Logic of NOM's demand for Walker recusal called 'bogus' and 'preposterous' in today's New York Times

Brian Brown's idiotic call on behalf of his employer, the National Organization for Marriage, for Judge Vaughn Walker to recuse himself from the Prop 8 case was thinly argued this way in a recent NOM press release: 

 “The American people have a right to expect that their federal courts are conducted transparently and are free of bias. Unfortunately, Judge Walker’s failure to disclose that he is in a 10-year committed relationship with another man makes a mockery of the judicial process and under federal law should result in vacating his ruling.”
     Federal law compels a judge to recuse himself from hearing a case whenever “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” At a minimum, the law requires the judge to “provide full disclosure on the record of the basis of disqualification.” Additionally, the law requires recusal whenever he has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” In the Perry case, Walker did not disclose that he is in a long-term, committed relationship with another man, as required by law. This fact was only revealed in a recent news interview after he retired from the bench. Further, since Walker’s ruling, if implemented, would allow him to marry his long-term, same-sex partner, he has an interest in the outcome of the case he decided.

Today's New York Times editorial gave NOM's specious reasoning all the gravitas it deserves:

...The claim is bogus. It is well established that personal characteristics, like race, sex, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, do not by themselves invoke the rule...
     Our justice system relies on trusting members of the nation’s diverse bench to put aside their personal characteristics and abide by their duty of even-handedness. Any other approach would invite foolish and unacceptable results — female judges being kept from hearing rape or sexual discrimination cases, or black judges from hearing cases involving racial bias or civil rights.
     Indeed, following the open-ended logic of Proposition 8’s lawyers, it is hard to think who, if anyone, is qualified to rule on this case. Certainly not wedded heterosexual judges whose marriages stand to be somehow diminished, according to the antimarriage crowd, if Judge Walker’s ruling survives appeal in federal circuit court.
     Some ethics experts say the ruling might have triggered credible conflict-of-interest concerns if Judge Walker were intending to marry in California. But that is misguided, too. There is no basis to think Judge Walker’s personal relationship played a role in his ruling on the evidence and on whether a constitutional reason exists to limit anyone’s freedom to marry.
     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.