Arkansas | Gay Marriage

Federal Judge In Arkansas Recuses Self From Marriage Equality Case

A controversial federal judge in Arkansas has recused himself from hearing a marriage equality case filed in that state earlier this week. The case challenges the states ban on same-sex marriage.

Holmes-Leon-2The AP reports:

U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes on Thursday ordered that the lawsuit challenging the ban be assigned to another judge. Holmes cited personal and professional relationships with leaders who drafted and campaigned for the ban that was approved by voters in 2004. Holmes wrote that the relationships developed in 1980s working on issues similar, but not identical, to the gay marriage ban.

The Arkansas Times points out that the one of the "relationships" is likely Jerry Cox, head of the conservative religious group the Arkansas Family Council.

The case will now be handed to Judge Kristine Baker who was appointed by President Barack Obama last year.

The Times also reminds its readers about some of the past controversial things Holmes has written in the past.

Holmes argued in a 1997 article co-written with his wife for a Catholic publication that “the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband.” In another article, he incorrectly claimed that “concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”

Read Holmes' full order here.

Watch a speech by Holmes at Aquinas College from 2012, AFTER THE JUMP.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. You can tell he's still a bit stuck in the 80s per his cute glasses.

    Posted by: Dan Zam | Jul 20, 2013 2:37:15 PM

  2. Judge as jerk. Thanks for your recusal. Now keep going going and gone as justice is not your suit.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jul 20, 2013 2:38:16 PM

  3. Or he's a hipster. ;-)

    Posted by: DetroitGuy76 | Jul 20, 2013 2:38:27 PM

  4. Clearly another biased religious fanatic who is incapable of living up to his judicial oath to apply the law without fear or favour.

    If you can't be judicial, Holmes, then being a judge is not the job for you.
    Idiot !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 20, 2013 2:42:32 PM

  5. Hell, at least we can give him props for recusing himself. I'm pleasantly surprised. No judge HAS to recuse themselves from any case coming before them.

    Posted by: Chucktech | Jul 20, 2013 2:48:38 PM

  6. WHAT ?????Where has that post on Africa just gone ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 20, 2013 2:50:11 PM

  7. Just another gift from George W. Bush

    Posted by: Kevin | Jul 20, 2013 2:52:27 PM

  8. Has anyone else noticed that the post on Africa and whether our increasing rights in the West make it difficult for others, has just disappeared ?

    Why ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 20, 2013 2:56:25 PM

  9. Why are ugly, dated glasses always indicative of the the fundamentalist viewpoint?

    Posted by: Phil | Jul 20, 2013 3:26:17 PM

  10. His wife must have a ton of self-esteem to have co-written that article. I hope she didn't injure her fragile constitution, though she was undoubtedly just transcribing his brilliant words, not actually writing anything. That's not proper work for women folk.

    He recused himself to avoid losing professional and personal contacts. I doubt that ethics were involved. Either that or he can be blackmailed for who knows what or has a gay relative. Tigers don't change their stripes.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jul 20, 2013 3:49:09 PM

  11. I give him props for realizing that his personal bias was too much and would have interfered with the case. Good for him. Any judge that cannot dispassionately render judgment on this, whether they are "pro" or "con", should follow suit and recuse themselves.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Jul 20, 2013 4:05:18 PM

  12. Hasn't Scalia done/said even worse?

    Posted by: HASN'T SCALIA | Jul 20, 2013 4:08:42 PM

  13. Yes, I agree with JOHNAGJ. He's aware enough to get out of the way. Still, one can shudder.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jul 20, 2013 4:11:13 PM

  14. At least he has the good grace to recuse himself if he feels he cannot be impartial (or regarded as impartial) in this regard.

    The gentleman, in question, is to be applauded if this is, in fact, the case.

    Posted by: Mundus | Jul 20, 2013 4:13:57 PM

  15. This doesn't happen very often.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 20, 2013 5:08:31 PM

  16. @MUNDUS :

    The fact that a judge cannot be impartial is damning.
    Which is the point I was making above.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 20, 2013 5:14:35 PM

  17. Humble apologies !
    The post on Africa is not missing.
    I have my head up my a$$.........again.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 20, 2013 5:22:30 PM

  18. Let's take a moment to recognize that, like most of us, this man is neither completely rational nor completely corrupt. A person of lesser integrity would not have recused himself. A person of greater learning couldn't hold such views on rape-induced pregnancies.

    Posted by: Chuck Mielke | Jul 20, 2013 5:34:43 PM

  19. What's the problem? The bottom is supposed to subordinate himself to his husband, too.

    Posted by: Bill | Jul 20, 2013 5:38:40 PM

  20. See "honorable" justice Scalia! If you are evil through and through, then THIS is how it is done!

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 20, 2013 7:54:22 PM

  21. Well, the best one can say about this fool, is that he has something of a moral streak by recusing himself. You certainly can't say much about his thinking processes on humanity, though--he seems to be out of touch with the actual meaning of the New Testament.

    Posted by: woodroad34d | Jul 20, 2013 8:08:19 PM

  22. The horror is that he is a judge at all. Of course it is Arkansas.

    Posted by: ChrisQ | Jul 21, 2013 8:54:07 AM

  23. Scalia and Clarence Thomas never recuse themselves despite egregious public politicking on behalf of their über-rightwing dominionist agenda. This guy has far more personal ethics than those jerks.

    Posted by: Paul Douglas | Jul 21, 2013 11:18:00 AM

  24. I don't believe at all that he recused himself for honorable reasons. There's something in his past that someone could bring up.

    Posted by: kdknyc | Jul 22, 2013 8:45:47 AM

  25. There are people in politics who fail to see outside their own box. They are led to believe that their personal crusades will never be questioned, because they won't, by the people organizing them (donors). Gay rights advancement has been a shakeup for the politically small minded, because they truly NEVER thought they would happen especially on the scale and with the pace at which they are moving today (not really fast enough still). Society today and society in the future will follow the advacement of rights and certain people will be seen as obstacles to progress.

    When a judge has the forsight to see that he's no longer capable of impartial judgement is a good thing.

    Posted by: Hey Darlin' | Jul 22, 2013 10:58:28 AM

Post a comment


« «Al Qaeda Militants In Yemen Target Another Man After Accusing Him Of Being Gay« «