yesterday in the newspaper. it puts on full display the responsibility constitution and unofficial role of an tartar of the nation's readiness of social change. outside the court, people gathering as the justices right now begin to hear that is it for "washington journal." our coverage continues at 1:00 p.m. eastern year on c-span.

chanting]ible crowd >> one man! >> one woman! >> one man! >> one woman!

chanting]ible crowd

>> what do we want? >> equality. do we want it?ted t >> now.

crowd chan le

ting]

>> one man! >> one man! >> one love! love! >> two dads!

>> we do not want to support marriage if it is not between a man and a woman. >> one man! >> one woman! >> one man! >> one woman!

>> bigt >> bigot [indiscernible of crowd

chanting] >> one man! >> one woman! >> one man! >> one woman!

national anthem]

>> what do we want? uality want it?o we >> now >> what do we want? >> equality. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> what we want? >> equality. >> when do we wanted? >> and now. now.

>> holly a phobia has got to go -- homophobia has got to go hey hey go home got to go has hey hey go home has got to go hey hey go ghome. to go.boia has got hey hey.

go home.

chanting]ible crowd

>> e quality. right here. right now. a full equality. right here. right now. funnyo i deserve a full equality. so [inaudible] indiscernible crowd chanting. ]

>> jesus! jesus! >> respect the love of god. respect the love of god. respect the love of god.

>> he is the great iam. >> hey hey, ho ho. homophobia has got to go. hey hey, ho ho. got to go.has hey hey, ho ho. homophobia has got to go. hey hey, ho ho. to go.bia has got

[no audio]

>> we're showing you live pictures some outside the supreme court as the high court picks up same-sex marriage cases. today is california's proposition 8 case dealing with the same-sex marriage ban. tamara the defense of marriage case is only between a man and a woman. from those scenes, we're showing you the line to get into the court. they began forming last week. some people are getting paid to hold places. others has gotten as much as $6,000 to stand in line. people rallying for and against gay marriage in front of the court. we will come back to that brought the day. testimony is under way. it was scheduled to start at

10:00. the debate is expected to last 75 minutes. at about 1:00 we expecting to release their audio of the oral arguments. we will have it as soon as it is available on c-span and c-span radio. we will also take your phone calls and reactions later on this day. also going on in front of the court plaza is a pro-gay marriage rally posted by the group united for marriage. it started at about 9:00 this morning. live coverage continuing on c- span2. colleget and we were in when i was 18 and another was 19. we chose a song by royal hamilton called "to the right to love." still did not we have the right to legal marriage. although we have gone through the good times and bad times, our love and respect for each other girl stronger each year.

we loved our parents and it care of them and their elderly years. we take our daughters to the movie. we play with our pets. we laugh and cry together and we often bicker over what brescia where going to eat at. we are a family. why is it that because we are to women that are life is a recognized? 17 years ago i was awarded custody of my knees when she was 4 years old. six years later i was awarded custody of her sister when she was 3. we are a loving family. we believe we deserve the same right as any other citizens allowed to marry in this country. our doctors should have as saying stability in their lives. for would provide fairness gays and lesbian couples.

we want to live the american dream. we want to have the same opportunities and privileges of others have. to lisa gough signature robert -- [inaudible] voters say the freedom to marry the person you love is a constitutional right that is given to all americans. the nation is ready for marriage a quality and so are we. inthis rally is taking place front of the kohr plaza. live coverage continues on our companion network. the national organization for marriage is hosting a rally later this morning. they are expected to start in about half an hour. you'll be able to see this.

we do have a poll on our facebook page. we're asking whether you agree that marriage should only be between a man and a one-minute? she says this is not an issue of religion or economy or anthropology. its is a civil rights issue. i should have a right to marry my best friend. we're taking your tweets, has htag #samesexmarriage. >> at the activities continue in front of the supreme court, if the court continues to debate same-sex marriage.

from this morning's "washington journal" we had a discussion about the cases coming before the court this week. some people in california that sued trying to win it. the web before the california supreme court in 2008. it amends the state constitution to say that marriage was limited between a man and a woman.

that passed by 52% in 2008. a year after that, ted olson and david boys decided to challenge it and argued that it was unconstitutional under the federal constitution. they made the big argument that there is a fundamental right to marry in the united states and that it is an equal right, you cannot tonight to lesbians and gays. they will in a court in san francisco, the ninth circuit, and now the defenders of proposition 8 have appealed to the supreme court. that is a case they are going to hear today. host: the ninth circuit court case, we covered it on c-span. viewers can go to our web site to hear the foundation for that. who is arguing aside -- besides ted olson? who is also behind, against proposition 8? guest: there'll be three attorneys today. two reagan attorneys on opposite sides. chuck cooper came to the reagan administration in the 1980's. a conservative guy, he is

representing the sponsors of proposition 8. he's got 30 minutes to argue that this is a matter of great national debate and it should be decided by the voters in every state. he is basically going to tell the supreme court, you should stand back and not decide this as a constitutional issue agreed it is being decided state.by- then ted olson is up for 20 minutes to argue that it is a matter of equal rights and you, the supreme court, should not only decided in a narrow way, you should rule it as a right to marry. that donald overly -- verrilli joined the case on olson's side. he's got 10 minutes to argue, as he did in the brief, that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. there is no good reason for it. he will say, you, the supreme court, should rule that this kind of discrimination as unwarranted, and so proposition 8 should be struck down on the

