Chief Judge James Ware just issued an order denying a motion filed by supporters of California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 seeking to invalidate a decision striking down that unconstitutional ballot initiative because the judge who struck it down is in a same-sex relationship. In denying this motion, Chief Judge Ware gave no quarter to the anti-gay activist’s suggestion that a gay judge is somehow more inclined to be biased than any other judge:
[T]he presumption that “all people in same-sex relationships think alike” is an unreasonable presumption, and one which has no place in legal reasoning. The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.