The drive to have the ruling which declared California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional vacated because the judge who issued it might conceivably one day wish to marry his same-sex partner meets a welcome and unceremonious end. This from the ruling (pdf link):
Finally, the presumption that “all people in same-sex relationships think alike” is an unreasonable presumption, and one which has no place in legal reasoning. The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.
Let’s get the response from the same sex marriage hating out of the way: Blah blah blah activist judge blah blah blah eroding moral standards blah blah blah will of the people blah blah blah SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE ONE DAY MEN WILL MARRY THEIR SISTER WHO IS ALSO A LESBIAN BADGER. I think that covers it.
(Incidentally, the ruling document is worth the read, not only for the reasoning but for lines like this:
In this context, [a] “reasonable person” is not someone who is “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious,” but rather a “well-informed, thoughtful observer” who “understand[s] all the relevant facts” and “has examined the record and law.”