×
Remember the Prop. 8 trial? It's still wending its slow way up the judicial ladder, and here's the latest:
Supporters of Proposition 8, California's ballot-approved ban on same-sex marriage, filed a motion this week contesting Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that the ban is unconstitutional, because he's a gay man who may have wished to marry his partner.Here's the problem: the entire case the Prop. 8 supporters made, and that the anti-gay-rights movement has made in recent years, comes down to "It's not you, it's me." In other words, the reason we're supposed to reject same-sex marriage is because it will harm straight marriage, just as the reason gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military is that straight soldiers would feel uncomfortable.By that logic then, the judge who shouldn't be able to hear the Prop. 8 case would be a straight judge. Because presumably, if same-sex marriage were to be allowed, he or she is the one whose marriage would be under threat. So I guess the only judge who could be objective would be a priest or a nun, or perhaps a Buddhist monk or someone else who has forsworn earthy romantic entanglements. UPDATE: Mr. Serwer made the same point earlier in the day over at Greg Sargent's blog. It's evidence either of a Jungian collective unconscious effect, or that some things just jump out at you.
