Last week, the editorial page of the Washington Post was apoplectic because the gays were being mean to Paul Clement. How dare we fight for our equality when one of the DC elite was just being honorable. Like so many, the Washington Post seemed to think we’re in some kind of noble battle where all the parties play by the rules. The other side uses every despicable tactic to dehumanize us and deny our equality.

The challenges to Paul Clement over DOMA weren’t personal. The latest attack on Judge Walker is personal and homophobic.

In California, the pro-Prop. 8 side wants the landmark Prop. 8 decision from Judge Walker overturned because Judge Walker has a boyfriend. That’s a desperate and despicable effort based on pure bigotry and homophobia. What’s worse, the traditional media has fallen for it and is legitimizing that bizarre argument. Today, on the front page of the Washington Post, you can read an article by Sandhya Somashekhar that states not only could this move have “legal merit,” the fact that Walker had a boyfriend “planted doubt” about the ruling. Unbelievable:

Shortly after he retired, the federal judge who struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage acknowledged publicly what had been rumored for months: He is gay and in a long-term relationship with another man. Opponents of same-sex marriage seized on Vaughn Walker’s revelation and filed a motion last week to have his ruling on Proposition 8 vacated, arguing that he could benefit personally from his decision if he wanted to marry his partner. Although unusual, the effort could have legal merit, some experts say. If successful, it could mark the first time a judge has been disqualified or rebuked for issues related to his sexual orientation. And it would be a setback for gay rights groups, which view his opinion on Proposition 8 as one of their most significant victories in the quest for equal rights for same-sex couples.

This whole proceeding is beyond absurd. But, the Prop. 8 proponents got Sandhya Somashekhar and the Washington Post to buy into their homophobic argument.

An editorial in today’s New York Times blasts the Prop. 8 team’s tactic, concluding:

The idea that a seasoned, Republican-appointed jurist was unfit to hear the case, and that his decision should be set aside on flimsy ethics grounds, is preposterous.

Exactly.

Last week, we heard over and over how mean the gays were for fighting King and Spalding. Now, I expect to hear even more outrage about the attack on Judge Walker from the Washington Post editorial page, Eric Holder, Elana Kagan and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. All jumped to the defense of Paul Clement last week.

People wonder why the gays are angry and fighting back. This latest move by the Prop. 8 proponents is just another example of how entrenched homophobia is in our society.