The decision in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger marriage-equality case is expected to come down today. This LA Times editorial wrap-up published after the closing arguments in June does a great job of explaining just how badly the case went for opponents of marriage equality:
One witness who had been hired to testify that gay men and lesbians wield significant political power -- and therefore were not a group that had especially suffered from discrimination -- ended up conceding that at least some people voted for Proposition 8 because of prejudice against homosexuals. The witness, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, also had made statements in the past that minorities were vulnerable to harm from ballot initiatives, and that courts should protect them from such harm -- an argument that seemed to weaken the case for his side.
Then there was David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, who testified that preserving traditional marriage should take priority over the rights of gays and lesbians -- but then offered no proof that same-sex marriage would in any way harm the institution of marriage, and admitted that marriage would be beneficial to families headed by same-sex couples.
No matter who wins today, the losing side will appeal. I suspect the religious/cultural outlook of Prop. 8's defenders will have more sway once the case reaches the Supreme Court, judging by Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which he argued that anti-sodomy laws "protected" Americans "and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
