As I read her editorial about the "biggest open secret" in the landmark case, I waited for her to mention, on the other hand, the aspect that makes this entirely paradoxical: If Walker should consider recusing himself because he's a gay man in a case about gay rights -- wouldn't a straight judge be equally open to accusations that his straight orientation could affect his legal judgement?
Think of this not as a case about gay rights, but as a case about sexual orientation rights, and the paradox might become clearer. By definition, it seems to me, there is nobody who could be considered a neutral judge here -- except maybe a castrati. (Kidding.)
Michael "Mac" McCarthy