In the past few weeks, gay marriage has been in the headlines again, as Iowa and Vermont became the latest two states to formalize government recognition of same-sex unions.

Among other things, this will allow spouses to do things like participate in medical decisions that involve one another and share benefits like health care more easily.

Although this debate has proven to be incredibly emotional and polarizing—and although it’s hardly over yet—you’d be hard-pressed to find people who truly believe, if you were to put it that way, that homosexuals ought to be considered second-class citizens, or denied the protections that the law affords them. Okay, people besides Fred Phelps and his ilk. All of which makes the following exchange from the confirmation hearings for Attorney General Appointee Wayne Anthony Ross, chronicled here by the Anchorage Daily News’s Sean Cockerham in a story that ran earlier this week, so puzzling and perplexing:

“Two Democratic senators on the committee repeatedly asked Ross if he still believes gays are degenerates.

Ross replied that his job as attorney general is to represent all Alaskans, and "my personal opinions in that regard have no place and I decline to state my opinion."

Sen. Bill Wielechowski pressed for an answer. "Do you still adhere to your statement from years ago where you said they were degenerates and immoral?" he asked. Ross: "I was not attorney general at that time."

Wielechowski asked twice more and did not get a yes or no answer from Ross.

"So you're refusing to answer my question?" said Wielechowski, an Anchorage Democrat.

Ross replied: "That's correct, yes, senator, you betcha."

North Pole Republican Sen. Gene Therriault then asked Ross if, as attorney general, he would protect the legal rights of Alaskans who are gay. Ross said that he would.”

It’s that last bit—a clever stroke of stagecraft on the part of Therriault—that’s both interesting and, potentially, disturbing.

There’s a long tradition in legal practice of setting one’s own biases and feelings aside and doing one’s best to interpret the law faithfully, even if that means the resulting interpretations might conflict with one’s own beliefs or desires. This goes by different names, but it’s one of the things that is meant when the term “judicial temperament” gets tossed around.

In their book Shaping America: The Politics of Supreme Court Appointments, George Watson and John Stookey include this meditation on the term of art:

“Judicial temperament is an ideal term for the nomination and confirmation process. It can mean virtually anything to anybody, making it particularly susceptible to manipulation by actors in the appointment process. The American Bar Association defines it as ‘compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice’,” they write. “Quite a different view is provided by Senator Strom Thurmond, long time Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, for whom judicial temperament ‘prevents pressures of the moment from overpowering composure and self-discipline.’”

This applies primarily to candidates for judgeships, of course. Lawyers in private practice, to the extent that they’re required to employ judicial temperament at all, need do so only to better understand an opponent or manipulate a judge and jury: their job is to look out for their client, not the loftier, disinterested aims of justice.

But Ross did apply for judgeships, as blogger Melissa Green points out.

“His middling scores on the Alaska Bar Association surveys when he applied for seats on the Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are not simply statistics, but indicative of the opinion those of his colleagues in the bar who have had direct professional experience with him have for his professional competence, integrity, fairness, judicial temperament, suitability for the position, and overall performance,” she writes. “Obviously candidates for Attorney General are not judged according to the same standards as used by the Alaska Judicial Council—but perhaps they should be. In any event, his mediocre scores are instructive.”

None of this is to argue explicitly that Ross ought not to be confirmed as Attorney General. For all I know, the man might make a capable attorney for the state of Alaska.

But it’s important that other legislators don’t swallow the sleight of hand that Therriault offered up—knowingly or otherwise—about Ross’s supposed ability to separate the execution of his official duties from his own closely-held views. Especially when his colleagues have formally expressed doubt about such ability. And especially when he’s up for a position where he’ll occasionally be tugged between protecting the interests of the people of Alaska and the interests of his boss (see Colberg, Talis).

By the time you’re reading this, chances are good that a vote on Ross’s confirmation will have already occurred (it was scheduled for Thursday at 11 a.m.). Still, Ross could go a long way toward gaining credibility with Alaskans and dispelling the notion this appointment was made simply to advance Governor Palin’s conservative bona fides, by simply coming clean about his beliefs on homosexuality and violence against women (another issue where past comments have dogged him), then letting constituents judge his work for themselves.

Concealing them only makes it seem like there’s something worth hiding.