I chastised the Human Rights Campaign Earlier this week, I chastised the Human Rights Campaign for its myopia when it put pressure on a law firm to disassociate itself from a client, the U.S. House of Representatives, in its case seeking to require the Justice Department to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Liberals should understand that whatever their views on gay marriage, the right to legal counsel is also a rockbed of a civilized society and there is no shame in defending a client whose views the lawyer does not share.
Now, we learn that some are challenging a California judge's right to rule on gay marriage because he is gay. They argue that he could benefit from his ruling and therefore should be disqualified. So, women judges cannot rule on sexual discrimination suits? Maybe Hispanic judges cannot rule on an immigration case? And, why should a conservative, heterosexual jurist who sees the maintenance of traditional marriage as a definite societal good be allowed to rule on the mattter of gay marriage? There is a solution here: Only eunuchs should be allowed to rule on gay marriage cases.
This is absurd and it shows the way partisans of particular issues are willing to abandon their entire philosophic worldview, or at least those parts that are inconvenient even if they are also essential, to score a political point.