The Appeal refuses to allow the SF Chronicle to corner the market on homophobia! If they are going to edit, publish, and promote opinion pieces from bigots, so are we. Hence this, this, this, and now this op-ed.
Greetings, Earth. I am from Mars and I do not understand your strange gay customs. I just read this article in your SF Chronicle that is utterly baffling. Allow me to summarize:
There are rumors that a judge who issued a ruling about anti-gay laws might himself be gay.
Should we care? Probably not!
Except that there is another rumor that he has a boyfriend, which is extra-gay. I don’t know if it’s true, or if they plan to get married, but let’s not stop us from speculating wildly.
Now, obviously, judges shouldn’t rule on cases where they can’t be impartial. Legally, that includes cases where judges have knowledge of disputed facts, or cases where the judge has a financial interest in the outcome.
And obviously Judge Walker would financially benefit from being allowed to marry, because Prop 8 imposes irreparable financial harm on gay couples and their families. I mean, Prop 8’s really terrible! Awful! Definitely hurts a lot of people. Oh, maybe I am not supposed to admit that.
Anyway, whether or not he plans to get married, he’s still definitely gay. (Potentially.) I’m pretty sure he’s required to tell everyone if he is gay. Right? Isn’t that a law? If a judge is gay, he’s not allowed to keep it a secret? I’m pretty sure that’s a law, yeah.
The Prop 8 proponents could have asked the judge to recuse himself, but they did not. I cannot imagine why!
Now, you are probably wondering: “is there anything in his ruling to suggest that he was impartial?” Please do not ask that, because I am not going to answer it, so there. Also, I am not going to acknowledge the myriad of cases like 1975’s Blank v. Cromwell in which precedent has established that a judge’s race or gender are not sufficient for recusal.
So there you have it: he might benefit from marriage because he might plan to get married because he might have a boyfriend because he might be gay. IT IS AN OPEN AND SHUT CASE PEOPLE.
So, what judge should rule in this case? One who is impartial. And what do I mean by that? I refuse to say, because I am a weasel. But everyone knows that what I mean, and cannot say because it is clearly bigoted, is a straight person.