proposition 8 – Politicklish™

There’s no question that this judge was definitely not the one to try this case. Prop 8 defenders trusted that he could put aside his lifestyle choice and rule fairly, but this clearly wasn’t the case from the tone and much-protesting of his novel ruling.

In a press release yesterday, AFA identifies Walker as a “practicing homosexual” who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case “because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity.” Fischer concurs.

“It’s really no different in our judgment than having a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to issue a ruling on an anti-pornography statute,” says the AFA spokesman. “There’s a conflict of interest there.”

via Judge’s ‘sexual proclivity’ compromised ruling (OneNewsNow.com).

THE much-anticipated trial to determine the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 is scheduled to begin this morning in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. What’s at stake in this case, filed in federal district court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples, is not just the right of California voters to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, but also whether marriage may be otherwise defined in any state.

The entire premise of this litigation is disquieting — that traditional marriage is nothing but “the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing,” as David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has written. According to the plaintiffs, there is just no rational basis for government to privilege marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, in their minds, Proposition 8, which was supported by more than seven million California voters, could have been adopted only as a result of “animus,” as the complaint puts it, toward gays and lesbians.

read the rest here… Op-Ed Contributor – Stacking the Deck Against Proposition 8 – NYTimes.com.