Clips of the hearings will be posted below as they become available.

In a decision just handed down to lawyers for both sides, Walker ruled in that Proposition 8 is “unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses.” The court, therefore, “orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement.” We’re staying tuned for more updates and details on the 136-page decision, but these two sentences from the conclusion are critical:

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.”

The supporters of Proposition 8 will of course appeal the decision.

Prop 8 “Day of Decision” rallies are occurring through out the nation later today. A list of them can be found here.

Paul Nathanson a Canadian religious scholar who just happens to be gay (duh!) was also trotted out in Varnum v. Brien which ultimately led to the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In the document Defending Faith, Family and Freedom by the Family Research Council Nathanson is quoted as saying that cultures can only survive and thrive via opposite-sex marriage.

“Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival … every human society has had to promote it actively … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Not surprisingly marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher also surfaces in said document.

Nathanson and Young also co-authored  Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage in 2003 which attempts to dissect and tear down many marriage equality positions. Some of their arguments below.

Argument 7: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones: This comparison is false, because it involves the best of one scenario with the worst of another. A legitimate comparison would compare either the best of both or the worst of both. Once again, we suggest that the best of marriage (providing at least one parent or other adult of each sex) is better than the best of gay marriage (which provides two parents of the same sex and none of the other one).

Argument 15: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic: This argument amounts to verbal terrorism. By “homophobic” is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. So much for the possibility of rational debate. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favor of gay marriage.)

Moreover, this is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself.

It’s a lengthy document but a good source for “verbal terrorists” such as myself in developing counter arguments.

As Chad Griffin tells it, the idea for filing a federal challenge to Prop. 8 took shape ten days after it passed with 52 percent of the vote. Griffin and Kristina Schake, his business partner in the Los Angeles communications firm Griffin/Schake, had joined director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, for lunch at the Polo Lounge in the Beverly Hills Hotel. Griffin had produced three television ads and raised money for the “No on 8″ campaign; the Reiners were contributors, as well as Griffin’s longtime clients. The four discussed the failed campaign and other election results.

After Griffin left, an acquaintance of the Reiners, Kate Moulene, stopped by and learned that they had discussed Prop. 8. Moulene later phoned Michele Reiner to suggest they talk to her former brother-in-law, Ted Olson, because, she said, he supported gay marriage. Though Olson has a long history as a prominent Republican lawyer—he served in both the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations—his leanings tend to be more libertarian than socially conservative.

The Reiners phoned Griffin about contacting Olson. “I would have been crazy not to talk to him if it were true that such a prominent conservative and legal scholar was on our side,” Griffin says.

Because Olson’s involvement would be major news, secrecy was imperative. On November 21, a week after the Polo Lounge lunch, Griffin met Olson at Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C., office. There, Olson declared his interest in taking a case challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

It was “terribly unfortunate” that Prop. 8 passed, Olson said, particularly because “Californians have always been in the forefront of liberty and individualism.” His own support for gay marriage, he said, dates back more than a decade.

The article goes on to detail much of the friction and the mending of fences between gay groups and those litigating the case.

Though spurned by the court, the LGBT legal groups chose to cooperate with the Perry team. They have provided background material that includes expert witnesses who had been used in other cases, and briefs from gay-rights litigation. “We are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible,” says James Esseks, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project. “And we wish the plaintiffs’ legal team the best. We know they’re doing everything they can to put together a great case.”

But does he support the litigation? “What I’d say is: We think they’ve got it right about the law,” Esseks replied. “We think that Prop. 8 violates the federal Constitution. We think that is crystal clear.”

The LGBT legal groups also agree that Olson’s involvement is a significant and positive development. Kendell says, “Seeing this person, who was a star of the conservative right, speaking out for the rights of LGBT couples to marry really did feel like, ‘Gosh, this really could help change people’s hearts and minds.’ ” In one of her early conference calls to discuss the complaint, Kendell jokingly named Olson an “honorary lesbian.”

It’s a long, but fascinating read. And definitely worth the time.

“We’re bringing the pain of this home,” said Reed Cowan, who directed “8: The Mormon Proposition,” which will have its world premiere next month in Park City at the Sundance Film Festival.

Cowan’s documentary is one of more than 50 titles announced Dec. 3 in the festival’s non-competitive slate.

“It’s really well done, and it’s really thorough,” festival director John Cooper said. “[Cowan] goes very deep, into the Mormon Church and its relationship to the anti-gay-marriage movement, all the way back almost before it really started, all the way back to the ’90s.”

The movie chronicles the 2008 campaign for Prop. 8, which overturned a court decision to allow same-sex marriage in California. In the film, Cowan tracks the LDS Church’s involvement with the Yes on 8 forces — and reveals what the film’s producer/editor Steven Greenstreet calls “an orchestrated strategic campaign” by the church to pass similar ballot measures in other states over the past two decades.

The LDS Church had no comment on the film, a spokesman said Thursday.

The trailer for the film is below.

Last Wednesday the White House issued a presidential Proclamation marking World AIDS Day, and held a press conference yesterday observing the event.

Visit the Gay American Heroes Foundation for more info.

Joe Solomnese of HRC and Judy Shepard respond to the signing…

“This law honors our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters whose lives were cut short because of hate,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “Today’s signing of the first major piece of civil rights legislation to protect LGBT Americans represents a historic milestone in the inevitable march towards equality.  Although this is a major step in fighting the scourge of hate violence, it is not the end of the road.  As a community, we will continue to dedicate ourselves to changing not only laws but also hearts and minds.  We know that hate crimes not only harm individuals, but they terrorize entire communities.  After more than a decade of advocacy, local police and sheriffs’ departments now have the full resources of the Justice Department available to them.”

“We applaud President Obama for signing this bill into law and thank the leadership and our allies in the House and Senate.   We also will always remember the tireless efforts of Senator Edward Kennedy on this issue.  Senator Kennedy once said that this legislation sends ‘a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world.’   This marks the first time that we as a nation have explicitly protected the LGBT community in the law.  And this law sends a loud message that perpetrators of hate violence against anyone will be brought to justice,” said Solmonese.

“We are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly,” said Judy Shepard, executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation.  “But each of us can and must do much more to ensure true equality for all Americans.”

A more formal ceremony is planned for later today.