The Question of Walker

Maura Dolan reported at LATimes.com about the latest with the court maneuvering over the duly adopted California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. This has to do with whether or not federal judge Walker should have handled things differently. I have edited the quotes to remove some of prejudicial language biased in favor of neutering marriage through federal judicial activism.

A federal judge’s failure to disclose whether he intended to [get a state license with] his long-term, same-sex partner before presiding over the Proposition 8 case amounts to misconduct that requires the removal of his ruling against the 2008 ballot measure, lawyers opposed to [neutering] marriage [and having a federal judge overturn a duly adopted state constitutional amendment] told a federal appeals court.

Yup.

Walker should have disclosed any interest he may have had in marrying his partner of 10 years or stepped aside when he was randomly chosen to preside over the case, the [defenders of the duly adopted state constitutional amendment] said.

“Although a judge may choose to avoid disclosure by recusing himself without explanation, he cannot both remain silent and sit in judgment of a case in which a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all of the relevant facts (disclosed or not) would conclude the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” ProtectMarriage argued.

Yes, we've been through this.

[Lawyers supporting a judge overturning a duly adopted state constitutional amendment] countered that judges must disqualify, or recuse, themselves from hearing cases only when they have a “substantial and individualized interest in the case, particularly a financial interest, that gives rise to actual bias,” the lawyers for Proposition 8’s challengers said.

So according to the very same people...

1. State marriage licensing needs to be neutered because it will be of significant benefit, including financial benefit, to gay individuals in same-sex relationships.


2. Walker was such a person by his actions - regardless of his birth, but he didn't stand to benefit enough for it to matter.

It matters so much that a federal court is compelled to overturn a voter-approved state constitutional amendment, but not enough for Walker to either recuse himself or at least talk about it before the trial.


Huh?!?

This kind of twisting of logic reminds me of when the same bunch of activists argue that there is no difference between men and women, while also insisting that someone can be born apparently male (male parts, male DNA), but is really a female per how they feel, as though there is a difference between male and female.