A little later today, a judge will rule whether the ruling declaring California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional should be overturned, because the presiding judge is a gay man, and those arguing for the overturning suggest that, as a gay man, he stands to benefit directly from his ruling. In all honesty, I don't know where to begin. There are people I know who see nothing wrong with this line of reasoning. Though, wouldn't that line of reasoning be applicable to heterosexual judges who, presumably, are on the opposite side of that issue? Or are these folks really suggesting that minorities of any stripe are incapable of being impartial judges when confronted with civil rights cases?
UPDATE: Towleroad has reported that the motion to vacate the Prop 8 ruling, because the presiding judge is gay, was denied.