loyalties questioned. This challenge to Walker needs to be thrown out and the Prop 8 counsel should receive sanctions for the frivolous filing.