Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge presiding over the California Proposition 8 case, is a homosexual. Prop 8 proponents have suggested that he is therefore biased and must recuse himself. Unfortunately for that line of thinking, if a homosexual can’t preside over a case involving sexual orientation on account of his sexual orientation, then neither can a heterosexual. It would just mean bias in the opposite direction. And without heterosexuals or homosexuals able to act as judge we would have to appoint either a computer or a hyper-intelligent dolphin. Neither of which is a great option, because the computer can be hacked and hyper-intelligent dolphins would still probably just keep asking for fish or trying to do flips.
If a person’s inherent trait is enough to disqualify them from making judgments in cases where said trait is involved, then no one with a gender could decide cases involving gender, no one could judge cases involving race because everyone has a race, and so on–it makes no sense at all.
While it can probably be assumed that Judge Vaughn Walker, being a homosexual and all, doesn’t have an anti-gay agenda, his orientation in no way indicates that he is blind to constitutionality. Unless the pro-Prop 8 contingent can prove that homosexuals are unable to read and/or understand the Constitution they don’t have a lot of ground to stand on.
With all that said, I do have to admit that I’m pro-gay marriage. I’m just generally in favor of equal rights, and also, despite my heterosexual orientation, I do want to at some point marry a man, if only because our arguments will tend to be more solution oriented than if I married a woman.