This website continues to mention Judge Vaughn Walker is a homosexual — and a hot silver fox, really — because THIS WEBSITE TALKS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS. But what about the bigger boys out there? The ones that you refer to when using the slur “MSM,” or “mainstream media”? When it comes to the Los Angeles Times, they bring up Walker’s sexuality because he was deciding a case on same-sex marriage, which means one of his immutable characteristics could’ve gotten in the way of rational legal thought! Or something! Now let’s see why this is an awful argument to make.

LAT assistant managing editor David Lauter, who notes the newspaper is using the “well known fact” (and not, say, Walker’s own statements) angle to support its notations, says Walker’s sexuality was an issue of fairness in reporting, just like his politics (he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and appointed by the first George Bush): “Both — ideology and sexuality — are factors that a reasonable person could see as having an impact on a judge’s view of a controversial issue such as same-sex marriage.”

But wait! Would Lauter have had the newspaper mention Walker is straight if he was, in fact, straight? “Lauter,” blogs the paper’s own Deirdre Edgar, “acknowledged that it probably would not.”

And therein lies the disparity. Walker’s sexuality is somehow relevant to the case only when he is gay, because, oh what have ridiculous demagogues been arguing? That Walker stands to personally benefit if same-sex marriage is enacted. Yes, but if Walker was straight, he could have also benefited if he upheld Prop 8: the gays would continue funding the marital tax breaks of straights.