California supporters of efforts to end gay marriage in their state are unhappy that a gay judge did not excuse himself for making decisions regarding gay rights. Former Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition that said only marriages between a man and a woman were legal in his view was unconstitutional. A majority of Californians voted for the Proposition, but Walker stuck to his view the proposal was not constitutional. Anti-gay folk insist since Walker had publicly made clear he was gay, that he had no right to sit on a case dealing with gay rights. The issue raised by anti-gay folk is interesting, do judges who have some connection to a case being heard have to recuse themselves?
I wonder if this means in a case dealing with Coca Cola or Pepsi that a judge who drinks either of those drinks must excuse himself because he might be prejudiced. Or, in a case dealing with baby pampers must the judge excuse herself because she uses the baby pampers with her own child?
If we go by the thinking of anti-gay people, then Sarah Palin does not have the right to comment on anything to do with taxes since she paid them.