<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"A federal court decided on Tuesday to uphold a ruling from 2010 that declared the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional \u2014 and it caused a hubbub on the interwebs. \nThe three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court's decision that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010. \nWithin less than an hour \"Prop 8\" became a trending term on Twitter, according to WhatTheTrend.com. The Facebook page for No on Prop 8 had 1,433 likes for a single post about the upholding of the ruling. The page as a whole has 300,000 likes. \nThe two big websites in support of California's proposition 8 \u2014 National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Protect Marriage site \u2014 paled by comparison. \nNOM's Facebook page doesn't have a wall, and only 937 likes in total. Its Twitter account with 4,571 followers pales in comparison to No on Prop 8's 10,921 Twitter followers \u2014 although both accounts appear to be active. \nThere are many more accounts on Facebook dedicated to same-sex marriage equality, while others are devoted to lambasting organizations such as NOM. \nThe Protect Marriage Facebook page is technically active \u2014 but recent posts detail Russian scientists drilling into antarctic ice sheets and a meme that spells out \"we will rock you\" in photos. The page is operated by Louis J. Marinelli who was the former social media manager for the National Organization for Marriage until he later had a change of heart. \nNOM Executive Director Brian S. Brown says in a letter on NOM's blog, \"A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.\" \nThe site calls for donations in support of its campaign to ban same-sex marriage. \nIn the majority opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt says, \"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.\" \nSee the ruling here\nAfter it became public knowledge that Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled the passing of prop 8 was unconstitutional in 2010, had a long-term same-sex partner, some questioned whether or not he could be objective with this issue or if it was a conflict of interest. \nImage courtesy of iStockphoto, arakonyunus"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2012/02/07/social-networks-react-to-prop-8/>