Of course, since the revelation that the judge presiding over the Prop 8 case in California is homosexual, the defensants who are likely to lose the case are freaking out. The fact that they will lose the case has nothing to do with the very clear fact that they had no defense and that their argument was so weak. They were destroyed on and off the stand and even they know it. But they deny it. They are desperate and now they are simply extending their warped reality (which includes a great deal of outright lying) in a last-ditch effort to make up some ground. Their motives are onerous. But when were they not? I want to get angry at them, but slimy underhanded tactics is what they've ALWAYS done. So why be surprised now?
They now say that the case never had a chance because a gay judge cannot possibly be impartial. At first glance you might think this was dangerous water and the judge should have recused himself. But this argument - like their case - is flawed. There are two main reasons.
First, it assumes that no judge can be impartial when he or she shares a simple characteristic with the defendant or issue. Sure, a judge should stay away from presiding over a case that he/she is directly related to or has some direct connection to. But a simple characteristic cannot be considered bias. That would be the same as saying a black judge cannot be allowed to preside over a case where the defendant is black. Or a fat judge should never be allowed to preside over a case where someone sues MacDonalds for making them obese. Or a female judge shouldn't dare try to preside over a rape case. Apparently, being a federal judge for 20 years with a spotless record can be totally ignored when sexual orientation is concerned. The connection is flimsy and desperate and unwarranted both logically and legally.
But second, the argument is based on a complete lack of facts in the specific case involved (as if a lack of facts were surprising either). Judge Vaughn Walker is far from a gay activist. He was appointed by George H. W. Bush (a.k.a. Bush I, the President version, not the self-proclaimed monarch version). His appointed was unanimously approved at that time by all Republicans on the voting committee. He has even ruled against LGBT people in many cases, instead applying the law as per his oath of office. I'm sorry, how again is Judge Walker a big gay activist?
Basically what the defendants and NOM and Maggie Gallagher and that ilk are saying is that no gay person can be fair simply because they are gay. That ilk are saying that all gay people are inherently sneaky or surreptitious. That ilk makes pejorative defacing commentary in public and in press releases about a single class of people, and then guffaw when someone calls them prejudicial or homophobic. They are the living breathing dancing definition of homophobia, and they deny it only because they KNOW that being homophobic is unacceptable in civilized society. If they thought it was okay, they wouldn't deny their homophobia. It's that simple people.
They know what they are doing is bad, but they do it anyway.
Who's evil NOW, bitches?
(Check out
The New Civil Rights Movement if you haven't yet.)