In the landmark case debating the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, supporters of the gay marriage ban are calling on Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should recuse himself from the case because he happens to be gay. They argue that Walker is unfit to adjudicate a gay rights case and should step aside-- just as an African American judge would have to recuse him or herself from a civil rights case or a human judge would recuse themselves from a case involving human rights.

"This is a classic conflict of interest, based on the definition I gleaned from this middle school social studies textbook," said lead attorney Hugh Jass. "According to this book, it's a conflict of interest if the person can be described with words that can also be applied to a litigant with whom I personally disagree. So, yeah. He's got to go. Actually, now that I think of it, how did they even let a gay man become a judge in the first place? I can think of all sorts of cases that would present a conflict for a person of his nature. The number is limited only by my own love of stereotypes."

Jass wisely understands that the right to judge cases, and even the right to marry, are just the beginning. The next thing you know, these people are going to want freedom of assembly and the right to vote. This is, it seems, a slope made slippery by thousands of gallons of Astroglide.

"For those of you who think the gay agenda isn't real, I think this proves that it totally is," said Jass. "I've seen it myself. It's printed on lavender scented paper in a girlish scripty font, Zapfino I think. It's barely legible to straight people."

Over and above the potential conflict of interest, lawyers are frustrated with the glacial pace of the trial. The case was originally scheduled to last just a few weeks but has dragged on for months because, as Jass complains, "you know how much gay guys love to chat." According to court transcripts, Judge Walker has made a habit of constantly interrupting litigants to get their opinion on his shoes or last night's episode of Glee. For his part, Walker has agreed to stop chatting so much if Jass agrees to stop being such a "bitchy queen."

In the midst of the controversy, lawyers from the ACLU proposed a compromise: Walker can adjudicate the case as long as he agrees not to join the military. This was a non-starter for the other side who have filed papers demanding to see the judge reprimanded for not recusing himself sooner and, if at all possible, disbarred and dragged to death behind a pickup truck.

Tuesday afternoon, a state-appointed mediator hit upon a compromise to the compromise that would allow gay judges to serve as long as they keep their sexuality a well hidden secret and treat their orientation like a shameful or criminal enterprise.

Jass and his people countered with a better idea: expand Don't Ask Don't Tell to include all aspects of American life. Under this regime, employers or government officials cannot ask if you are gay, but if you tell (and that could include anything from vocal pronouncements of one's orientation to actual gay sex to singing show tunes in the shower) there would be legal penalties.

It would certainly make parenting a lot easier. If your child turns out gay they can't come out to you, and God knows you'd never want to ask them. It's like a very gay tree falling in an empty gay forest. No difficult conversations. No scuttlebutt at the next homeowners association barbecue. Your kids can remain silently miserable the rest of their lives, and isn't that what every parent wants for their child?

Legally codifying "the closet" would make life so much better and simpler for people who aren't gay. No more worrying about getting fired for telling the homophobic jokes in the wrong setting. No more biting sarcasm from neatly dressed sit-com characters.

And since those hurt by it won't be legally allowed to admit it, one could safely say that it would work out well for everyone.