grounds that it is discriminatory. host: what is the role of the 14th amendment? caller: it says that no state should deny to any person the equal protection of the loss. really the underlying question in this case is, are gays and lesbians and title to the full equal protection of the law? in the night -- in 1950, the court said racial discrimination was unconstitutional. in the 1970's, the court in a series of cases can run to the view sex discrimination was unconstitutional. states cannot keep women out of various jobs. the question is now, is sexual orientation discrimination a

type of discrimination that violates the equal protection clause? that is the underlying constitutional issue. host: those that believe it does will point to what? caller: just as we will make some point to this -- when the 14th amendment was adopted in 1968 -- 1768, nobody thought the phrase meant that it involved gays and lesbians, the original view of the 14th amendment was that it was about end of slavery. the argument is that this has been understood that sexual orientation was not under the equal protection clause. that is basically the argument. they do not have a case where the court rejected it. it has never come up before. host: loving and vs. virginia from 1967? guest: that was the case that struck down laws against interracial marriage. at a time, i think the number was 16 or 17 states still made

it illegal for a white person and a black person to marry. the supreme court struck that down and said, that is a matter of equal protection. the state has no business deciding based on race who can get married. host: which judges will you be listening to today? what type of questions will they be asking? guest: i think i am not alone in saying it is just as kennedy. -- justce kennedy. he is sort of a libertarian conservative. on a lot of things that involve liberte, individual rights, and a gay-rights, he has been on the liberal side in the past. the issue here is if justice kennedy wants to rule in a big way or a narrow way to strike down proposition 8, the presumption is the four liberal justices will join him. everybody will hyde -- will have their eye on justice

kennedy. the big question is a matter of timing. the whole country is changing on this issue. everybody says the polls, it is amazing over 20 years how the polls have changed. the question is, if you are the supreme court, and this is a matter of constitutionality, and you move now, the country is changing? or do you say, the country is changing, we ought to stand back? tenures now, 15 years now, if 42 states authorize the marriage, and it did not, it would be easy for the supreme court to say, the country has made its decision on this and we say is that -- it is a constitutional right. the problem is that only nine states authorize game marriage. 41 do not read on the other hand, public opinion polls show that a majority of americans approve of or accept same-sex marriage.

the real tough question for the court to grapple with is, do we move now on this issue, or do we take a very minor step and try to defer the big question about, is there a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians? host: david savage, a longtime reporter for the l.a. times. let's move on to wednesday and the defense of marriage act. guest: when the defense of marriage act was being debated in 1996, the whole issue then was, if 1 state like kawai gets same-sex marriage, then all the other states will have to do it because of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. congress wanted to head that off. we will not make it a national matter. it turns out that is not been a problem at all. the aw -- law also said that -- in 1996, no state had same-sex marriage. since 2004, massachusetts and nine others super -- others do. there are over 100,000 a legally married couples in the united states.

under current law, a couple could be married in massachusetts, but yet when they sit down to file their federal income tax this month, they cannot check married filed jointly because the federal government does not recognize their marriage. if one partner dies, they cannot get a social security survivor benefit. if they are in the military, and they are married, they cannot get the same health benefits because the federal government does not recognize their marriages. the question is, does that discrimination against their marriage of violate the equal protection clause? host: this passed in 1996. it is 2013. why did it take so long before the supreme court would do the

first ever review of not only defense of marriage act but same-sex marriage? guest: it took awhile for couples to be -- it started in 2004. people started marine in massachusetts. after that, the woman that won the case on the marriage in massachusetts, a number of couples can to her and started talking about different problems they had, very practical problems being married, -- the unmarried couple, but the law did not become the say. she challenged the defense of marriage act. it has taken several years to get to the supreme court. it took awhile because you needed a real people with real problems to litigate the issue. host: who are the players in tamara's oral arguments? -- tomorrow's oral argument? guest: this has been a new england phenomenon. the proposition 8 case is from california -- the fight over the defense ameritech has been in new england. a series of appeals have come

forward -- defense of marriage act has been in new england. a series of appeals have come forward. the two sides in this case involved the bush and obama administration. the obama administration chose not to defend the law. isy believe it unconstitutional. the house republicans hired paul comment who was the solicitor general for george w. bush. he's going to argue that the congress made this decision, it is reasonable for the federal government to maintain the view that they always had, that

marriage is between a man and woman. that is all we need to recognize. don verrilli, the obama administration solicitor general, will argue that it is discriminatory, it discriminates against gay couples, and there is no justification port -- for it. an attorney from new york city is representing the plaintiff in the case, a woman named kaity windsor. she was with partner, they met in the -- in greenwich village in the 1960's, they got married in toronto in 2007, they lived in new york, and her spouse died in 2009. she got a $363,000 estate tax bill from the irs. ofot of this was the value the property they own, it went up. basically the ira's and treated her as if they were not married. -- irs treated her as if they were not married. her case is what they will hear today.

