National Review Online blogger Ed Whelan has been trying for more than a year to disqualify the judge who declared California's bar on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Whelan argues that because the judge in question -- Vaughn Walker -- is gay and in a long-term relationship, federal law requires that he be disqualified.

So far, the lawyers in the case haven't bit. This isn't a surprise since legal experts call the argument that Walker should be disqualified because of his sexuality meritless and "ridiculous."

That hasn't stopped Whelan though. Today, he has posted a 1,400 word National Review piece that pleads for “a request by Prop 8 proponents” asking the appellate courts to throw out Walker's ruling on the grounds that he should be disqualified because of his sexual orientation.

Whelan writes that Walker should be disqualified because he is in a long-term relationship with a man and “a reasonable person would expect him to want to have the opportunity to marry his partner,” which, according to Walker's own opinion, confers benefits on couples.

Whelan does not break any new ground in his arguments today. So there's not much new for us to add.

However, we'll note again that by Whelan's logic, a straight judge who is married or in a long-term relationship would also have to be disqualified because proponents of Proposition 8 argued that the ban on same-sex marriage was “about preserving marriage” as it has been traditionally defined.

Since marriage as traditionally defined would not be preserved were same-sex marriage to be legalized, straight judges would have an obvious interest in stopping same-sex marriage.

That would be no more ridiculous than believing Walker should be disqualified from the same-sex marriage case.