In their motion, Protect Marriage's legal team insists:
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case."
Well, Team "Protect Marriage" might want to let anti-gay activist Matt Barber, Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law, in on that little tidbit. Writing at conservative Christian Lifesite News, Barber lets it all hang out:
"Back in February of 2010 it became rumored that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker – who presided over the case at the District level – was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle. It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few people to publicly call for his recusal. It’s inexplicable that attorneys defending Prop 8 didn’t make such a motion.
With Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest....
A heterosexual judge is precisely what Federal law requries under such circumstances."
While Protect Marriage tap dances around the idea that a gay judge can't be impartial (you know, lest their side look like bigots), Barber just comes right out and says it: Only a heterosexual can judge this case.
One is led to wonder if Barber, who's also the Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, doesn't understand the oh-so-nuanced-and-not-at-all-bigoted argument that ProtectMarriage is trying to make. You know, the one where it's not the judge's homosexuality that's the problem, it's his homosexual tendency of being in a homosexual relationship that's the problem.
Or, maybe Barber's just not as concerned as some "marriage defenders" about not looking like a bigot.
Either way, whooops.