Social conservatives are crying foul over the recent San Francisco Chronicle outing of Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is about to rule in the first federal trial to decide the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban.

The outing would “explain much of his bizarre behavior throughout the trial,” blustered Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, a Christian-based group opposed to gay rights.

“At every turn he's displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs. These individuals have eschewed the democratic process and seek to employ like-minded judicial activists to radically redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage.”

“In unprecedented form, and to plaintiff's' delight, he has created a circus-like atmosphere throughout,” Barber added.

In a statement titled “Got Bias?” Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the nation's most vociferous opponent of gay marriage, accused Walker of “egregious and damaging” bias.

“He's been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee,” Brown said.

Opponents, however, are more than likely relishing the idea that Walker is possibly gay.

Throughout the three-week trial, defense attorneys made the argument that California's gay community has powerful and influential allies, openly gay politicians and judges included among them. They argued such a politically influential group does not need protection from the government.

Analysts expect Walker to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and against Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban, if only for the failure of ban supporters to attract credible witnesses. Proposition 8 lawyers called only 2 witnesses to testify in favor of the gay marriage ban, while lawyers for the plaintiffs strung together weeks' worth of testimony from 17 experts.

Plaintiff's lawyers crushed one witness for the defense, who admitted under cross-examination that legalizing gay marriage would “improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children” and that homophobia is a “real presence” in our society.

Given their inevitable loss, social conservatives have already begun to argue that Walker's random assignment to the case has tainted the trial's outcome.

“He also allowed plaintiffs a parade of 'expert' witnesses who viciously maligned Christians and other observers of natural and historic sexual morality as 'prejudiced', 'bigoted' and 'homophobic',” Barber added.

On Wednesday, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post responded to the allegations of impartiality and bias.

“No one would question an African-American judge's capacity to preside over a race discrimination lawsuit or a female jurist's handling of a sexual harassment case. In the Proposition 8 matter, a straight judge would bring his own preconceptions to the courtroom, and no one would challenge his impartiality,” she said.