So far, proponents of Prop 8 say he is on their side and has been undeniably supportive of banning gay marriage, so his orientation has no bearing on the case. It seems likely that if the proposition is struck down they might claim he has a conflict of interest though. Many San Francisco family attorneys are quick to question whether his orientation really provides for a conflict of interest either way.

While this is a breaking new aspect of the historical case, it seems that Walker’s opinion may not stand for very long whichever way he decides, as both sides have made it clear they will approach the Supreme Court if they lose.

To read more about the news, see the article in the Baptist Press News.

Yale law professor George Chauncey has testified that Tam’s statements are “consistent in tone with a much larger history of anti-gay rhetoric.”

San Francisco family attorneys say another strategy of those fighting for legalization of same-sex marriage has been to show that it does not actually present any threat to the institution of marriage. To help make this point, Harvard history professor Nancy Cott has testified that the U.S. has historically restricted marriage to other parties, such as inter-racial couples, and when these bans were lifted, the institution of marriage has become stronger, not weaker as proponents of the ban claim. Cott also argued that traditional gender roles involved with marriage are no longer applicable in our society and, thus, cannot be counted as an argument against gay marriage. She also argued that the divorce rate in Massachusetts has not risen in the five years since gay marriage has been legalized in the state.

Lastly, those arguing for same sex marriage legalization have provided evidence to show that a person’s sexuality is not a choice, but a genetic programing. To make this point, Ryan Kendall testified that his attempts to reform his sexuality through “reversal therapy” proved fruitless and almost drove him to commit suicide. He said at the end of his therapy, “I was just as gay as when I started.”

To read more on the matter, see the article on The Raw Story, The L.A. Times, and CBS News. Image via andy.birky [Flickr].

Levenson appealed, requesting either the benefits package or payment of the value of the package. Judge Reinhardt heard the trial and upheld Levenson’s right to the later, declaring the denial of benefits to violate the constitution’s promise of due process and the California state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“Considering that the federal government won’t give Tony the equal benefits package of other spouses, we are very pleased with this decision,” said Levenson. “Is it equal treatment? No. Is it a good remedy? Yes. And we are appreciative of the judge’s order.”

San Francisco family attorneys see this as a positive sign about a growing acceptance of gay marriage and equal rights in America. As more and more cases of this nature enter the court system, the discrimination against same sex couples is expected to decrease.

To read more about the court decision, see the article in the LA Times. Image Via Poldavo (Alex) [Flickr].

Things still aren’t completely equal though, full-fledged same-sex marriage still isn’t allowed in the state. Still, supporting groups –The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Family Equality Council were very excited about the outcome of the vote.

Opposing the law was Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, “We’re just going to wait and watch it play out,” he said. Many opponents argued the law is a steppingstone to same-sex marriage. Gay-rights activists countered this argument by asking them to set aside the gay marriage debate for another time, as same-sex couples need additional legal protection and rights now.

Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which battled to keep the law on the books stated “This is a day which we can all look back with pride.”

“It’s actually what I think is a logical extension of Prop 8, which was the California Marriage Protection Act. (My initiative) would protect traditional marriages by banning divorce,” he explained.

Marcotte’s measure needs to be formally approved by the California Attorney General before a growing army of volunteers rallies to sign the petition. News about the proposed measure spread so fast that the website for the proposition, RescueMarriage.org, crashed multiple times over the weekend due to the traffic surge it received.

While some people have shown concern that the proposal may actually gain enough support to be placed on the ballot, San Francisco divorce attorneys have been reminding those concerned that even if the initiative was voted in, the California Supreme Court would not let it stand.

For more information, please read the full article on ABC News 10. Image via Kashmir [Flickr]