"Secular civil legal partnerships" is all this has ever been about. It happens government co-opted the term "marriage" for it.
As said earlier, the judge's homosexuality was not unknown. I find his opinion flawed on the merits. There's no need to go muckraking.
I'm reminded of the saying, "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff." Essentially, this move smells desperate.
As a CA voter, I find it contemptuous when our governors and attorneys general refused to defend the express will of the people in the courts. The Prop 8 folks seemed to have difficulty making their case and putting up witnesses.
I suspect watching the Prop 8 drama unfold had a hand in Obama's abandonment of DOMA in the courts. He could tell it would be hard for the House Republicans to find a law firm to take the case. We saw that played out this week.
This drama has been a great data point for why lawyers are thought of in such low regard. The cowardice is appalling.
The law does not recognize a mere religious marriage. it is ALL civil unions under the law. Priests are notaries in order to legally validate the marriage for intestasy and child support purposes post marriage.
The judge’s concealment is against the judicial cannons BECAUSE it looks bad. the appearance of wrong is wrong for judges. This judges sexual behavior is an issue because we don’t know if he had a special interest in legalizing marriage based on sexual recreation. (ie when this is legal we will marry)
Ethically it is required. It is probably why he retired. It was a long shot throw and he did not care about the mess he caused.