Not a physician!

I was going to let you have the last word on the Judge Walker (non)-issue--because I agree with pretty much everything you say--but then I read this:

Is any of this [Walker's supposed sexual orientation] relevant to Judge Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8?

Well, as University of Notre Dame law Professor Gerard Bradley recently noted, the mere fact that Judge Walker may be homosexual would not necessarily have required recusal. But the fact that he "attends bar functions with a companion, a physician," and may therefore be in a stable homosexual relationship of the kind that could lead to marriage, is an entirely different matter.

His partner is a physician?!  Well, that does it for me.

More seriously, by this logic, Clarence Thomas (whose wife is white) would have had to recuse himself if he'd been on the Supreme Court when Loving v. Virginia was decided, but Justice Thurgood Marshall would not have. 

Does this make any sense?  What do you think -- does Professor Eastman make any good points?