Yet Another Faulty Argument by Conservative Activists

This one regarding Prop. 8 judge Vaughn Walker, who has spilled the beans about being gay and in a same-sex relationship. Judge Walker overturned Prop. 8 (the prop. outlawing same-sex marriage in CA), and Prop. 8 supporters (anti-gay-marriage folks) argue now that his sexual orientation makes him impartial because he would stand to personally gain by the decision he makes. But blogger Adam Serwer makes an excellent point that it can be argued the other way, too. A visit to www.protectmarriage.com takes you to a document published by the Witherspoon Institute (whatever that is) that identifies same-sex marriage as one of the four "threats" to marriage. According to this report, same-sex marriage "would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage,"..."would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father,"...and "would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity" (I know, I'm shaking my head at the unsubstantiated silliness, too!) They sum up by saying that "embracing same-sex marriage would further weaken marriage itself." If this is their argument, then that means that judges in heterosexual marriages should all recuse themselves from the Prop. 8 case or any other ruling that has to do with gay marriage because, just as Judge Walker might stand to gain from legalizing gay marriage, these married judges would stand to lose and watch their own marriages crumble before their very eyes. It would be just as bad as - maybe worse than! - the Great Marriage Crumbling that occurred in MA, CT, IA, NH, VT, DC, Canada, Belgium, and other immoral places that are going to hell in a hand basket.