Friday, 17 September 2010 00:00
In her letter of Sept. 9, Mrs. Clark says I ignored Judge Vaughn Walker’s “particular special interest in the outcome of this case.” I didn’t ignore it; I thought it irrelevant. Any reason for a homosexual judge to recuse himself from this case would also be a reason for a heterosexual judge to recuse herself. Does Mrs. Clark believe that female judges should not hear sex-discrimination cases? Or judges over 50 not hear age-discrimination cases?
Mrs. Clark says that equal rights for blacks granted by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were inherent in the Constitution. That is apparent now, but for almost 100 years the prevailing opinion was that separate but equal was constitutional. It took an enlightened judicial opinion to show us that those rights inherent in the Constitution were incompatible with separate but equal. Today the prevailing opinion is that the inherent rights of gay and lesbian couples does not include the right to marry. Perhaps another enlightened judicial opinion will show us that their rights inherent in the Constitution are incompatible with denying them the right to marry.