A few months ago, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional. Since then we’ve learned that the now retired Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual and Liberty Counsel contends that should be reason enough to vacate Walker’s decision. Why does Liberty Counsel believe there is a clear conflict of interest that should have led Walker to recuse himself? How is that different than Christian judges ruling on the Ten Commandments or a pro-second amendment judge taking on a gun case? Why didn’t defenders of the traditional marriage law raise the issue of Walker’s fitness to rule on this case? And what happens now? We discuss it all with J. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel.
