It's by Ed Whelan today, in National Review's the Corner.
Read the whole thing. Whelan examines five "controversial--and in many cases, unprecedented decisions" by Judge Walker, and concludes:
"Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now."
That's why we never even bothered following it. We wrote back on January 25:
"We haven’t commented on the issue much, or even followed it, because it seems to be mostly a propagandistic exercise in narcissism. The "trial" has the same relationship to a real trial as same-sex "marriage" has to real marriage."