The KKK Family Research Council is up to its tricks again! Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins has gone on the rampage disputing the ruling
"I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that, who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments. This is far from over.”First, there is no evidence that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. He has not declared it, or outed himself.
But let's entertain the crazy man's idea that an openly gay judge cannot fairly judge a gay marriage case. Obviously, in Perkins' small mind, an intelligent man who attends three years of law schools, and sits on the federal bench for 20 years is not able to think beyond his Johnson when it comes to the law.
Maybe, is it because Republicans are notoriously good at thinking with their Johnsons? Case in point:
"I love women!, God and guns! Now, where's the White Party?"
"No, I didn't not have sex in that stall!"
"It doesn't matter that I was having an affair while lambasting President Clinton for having an affair!"
(Now, it's true that Democrats have had plenty of sex scandals as well. Only, the Democrats don't run on political platforms of "moral righteousness" that the Republicans hypocritically run on).
But I digress...
Let's assume that Tony Perkins is (gulp) correct. A gay man cannot judge the merits of a gay marriage Constitution case because of conflict of interest. Let's go along this journey and see where it ends.
According to Prop. 8 supporters, the case for enshrining bigotry and unfairness in the Constitution is to protect marriage as an arrangement of one man and one woman, also known as (incorrectly, as it turns out) "traditional marriage". This case is just as much about marriage between one man and one woman as it is about gay marriage.
So, if a man who is gay cannot fairly decide this case, then it follows equally that a person that is married cannot be impartial as well. Right?
Imagine them listening to hours of testimony, of gay couples with kids, talking about the harm that the lack of marriage brings to their family. Then, this same person, going home that evening to their legally wedded and legally recognized spouse. How on earth could they be impartial?
They can't. According to Tony Perkins.
So, I guess if we followed this line, then all of the voters in California who are married couldn't be impartial on the issue and their votes need to be discounted.
Oh, let's continue with this....
- Any African-American judge needs to recuse themselves from cases involving race. Actually, White, Latino, and Asian, and every other person in this world cannot judge a civil rights case on race because they couldn't be fair.
- Every Supreme Court judge who has declared a religion must recuse themselves from cases judging the separation of church and state because they couldn't be fair.
- Let's leave any sex discrimination case to judges who are neither male nor female, because their sex will get in the way of a correct decision.
- Any judge who has stock in a corporation? They'll need to recuse themselves on corporate law cases (goodbye Citizens United ruling!
Dear Mr. Perkins, I know you can't possibly mean that any judge who even has a tangential connection to a case is not qualified to judge the merits of a case.
I know what you really mean is that your position in this case is based on bigotry. Your position in this case is based on lies. Your position on this case was only able to provide two quickly discredited witnesses (where were you when they needed people to defend Prop. 8, Mr. Perkins?).
Your position is indefensible. Your position is illogical. So your only defense in this case? Attack the man.
That's an attack of last resort, and a sad one at that.