A Compromised Walker

The major news media has been covering the challenge to Walker's ruling, of course. Here is the Reuters take from Peter Henderson. It uses the biased and misleading "gay marriage ban" language, as usual. Lisa Leff's Associated Press report also uses "ban".

From Maura Dolan's article in the Los Angeles Times:

Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at UC Irvine, said there was "no chance whatsoever" that a court would void Walker's ruling against Proposition 8 on the grounds that he should have disclosed his personal relationship.

"This is an offensive personal attack on Vaughn Walker," Chemerinsky said. He likened the legal maneuver to an argument that black judges cannot decide race discrimination cases or female judges preside over cases involving sex bias.

Perhaps Chemerinsky is misquoted, or letting emotion cloud his usually respected opinion? The argument is clearly not that Walker couldn't decide justly because he is a homosexual person. It is that he stood to personally (including financially) benefit from the outcome of the trial, and he didn't even disclose that. It is based on things Walker did, not his identity. Marriage neutering advocates use such trickery frequently.