How can we be even reasonably sure that someone who bases their entire identity around a sexual act will not base judgements around that same act? I have ‘gay’ marriage cases in mind especially, like Vaughn Walker.

@ gay rights activists and assorted touchy-feelies: thousands of people get law degrees every year; plenty of those people have the drive and general schmuckiness to succeed in the political arena as either appointed or elected officials. People are denied appointed position for any number of “unfair” reasons ranging from personal background to politically-incorrect statements, reasons which have nothing to do with their competence as appointees. Public image matters — if it makes you feel any better, plenty of Southerners with strong regional accents are denied public jobs for similar reasons all over the place. The fact of the matter is, Republicans operating at that level don’t give a flip about your sexual orientation; they just realize that some idiots do and that said idiots vote. It’s not a conspiracy against the public, it’s marketing. One schmuck getting denied a job in favor of another schmuck for imaging reasons happens all the time, and will continue to happen in perpetuity. Don’t worry, we’re litigious enough as a society that this guy will hardly be wanting for employment.

To understand homosexuality and its societal impact, you have to turn to Paul and Romans 1:18-31.

Griffin makes a good point above. If the Judge would ignore the law (which very well could be the case and is worth exploring) then he should be rejected, if he upholds the law objectively however he should be seated.