It's the marriage, stupid!

Once again being gay has trumped the law and legal precedent.
Historically judges have been required to recuse themselves when they stand to either benefit or be hurt by the ruling they make on a case. That makes sense. Having a judge rule on a suit against a company he has stock in wouldn’t leave the claimants feeling they got a fair shake. Similarly what person on trial for robbery would want the judge whose house he burgled on his case?
Liberals support this position and take it to an extreme. Liberals have tried to have a court determine that a Roman Catholic Congressman couldn’t vote on abortion related laws because his religious views were a source of impermissible bias. Strangely they don’t object to Black Congressmen voting on Civil Rights laws.
Yet when gays are involved this quite reasonable legal position is tossed out the window.
The Federal judge who overruled the millions of Californians who voted for Prop.8, and in the process determined that the Constitution of the United States requires gay marriage, is homosexual. He’s been living with the same man for more than 10 years.
The media claimed that the objection to Judge Vaughn’s suitability was that he was gay but that’s not the case. Instead the argument was the following.
Judge Vaughn was in a long term relationship with another man. Judge Vaughn lives in California with said man. Judge Vaughn, if Prop. 8 was upheld, would not be able to marry his partner. On the other hand if Judge Vaughn discovered a right to gay marriage in a document written by men who viewed homosexuality as one of the worst evils then Judge Vaughn could marry this man he loves.
Any sane person would view this as an obvious conflict of interest. Even if Judge Vaughn has no intention of marrying his partner the appearance of impropriety does great damage to the credibility of the judicial system.
But a U.S. District Judge, James Ware, has ruled that there is no conflict of interest on the part of Judge Vaughn because he hasn’t, to date, tried to marry his partner.
But suppose Judge Vaughn is planning on marrying his partner when the dust settles? Do the millions of California’s who worked for, donated for, and voted for Prop. 8 get to hit the reset button and return the law to the way it was before Judge Vaughn’s ruling? No they don’t. They don’t even get a mulligan--which would involve millions of dollars and untold sacrifices--because no California proposition can overrule the Federal Constitution.
This is another example of one of the core tenants of liberalism, the end justifies the means. It’s clear that if a Mormon judge were to rule that a proposition that legalized gay marriage was unconstitutional, even though the Mormon judge neither stood to gain or lose personally from the decision, the liberal mobs would be howling for his blood.