Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has vetoed the bill to create “civil unions” that the legislature passed in a last-minute legislative maneuver in April. It was refreshing to see Gov. Lingle declare straightforwardly, “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name.” It’s refreshing mostly because last year, two other governors—New Hampshire’s John Lynch and Maine’s John E. Baldacci—caved to homosexual activists under similar circumstances, and signed bills to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

However, in reading a news report about the veto, something else caught my eye. Here’s what the Honolulu Star-Advertiser said about one of the critics of the veto:

“It’s beyond problematic,” said Steven Levinson, a retired associate justice of the state Supreme Court, whose daughter is a lesbian. . . . Levinson authored the landmark 1993 ruling that held that it was discriminatory for the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Now wait a second. The author of the very first court decision in American history that was supportive of same-sex “marriage”—has a lesbian daughter? Doesn’t that suggest a little problem of judicial ethics known as a “conflict of interest?”

Of course, Levinson’s “landmark” ruling was 17 years ago. His “lesbian daughter” might not have been “out of the closet” in 1993 (or might not have been born, for that matter). But it raises an interesting question, which is—why am I the only person asking if this is a conflict of interest? If judges are going to rule on issues involving the supposed “civil rights” of homosexuals, don’t they have a conflict if a close family member—or even they themselves—are homosexual? Shouldn’t they be required to recuse themselves—or at least disclose the potential conflict?

Of course, it’s logically quite possible that a judge could rule objectively on the issue of same-sex “marriage” even while having a family member who self-identifies as “gay.” It is liberals—not conservatives—who assume that there is a contradiction in loving a homosexual person while opposing same-sex “marriage.” But the way that Levinson spoke out publicly this week suggests that for him, liberal emotionalism trumps conservative logic. So it’s reasonable to ask whether it might also have trumped judicial restraint back in 1993.

You can only imagine the complaints of “bias” from liberals if the judge ruling on a case that arose from the Gulf oil spill were found to own stock in BP—or even if his daughter did. Given their hostility to religion, the reaction might be even worse if a judge ruling on an issue involving a local church—say, one of the Episcopal churches whose ownership is disputed by its conservative congregation and liberal diocese—were found to be a member of that same church (or even if his daughter was).

Why are there not similar howls when a judge who has a “gay” child—or is “gay” herself—rules on issues involving homosexuality?

I guess liberal political correctness includes a lot of double standards.

Tags: Civil Unions, Hawaii, Linda Lingle

Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.