Bryan Fischer has already made it quite clear that the does not approve of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in the Prop 8 case, citing it as proof as to why gays should be banned from serving in public office and claiming that gays no different from murderers, liars, thieves, and slave traders.
But Fischer isn't done, as he has just posted five news posts chronicling his outrage. In addition to posts saying that Walker has declared seven million Californian's, along with President Obama and Vice President Biden, to be guilty of a hate crime with his ruling, we get things like this post where he renews his call for Walker's impeachment:
Were Judge Vaughn Walker to be impeached, as I believe he should, what would be the grounds? Remember that according to the Constitution, federal judges hold office “during good Behaviour.” The question then is, what constitutes bad behavior, behavior that so violates a judge’s oath of office and his public duty that it may be considered grounds for removal?
His ruling is an expression of judicial and political tyranny, and that alone should constitute grounds for removal. it was this kind of tyranny that prompted the Founders to separate from England. If such tyranny is grounds in America to remove a king from office, it is certainly sufficient to remove a judge from office.
Now I am no historian, but I am pretty sure that the Revolutionary War didn't result in removing the King of England from his office, nor was that its purpose.
Elsewhere, Fischer claims that because Walker is gay, he should have recused himself because he could not possibly have rendered a fair decision:
Elected officials are directly accountable to voters in a way that federal judges are not. It is wholly inappropriate for a judge, let alone a practicing homosexual, to be the decider in a controversy of this magnitude.
Judge Walker appointed himself a one-man super-legislature, and it was unethical for him to do so because his mind was already made up on this huge public policy issue. Through his own lifestyle choices, he has made it clear that he, without any question, thinks there is a moral and legal equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual conduct.
...
It was, in a similar way, impossible for Judge Walker to sit as judge in any case in which the parity of homosexual and heterosexual conduct was an issue. He had far too much of a personal stake in this matter to even pretend to be a neutral umpire. He was going to call this one for the visiting team before the first pitch was thrown.
Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose Fischer's response would have been if this case had come before a judge who was an open and practicing Christian and we demanded their recusal on the grounds that they could not possibly be fair because they "had far too much of a personal stake in this matter to even pretend to be a neutral umpire"?
But Fischer saves the best for last, claiming that gays have all the same marriage rights as anyone else and that what they really want is "special rights":
Perhaps the most ridiculous thing about Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the Prop. 8 case is that he claimed to give homosexuals something they in fact already have: full marriage equality.
Homosexuals right now, as you are reading these words, have full marriage equality in America. There is no place in the United States where they don’t.
They have exactly, precisely the same right to get married that every other American has: to a non-relative adult of the opposite sex.
Don’t let homosexual apologists fool you here. They already have full marriage equality. Nobody anywhere has deprived of them of their right to marry. Period. They have exactly the same right to marry that you and I do, no more, no less.
What they want is not equal rights, but special rights. They want a special exemption carved out for them so that their sexually aberrant relationships can be recognized as marriages, an exemption we don’t grant to folks who want to marry a son or a daughter, or a mother or a father, an uncle or an aunt, or a child.
By the same logic, one could argue that bans on interracial marriage were entirely reasonable as well, because every race had exactly the same right to marry someone of their own race. As such, anyone who wanted the right to marry someone of a different race was seeking "special rights" by forcing society to recognize their "aberrant relationships."
