San Francisco's City Attorney, in an exclusive interview, gives us an inside look at the California Supreme Court Decision for marriage equality. City Attorney Dennis Herrera speaks about his office's historical role in being the first government entity to ever file a legal brief on behalf of gay marriage. Herrera is a strong straight ally of the LGBT community and is seriously being considered for Mayor in the next election. Here is Herrera's passionate interview with davidmixner.com.

What role did the San Francisco's City Attorney's Office and you play in the court case for marriage equality?

My office became involved in legal aspects of marriage equality right from the start. Immediately after Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in February 2004, we advised the clerk on the preparation and proper legal disclaimers for the forms and defended the action from legal attacks, first by right-wing groups and, later, by the state attorney general. I also filed the city's constitutional challenge to California's discriminatory marriage laws. At the time, no government had ever been on our side of the fight for marriage equality. So it was history-making in several respects.

What was the most difficult part for your office and you doing the case?

As lawyers, I think we owe it to those we represent to parse out the legal issues, and try to separate ourselves emotionally so we can be effective advocates. But in a small city like San Francisco, you can't help but realize that you're not just fighting for lofty principles, but for friends and colleagues and family members -- for the dignity and equality of people we love and care about. For me and, I think, for everyone involved in this case -- gay and straight alike -- it was impossible not to personalize it. We understood the challenge we were putting a lot on the line in this case, and that the outcome was going to profoundly effect families of those we see every day.

How was the coordination between all the participants?

I think the coordination and sense of teamwork was excellent. To me, it was especially apparent in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court that my office and the National Center for Lesbian Rights complemented one another very well. We were well-prepared to represent our clients' interests -- in my case, the broader societal interests of the City, and in NCLR's case, the interests of the plaintiff couples themselves. We were a well-coordinated tag team, I think, and it stood in stark contrast to the other side of the table, where the attorney general, the governor and the right wing groups all seemed to be arguing different cases.

What was the biggest surprise for you personally as the case unfolded?

The first few days after San Francisco began issuing same-sex marriage licenses in 2004 was President's Day weekend, and City Hall stayed open. There was literally a line around the block of City Hall, even through the pouring rain. Most of the couples getting married that weekend were locals, and most were looking to tie the knot before a Court-order halted the weddings, which most expected as soon as Court opened on Tuesday morning. Fortunately, we were successful in defending the licenses for nearly a full month. For me, the biggest surprise was to see the demographic shift in subsequent weddings over the course of that month. It really became a phenomenon that went beyond couples themselves to include their extended families -- parents, children, grandparents -- many arriving from out of town, to be a part of their loved ones' lives. I think that really opened my eyes to understanding that marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples really is about family values.

The week before the decision came down, what did you expect?

I never felt more confident about our case than the day after oral arguments in the Supreme Court. But as the date of the ruling approached, we were hearing a mounting volume of rumors that the decision would go against us. The day before the ruling, in fact, I saw a blog report claiming inside intelligence that we would lose 6-1 or even 7-0 -- which was just inconceivable to me based on the law and the arguments. But that's what we were all hearing, and we were girding for it.

What was it like to argue the case before the California Supreme Court? Did you personally have a sense of history?

One of my first hires when I became City Attorney was to recruit Terry Stewart to be my chief deputy, and I've always considered her to be my number one draft pick. Watching Terry argue the case before the Supreme Court reminded me what a treasure she is. In my speech after the ruling, in fact, I said I was proud of her for perhaps the smartest, best-prepared, most inspirational advocacy I've ever witnessed.

As a straight office holder, what events and who in your life brought you around to full marriage equality ?

I think I've always been supportive, just from having friends and family members in committed relationships. Like many of them, I just didn't think society was ready. And there was real concern, even after we began the legal case, about whether we had pushed the envelope too much, too soon, and whether it would ultimately be a disservice to the cause.

Where were you when the decision came down and your first reaction?

My office faces the plaza across from City Hall, and you could see the crowd gathered in front of the state building where the Supreme Court sits here in San Francisco. When the cheers went up at 10 a.m., I thought there's either more anti-gay protestors out there than I realized or we actually won this thing. Fortunately, it was the latter.

Do you think the initiative to repeal the decision will qualify? Can we beat it if it does?

I think it will qualify but will be defeated in November. But that's assuming none of us gets over-confident. (SPECIAL NOTE: After this interview, the initiative has officially qualified.)

Who will you marry first?

It depends: no one has asked me yet!