“No, the converse argument does not work.”
It does. However perverse, the procedure is legal where she performed it. As such, it’s not grounds for recusal. For that, you need advocacy.
Performing such a procedure in light of thousands of years of prohibition against it, *IS* advocacy.
The concept of "marriage" was never intended to encompass any relationship other than man/woman. If you break the concept away from it's normal and socially functional meaning, it is just as reasonable to assert that it applies to goats, pigs and vegetation, as it is to say it applies to two males.
It is a deliberate effort to reject the normal and socially viable definition. It is completely an act of advocacy.