The signs and banners have been shelved. The passionate marches and
protests that engulfed California prior to the vote on Proposition 8 in
November 2008 have subsided. Now the future of the same-sex marriage
debate lies in a camera-free court room in San Francisco.

"The discussions on both sides are based on a lot of emotions, and a
lot of feelings, anger and fear," said Alex Randolph, a former LGBT
adviser to San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, about the debate over
same-sex marriage  "A lot of people in the gay community feel anger
because they feel like they are being mistreated. And on the other side
they feel their belief system and way of life is being interrupted and
questioned."

The anger about legalizing same-sex marriage in California has heated
up for the past decade. It began in 2000 with the passing of
Proposition 22, which defined marriage as only between one man and one
woman. Throughout the next several years the California Assembly tried
passing legislation overriding Proposition 22, but it died either in
committee or by the Governor's veto. Then on March 15, 2008 the
California Supreme Court invalidated the existing legislation that
defined marriage, allowing thousands of gay couples to wed.

The issue of same sex marriage escalated throughout 2008 as
protesters of same-sex marriages formed an initiative banning gay
marriage, Proposition 8 on the November 4 ballot, known as the
"California Marriage Protection Act" by supporters. Proposition 8
passed by a slimmer margin than Proposition 22 did eight years earlier,
but halted the practice of same-sex marriage in California.

Without allowing the issue to cool, two gay couples filed a suit in federal court protesting the ban on same-sex marriage. The Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case in a San Francisco court finished hearing testimony Wednesday with gay marriage supporters optimistic about a favorable ruling in the next few months and opponents hoping for victory in a higher court.

The trial sought to examine the social and political controversies surrounding same-sex marriage. Front and center during the testimony were the questions of what role religion played in outlawing same-sex marriages and how different groups view homosexuality.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), a religious organization focusing on "rebuilding the family," said the question of same-sex marriage is simple, "God created the man and woman to be together, not two men and not two women," he said.

Peterson says homosexuality is unnatural and against his religious beliefs, but he also fears that same-sex marriages would destroy the American family and disrupt American society.

"A husband and wife bring a dynamic to the family that two men or two women can't," he said. "If you allow two men or two women to get married you are going to destabilize the family and destabilize society."

Teresa Wang, a member of Roots of Equality, a group that campaigned against Proposition 8, said that some in the religious community hide behind their beliefs claiming that gay marriage will create havoc to society, as a way to mask their fears.

"Some use their religion as an excuse," she said. "Some people point to one line of religious text to justify a stance that in several cases is just homophobia."

Some supporters of gay marriage have pointed to the acceptance of slavery in the Bible to show that their religious opponents pick and choose which passages they follow.

But Peterson explained that when the Bible speaks of slavery it doesn't mean the cruel, tormenting slavery experienced by blacks in America, but of a way of ordering life, much like an employee-boss relationship.

"Slavery wasn't talked about in a way that you degrade them or imprison them," he said. "It was like if I worked for you, then in a sense I am a slave to you, not that you own me but I am a servant to you. It was an order to life, and you respect that order."

The disparity between belief systems sometimes leads to irrational confusion and arguments. Some in the gay community feel the only real way to work through the confusion is through the courts.

"If you look at the history of this country," Randolph said, "a lot of the change in regards to civil rights and discrimination happened inside the courts because you have to talk about things rationally and show proof."

Supporters of same-sex marriage have often pointed to the Civil Rights movement and echoed its messages of discriminating a minority group.

However, Peterson said he was "insulted" by the comparison between the black community and the homosexual community. It shows a lack of respect, he said, for someone to associate their sexual lifestyle with skin color.

"You can overcome being homosexual," he said. "You can't overcome being black. Even Michael Jackson tried and it didn't work."

However, Wang points to the overturning of many of the discriminatory policies in America's history as proof that the best place to fight for gay rights is through the courts and not through the voting process.

"When we vote on civil rights historically we've been wrong," she said. "Some politicians and some in the judicial system don't want this on their backs, so they go to the vote so they don't have to make a tough choice."

While both sides disagreed on every issue, they were of one mind when asked whether same-sex marriage will ever be legalized and uncontested.

"Short of a miracle, I think they will end up getting what they want," Peterson said. "Unless America becomes what it used to be, a God-fearing, conservative country."

Randolf said Proposition 8 was the religious community's "last stand," but it was only delaying the inevitable because society is always changing.

"It's like water running down a hill," he said. "You can try to build a dam, you can try to build a trench, but through time, the water will find a way to get around the barriers."

Supporters of gay rights hope the dam begins leaking in the next couple months with a federal court decision in favor of same-sex marriage.