No whether or not he was gay, or whether or not he was open or not has no barring on the case. Only bigots who have no actual argument care about petty ish like that.
Well, take it to the other logical extreme. Would you let a KKK member decide a lynching case in Mississippi? Whether or not it affected his decision (and it almost certainly didn't, this is California after all), its still something that should have been made very clear immediately, and if the judge was smart he probably should have excused himself from the case, just to deny Prop 8's supporters that very argument.
It's not like the Pro-Prop 8 people would be silent if a straight judge ruled it unconstitutional. It would have been easy to just pass it off to a less controversial judge who could give the same ruling without any hint of a conflict of interest. Coulda/woulda/shoulda I Guess. Now we get weeks of boring legal news stories dragging the issue out.
Are you actually making the asinine comparison between a gay person ruling on a gay rights case and comparing it to a KKK member?? Is this the asinine leap in logic the right has??
Only those who are straight can rule on gay rights cases?? Only men can rule on discrimination cases against women?? Only whites can rule on discrimination cases against blacks?? Is this the bizarre level you want us to go down??
I wonder, do you think your argument is strengthed by using two question marks all the time?
