In urging an appeals court to overturn Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that stuck down California's gay marriage ban, backers have called the ruling “egregiously selective and one-sided.”

After conducting a 13-day trial in January, Walker last month ruled Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional because it violates the right of gay men and lesbians to equal protection and due process. It is the first time a federal judge has ruled on the constitutionality of a state-enacted gay marriage ban.

In written arguments submitted Friday to the the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for, the sponsors of the ban, chided Walker for ignoring relevant information, including “judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive historical and documentary evidence,” in finding the law unconstitutional and basing his opinion “almost exclusively on an uncritical acceptance the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs' experts.”

He “simply ignored virtually everything … that ran counter to its conclusions,” lawyers wrote in their 134-page brief.

The challenge was organized and funded by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is scheduled to submit its arguments next month. AFER is representing a gay couple and a lesbian couple who have been denied the right to marry because of Proposition 8.

Attorneys for urged the three-judge appeals court to ignore the testimony presented at trial, calling it “unreliable and ultimately irrelevant.”

Lawyers also rejected Walker's conclusion that Prop 8 supporters backed the measure out of animus towards gay men and lesbians, calling it an attack on the “many judges and lawmakers and millions of Americans who rightly and reasonably understand that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman.”

In a statement released Friday, Chad Griffin, president of AFER, defended Walker's ruling, which he said was “based on our nation's most fundamental principles, and that the Constitution does not permit unequal treatment under the law.”

“Regardless of the defendant-intervenors' protests, the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial,” Griffin said.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for the first week in December.