NOM EXPOSED: Morse: Why can’t we toss Judge Walker’s gay-cootie-tainted opinion?!

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/09/2011

by Jeremy Hooper

Of the far-right's witchhunt against gay judge Vaughn Walker, NOM's Prop 8 trial blogger Jennifer Roback Morse asks:
I recall from reading the brief: Judge Walker, so far as we know, is the only federal judge who was in a long-term committed same-sex relationship. My common sense (very non-legal) opinion: If the Plaintiffs are so sure of the rightness of their case, why not let the next judge take the case and remove all appearance of partiality?

Isn't this issue significant enough — and controversial enough — that impartiality is essential to avoid unnecessary contention in society down the road?
[SOURCE: NOMs Prop 8 Case site]

Just think about what she's saying here. First and most obvious is the idea that a same-sex relationship invalidates a (Reagan/Bush-appointed) judge's years of legal training and thoroughly fleshed out opinion. That's the offensive notion that underlies this whole thing, obviously. It's truly astounding that, here in almost-2012, we have social conservatives moving forward with the wantonly heterosexist idea that a gay sexual orientation renders a judge unfit to rule on a matter related to LGBT rights. But we do. And it is astounding. And scary.
But beyond just that… KEEP READING: Morse: Why can’t we toss Judge Walker’s gay-cootie-tainted opinion?! [NOM Exposed]