John McCain has expressed opposition to gays serving in the military, and he appears to have given considerable thought to the subject:

In an April 16 letter to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, McCain said, “I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units.
“Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s armed services.”
McCain, who voted in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it was enacted in 1993, concluded that “I remain opposed to the open expression of homosexuality in the U.S. military.”

OK, for what it’s worth (which is not much), I disagree with McCain on this issue.
Furthermore, I am not a McCain supporter, although I have grudgingly allowed that I would prefer him — slightly — to Mitt Romney. But let’s hypothesize for a moment. Suppose that the McCain campaign decided that it needed to do “gay outreach” in states with large urban gay populations where the race was close. How would he do this? Most likely, he would hire someone to do what is called “outreach” to what is inexplicably called the lesbian gay bisexual transgendered “community.”
Politics being what it is, it would be very tough for him to find any openly gay outreach coordinator with any political experience who agreed with his position on gays in the military. It might even be impossible.
For that matter, McCain has gone on record as being against gay marriage, and he has even supported Arizona’s anti-gay-marriage initiative. I think it would also be extremely difficult for him to find a gay outreach coordinator who agreed with his position on that. But let’s assume he found a gay political organizer willing to help his campaign anyway. It’s not impossible; Bush got 25% of the gay vote, and there are gays who think defeating Sharia-supporting Islamofascists is more important than marriage licenses or open service in the military. Most of that 25% consisted of people who voted for Bush despite disagreements. Any gay outreach coordinator hired by McCain would most likely be running around trying to wrangle these votes, and it is almost a certainty that he or she would not be in agreement with McCain on the gay issues.
Does that mean that McCain could be said to hold the views of his gay outreach coordinator?
According to the logic of the people who are irate about McCain’s hispanic outreach coordinator, apparently the answer is yes.
The question is posed thusly:

If John McCain supports securing the border, why does he embrace a campaign Hispanic outreach director who doesn’t believe in borders….

Let’s try rephrasing the question for the hypothetical gay outreach coordinator:

If John McCain supports healthy families and a strong military, why does he embrace a campaign homosexual outreach director who doesn’t believe in these things, and who supports gay marriage and gays in the military….

The answer is that the coordinator’s views are not necessarily those of McCain.
This is not to say that they might not be. It is perfectly legitimate to ask McCain about those views. Some open border critics seem satisfied that McCain’s positions are not the same as his Hispanic outreach coordinator, and Victor Davis Hanson is an example:

I take McCain at his word that–once chastised on immigration–he will close the border. Ending illegal immigration, restoring fiscal sanity, cutting spending, and insisting on victory in the war are the essential issues, and on all he is far preferable to Hillary. There really is a difference between “suspension of disbelief” and “no substitute for victory.” That is why a number of conservatives have and will continue to hold their noses and endorse McCain.

Mickey Kaus isn’t so sure. He takes a very critical look at this Hernandez character (who looks terrible in the videos, btw), and says,

Imagine if Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) had an aide who ran around saying such things. Would it cause a controversy? Ask Lani Guinier!

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)
They might also want to ask Raul Yzaguirre. The former President of La Raza, the man is a real extremist I’ve criticized repeatedly, who likens the US English group to the Ku Klux Klan. No mere outreach coordinator, Yzaguirre is the Co-Chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
This is not to defend Hernandez, but Yzaguirre’s views are way more extreme. And no one seems to be asking Hillary about him. (In that respect, I’d also note that Newsmax commentator Dick Morris is listed as a co-author of Hernandez’s book, and no one seems to care about holding the supposedly anti-open-borders Newsmax accountable for that.)
Overall, I’m skeptical of guilt by association arguments. It’s a bit like saying a blogger is responsible for viewpoints expressed by other blogger he might have linked, or even commenters. Especially in politics, and more especially in the case of political “outreach.”
What is fair is to ask Hernandez what he thinks, and then ask McCain whether he agrees.