Interesting short article recently in The Atlantic.
The essence of the article is that California voters passed a referendum which limits marriage to heterosexual partners. This law (called Prop 8 as it was posed to voters in a mix of referendum items as Proposition 8) was been struck down by the judiciary as violating the due process and equal protection clauses under the constitution. Now those who support Prop 8 are challenging the judge's ruling on the grounds of bias - the judge in question is gay.
It has long been a standing principle that justice must not only be done but must be mainfestly seen to be done. Thus any hint or apperance of bias should be avoided. Yet in this case is one's sexuality enough to determine bias? Is it a given that if I am a homosexual, I would naturally be in favor of marriage rights for gays and lesbians? If one agrees with that statement and believes that the judge in this case should have excused himself for bias, I can not imagine how the counter claim can not be made with the same logic. A heterosexual judge would then by the same token found biased as well. According to this logic he would naturally be in favor of Prop 8 and want to keep a ban on homosexual marriage.
Perhaps we should call for a bisexual judge who can see both sides of the issue? Or a transsexual judge who is able to rise above it? I could go on but I think you get the point...