I couldn't agree more that a judge who identifies himself as gay and lives with a same-sex partner should have recused himself from hearing and then ruling on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8.
Of course he was biased, how could he not be. Just as a heterosexual judge would have been biased in favor of preserving marriage between a man and a woman, or opposite-sex partner if you will. Let's face it, we are human and can't help rooting for our own team
Clearly the only solution would be to have a bi-sexual judge with no defined preference preside over any legal hearing involving a sanctity of marriage issue. Who could be more impartial than a person who not only sees, but practices the merits of both a gay and straight lifestyle? As for an agenda, when would there be time for promoting agendas? With all possibilities opened to him or her, our bi-sexual judge would be much too busy researching the field to be drawing up any agendas.
And while we're on the subject, to ensure complete neutrality in our judicial system, shouldn't only bi-racial judges preside over racial equality issues, self-employed judges over employment lawsuits, asexual judges over sexual harrassment cases, shut-ins over environmental hearings, agnostics over religious, well you get the drift.
Thank God, oops, I probably should have said "thank the deity who may or may not exist," that the proponents of Proposition 8 have pointed out the utter unfairness of having a judge with a known, preferred sexual proclivity sitting in judgement on this very important matter.
From now on we should only have judges who have a thoroughly demonstrable impartiality on every issue that comes before them. Just imagine the new LSATS!