The cry is going out among the faithful: Tony Perkins, “a single activist federal judge” with “an agenda,” is overturning the rights of more than 7 million Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

“Here we have an openly gay federal judge, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage.

Such objections, according to an AP article, raise the question: “Why is sexuality different from other personal characteristics judges posses? Can a female judge rule on abortion issues? A black judge rule on civil rights?”

This ruling will be appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, and with special attention to the importance of the apparently prejudicial aspect of this ruling.

I hereby ask that all the heterosexual members of the Supreme Court recuse themselves from ruling in this case when it gets to them, lest they be accused of ruling to foster their hetero “agenda.”

Further, since many anti-gay marriage advocates base their objection on moral beliefs and what they interpret to be biblical injunctions against homosexual activity, I further hereby ask that all members of the court who consider themselves Christian or Jewish also recuse themselves, lest they be accused of fostering their biblical “agenda.”

This would leave, by my criteria, exactly zero Supreme Court members to rule on this case, since the court is now made up of six Catholics and three Jews, all hetero(?).

But since this result would clearly be absurd, let us hope (pray?) that by the time the case gets to the Supreme Court, a non-activist, asexual, lifelong celibate, pagan jurist can be found and that a vacancy of the court presents itself.

James Tomashoff

Pinehurst