All Rights reserved
Proposition 8 proponents' recent argument that U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker's decision in the case should be thrown out on the grounds that he is gay is a "bogus" maneuver, according to a Tuesday editorial in TheNew York Times.
"It is well established that personal characteristics, like race, sex, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, do not by themselves invoke the rule that judges must step aside if their 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned,'" the editorial reads.
"Indeed, following the open-ended logic of Proposition 8's lawyers, it is hard to think who, if anyone, is qualified to rule on this case," the editorial continues. "Certainly not wedded heterosexual judges whose marriages stand to be somehow diminished, according to the antimarriage crowd, if Judge Walker's ruling survives appeal in federal circuit court."
Read the full editorial here.
Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, wrote a recent op-ed for The Advocate on the matter, which can be found here.