The gay marriage debate is filled with illogical arguments. Not all of these arguments come from opponents of same sex-marriage, but perhaps the most ridiculous one came from a Fox News commentator who suggested that a Judge who had relationships with men should recuse himself from such cases because he had an interest. The blogger that picked up on this column, rightly pointed out that heterosexual judges who are not married to heterosexual partners have the same interest.
It logically followed, in the mind of one blogger, that only Asexual Judges should be allowed to hear gay marriage cases. The logic, if it is there, says that Ace judges are less likely to have a vested interest and be more unbiased. The logic used ignores the fact that some people who do not have sex still want to have romantic relationships. Fox News did not actually suggest that only asexual judges should hear cases on the same-sex marriage issue
But the logic of the WingNut law blogger falls apart for emotional reasons as well. Even people who do not feel a need to engage in intercourse can be assumed to approach the topic from an unemotional and logical viewpoint. Especially because some, although by no means all Asexuals are repulsed by the act of sex.
A panel of asexual judges or legislators would not make it any more likely to get different marriage laws passed than it currently is. At the federal law, it is the job of Supreme Court justices to interpret the constitutionality of the California law. Logical arguments might fail simply because marriage is not regulated by the federal government and the constitution does not mention the act at all.
Who marries whom is a social issue and one that the federal government has little, if any success, regulating at all. A correct ruling based on the wording of the constitution would be simply to throw the appeal to Proposition 8 out because it is not an issue that the federal government is given the power to regulate.
This is unlikely to happen, much to the dismay of the opponents who would see it as a victory and people who would like to see the Supreme Court step away from the legislative role it has assumed since the founding of the country.
It is uncertain, given the makeup, whether the court will rule in favor of or against Proposition 8. However, an asexual judge would be more likely to ban all marriage than rule in favor of the same-sex marriage debate. The proposal just was not a good idea.
The original blogger, of course, means this in jest mot likely and knows that Asexual are just as likely to have emotional responses on the issue as everyone else is. If Tucker Carlson’s opinions are accurate, Aces are too busy finding a cure for cancer in their free time to settle the gay marriage debate.