Fiorina voted in favor of Proposition 8 in 2008. When she announced her bid for Boxer’s seat last November, Fiorina reiterated her stance against gay marriage saying she “believes in the sanctity of a marriage between a man and a woman.” Fiorina has been relatively quiet on the issue since.

Researchers analyzed data from lesbians, gays and bisexuals who were interviewed in 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 for the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The participants lived in states that instituted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage following the 2004-2005 elections.

The researchers found a significant increase in the prevalence of mood disorders, generalized anxiety Researchers analyzed data from lesbians, gays and bisexuals who were interviewed in 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 for the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The participants lived in states that instituted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage following the 2004-2005 elections.

The researchers found a significant increase in the prevalence of mood disorders, generalized anxiety disorders and alcohol use disorders among lesbians, gays and bisexuals after the states banned gay marriage. The greatest increase — more than 200 percent — was seen in generalized anxiety disorder.

The study found among gays and lesbians the following outcomes: mood disorders (36.6% increase), generalized anxiety disorder (248.2% increase), any alcohol use disorder (41.9% increase), and psychiatric comorbidity (36.3% increase).

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.

In an unsigned opinion Wednesday, the court criticized [Judge] Walker for attempting to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

While the court set no time limit in its ruling, any further proceedings at high court likely would come after the trial was over.

The four justices in dissent were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens.

At this time it is still unclear if the trial proceedings will be posted on YouTube as that was not addressed in today’s decision.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights which is leading the challenge against Proposition 8 released the following statement:

“Proposition 8 attacks the core of what our nation stands for — that all of us are entitled to equal protection under the law and equal treatment from the government. A trial on constitutional rights should be accessible to as many people as possible,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Given the powerful evidence against Prop. 8 presented in court today, we are not surprised the initiative’s defenders sought to keep this trial as private as possible.”

Not surprisingly the ruling broke cleanly along idealogical lines and fear it doesn’t bode well for when the case ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.

More on homophobic pastor Miles McPherson here.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

Acting less than two hours before the trial’s scheduled start, the justices said they also would not permit real-time streaming that would have allowed the trial to be seen in other federal courthouses.

Hopefully this is only a temporary setback, and ultimately the cameras are allowed to bear witness to who these people really are. Nothing like a little light to make the roaches scurry for the dark corners.

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.

Fenty signed in front of 150 activists and same-sex couples — many of whom say they plan to marry — in the sanctuary of All Souls Unitarian in Mount Pleasant.

“We knew this day would come,” Fenty said. “I say to the world: An era of struggle ends for thousands in Washington, D.C. . . . Our city is taking a leap forward.”

Before he signed the bill, Fenty spoke of his interracial upbringing, noting it was illegal for his parents to get married 40 years ago.

“This is one of the churches my parents would have brought me to when I was a boy,” he said as his parents sat among advocates in a second pew. “Things have a way of coming full circle. When you’re mayor.”

It is widely expected that the law will pass a congressional review, despite the best efforts of  Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz, who pledges to block the bill.

Video from the signing below: