Gay-marriage backers await court ruling

Gay-marriage advocates said they hoped a federal appeals court Tuesday would overturn Proposition 8, California\'s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. \"We are very hopeful that the 9th [U.S.] Circuit [Court of Appeals] will rule in favor of fairness and equality, once and for all putting an end to Prop. 8\'s exclusion of loving, committed couples from marriage,\" Marriage Equality USA Legal Director John Lewis said in a statement. Groups in favor of gay marriage scheduled news conferences and rallies in San Francisco and Los Angeles following the court\'s scheduled 10 a.m. ruling. Pro-Proposition 8 forces did not immediately announce rally plans. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 have said they would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose at the appeals level. The appeals court\'s three-judge panel was expected to decide whether it agreed with former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who declared the proposition unconstitutional Aug. 4, 2010. The court was also expected to consider a move by Proposition 8 backers to set aside Walker\'s ruling because he did not disclose he was in a long-term same-sex relationship while handling the case. The San Francisco Chronicle reported Feb. 7, 2010, during the case, that Walker\'s homosexuality was \"the biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage.\" Gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who dealt with Walker told the newspaper the judge, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, had \"never taken pains to disguise -- or advertise -- his orientation.\" The case challenges the federal constitutionality of Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended California\'s Constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, prohibiting California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed as of Nov. 5, 2008. Walker ruled Proposition 8 violated the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the Constitution\'s 14th Amendment. The 9th Circuit ordered the judgment stayed pending appeal Aug. 16, 2010.