I don't think it's a conflict of interest any more than if a devoutly religious judge ruled against gay marriage based solely on his or her religious beliefs, although I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that, hm?
I'd have a problem with any judge overruling the will of the people. But this case is especially egregious considering the judge was gay. If you read his decision, him being gay was the driving force behind it. He and the 5 liberal justices on the Supreme Court are cut from the same cloth - imperialist judges (all liberal of course) who overstep their Constitutional bounds to make their own laws out of thin air while ignoring the voice of the people.
Maybe in California's case, but isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law as they see fit? You're just unhappy because you think marriage is supposed to be between one and man and one woman. But if a gay couple is legally married by law, should they not receive the same benefits and protection heterosexual couples do? That's what this allowed and it struck down an egregious law.
Imperialist judges overstepping their bounds? Give me a break. That's what every hardcore righty is saying. It's utter nonsense
