Last year, California federal judge Vaughn Walker announced that the Constitution contains a fundamental right to gay marriage. Long ago, I'm told that people used to read the Constitution when they wanted to know what it stood for. Nowadays, of course, the truth is revealed only to federal judges.
As bad as Walker's decision was (in my opinion), the question now before the court is whether the decision should be vacated because Walker had a conflict of interest. Here's the gist. At the time of the decision, Walker was a California resident, and had a long-term gay partner. In other words, by striking down Prop 8, he granted himself and his partner the ability to get married. For more, see Ed Whelan's comments at NRO, and the Ted Olson/David Boies brief defending Judge Walker.
What do you think? Disqualification is a powerful weapon, and it cannot be that a judge is disqualified from rendering a decision that might, in some way, inure to his benefit. But this is a pretty particular situation, since it sounds like Walker is in a relationship very, very similar to those of the lead plaintiffs in the case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger).