Raistlin

In a pathetic, yet not entirely unexpected, last-ditch attempt to attack the legitimacy of a federal district court claiming that anti-gay marriage statutes are unconstitutional, the Prop 8 supporters are now asking a new district court (the previous judge, Judge Walker has retired) to set aside that decision because of a conflict of interest. What conflict of interest, you might ask?

He's gay.

Yes, he had no financial or personal interest. But Walker still should have recused himself because he's gay and the issue was gayness. At the very least, he should have had to disclose such a vital peace of information. Because, y'know, he smurfs dudes. And he likes other guys who smurf dudes. How couldn't he?

The full motion is here, but it's not really worth reading. There's no hilariously bigoted quotes, but instead just the same insipid, pathetic argument over and over again: because Walker was in a gay relationship, he may have had an interest in gay marriage, and therefore he stood something to gain by it.

Originally Posted by motion

For if at any time while this case was pending before him, Chief Judge Walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

There, that's the entire substance of the motion for you. Although it gets even more mind-boggling when they claim that Walker should have disclosed his gayness and his gay relationship, but also his thoughts and intentions on marrying, and that if he had any aspirations, no matter how small, to someday marry (gayly), then recusal was mandatory. Quick sidenote: would it be "gay recusal" if a gay judge does it? Anyway, they try to get around the sexual orientation issue by saying it's not Walker's gayness that's the problem, but his 10-year-old gay relationship. Oh, ok, yeah, they're totally not discriminating against homosexuals. It then goes into details about the standards for recusal, The rest of the motion shows the real purpose: it is yet another way they whining tantrum about the mean things Walker did at trial and how bad his decision was for not supporting mindless bigotry. Like, not buying "expert" testimony that was only a lengthier and incoherent rephrasing of "gay is bad, m'kay."

Of course, like the appeal, it is unlikely that the Prop 8 supporters even have standing to file this motion. Nothing but their idiotic sensibilities are directly harmed by allowing gay marriage. I wonder if these people go to bed every night thankful in the knowledge that no gays are being treated equally nearby. The fact that some Christians apparently get satisfaction from prohibiting same-sex marriage just shows how warped and self-absorbed their values are.

Furthermore, I am reading the latest updates on similar motions filed throughout the country. Apparently black people can't judge civil rights cases, minorities of any type can't judge affirmative action or immigration cases, neither males nor females can judge divorce proceedings, and no one who pays taxes can judge tax code cases. Every case will be decided by an Asian monk we imported from some remote forest where he has lived all his life without human contact.