host: vicky jackson. guest: this case comes up in an audit posture. i alluded to it. usually somebody sues and the government says no, i will defend the law. this is a case in which the government is on the side of plaintiff and house republicans are defending the law. the court wants to hear an argument on whether it has jurisdiction to decide this because it is not, it does not look like a real case. vicki jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that. commentes that paul does not have standing, he does not represent the government anymore, and it is not a real case because the government is on the side of the challenger. my two cents, i think the court will decide on doma. you cannot have a situation where federal law is unconstitutional in new england

and it is constitutional in the rest of the country. what you do with the irs? one way or the other, the supreme court has got to decide whether or not doma is constitutional or not. host: if people are listening today, they will be hearing a past president cases that could be brought -- precedent cases that could be brought up. -- brought up? guest: this is not an area where there is a lot of precedent. the only to go opinions are the ones justice kennedy wrote in 1996 -- he wrote an opinion that struck down an anti-gay a voter initiative in colorado and said that this law reflects animosity to particular group of fellow citizens and you

do that. he also wrote an opinion in 2003 that struck down the last of the sex acts -- laws that targeted days. he said that gays and lesbians are entitled to respect, not to be demeaned by the law, and that you cannot do that. a lot of people cite those precedents as saying this suggests that marriage is a right too. others will say, no, that involves something more moderate. host: what about justice robert? what might he be asking today? what do you think will be clues as to how he might decide? guest: i'm going to be very interested in that. i do not have a lot of clues in advance as to how he views this issue. this is one where we have not seen him -- the court has not had a game marriage case, a gay rights case where he has had to talk much. my hunch is that he is going to try to get the proposition 8

case and some others to go away. justice roberts is a stickler for procedural, the proper procedure, and he has a preference for narrow decisions. my guess is that he will ask serious questions today about the proposition 8 case and the procedural problem. that has got a similar problem that the state of california is not defending proposition 8. the private sponsors -- i bet john roberts says, how you get standing to be here? i think he will try to get the case to go away. on the doma issue, i think there is an outside chance that some conservative justices, john roberts, might say, marriage law has always matter for states.

states decide who is married. >> we are live in front of the supreme court filled with demonstrators. the attorneys are arguing california's proposition 8 dealing with other same-sex marriage ban appeared to mark they will take up the defensive and marriage at. a quick reminder that about 1:00 or so we expect the court to release their audio of the oral arguments. he will have that as soon as it is available. he will be available on c-span radio. we will take your calls and reactions from the day.

>> i love you. god loves you. u.s loves yo you.oves

talk]cernible crowd

>> i am a mom. i am a grandmother.

i am a good person. rvert.ot a pe you are a hypocrite.

>> we all have the right to believe in what we believe in a religiously. you seem to think you deserve special rights. why is it that you deserve special rights? i am asking you a simple question. so other people are less than you. you do not know me. you do not know what i believe in. think --u

>> god love you. [horn]

[trumpets] [crowd noises] >> the president of the largest latino organization and the president and ceo for [indiscernible] >> thank you. [applause]

[indiscernible] announcements] >> this must be measured by more than a single yardstick. well.sic dignity as they deny spousal and familiar benefits. the is to undermine

principles of equal protection under law and the basic family unit that many americans take for granted. that love lows -- knows no colors. it knows no religion. we know that love, most especially, knows no gender. [applause] nearly 50 years ago, the rev. martin luther king jr., stood not to far from here dreams do come true. >> welcome back.

>> this said it would be fatal for a nation [indiscernible] in that spirit we stand here today. the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. [applause] proposition 8 is unconstitutional. [applause] we stand with you to see -- today to say it would be our -- would be fatal to our nation that has made such strides in civil-rights for african- americans, latinos, and asian- americans, women, people with disabilities, and so many others over 50 years -- to take a wrong step in now -- the time is now and we will not accept anything less. [applause]

i would like to introduce janet bergia. >> it is a privilege and honor to be here today. buenos dias. we are together and it is a privilege to be here with such an amazing group of civil rights leaders and supporters. lgbt the gay and community. we are here because, like a majority of americans, more than half of latinos in this country are in favor of marriage equality. [applause] we are here because right here in tijuana, it became one of the first organizations to endorse marriage equality which our board unanimously approved. [applause] we are here because some of

those are denied and fundamental right. we are here because of some bank -- [indiscernible] [no audio] [crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises] >> [chanting] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [cheering] [clapping] [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation]

>> i am the widest person on the planet. --whitest person on the planet. [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] [crowd noises] front,t job getting in

you guys. [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] about changingg bylaws of the country. -- changing laws of the country. appliesame argument where integrated couples can marry and have children. the only reason they were not

because there were racists. [indiscernible conversation] >> you want to feel that way -- [indiscernible] you want to wake up in the morning and be targeted and a judge to? d? [police whistle] >> heterosexuals do not know how

powerful homosexuality is. [indiscernible conversation] >> black people could not vote. black people could not drink from the same water fountain. gay people can vote. they can eat at the same lunch counter. as everythe same life american citizen. they have the same rights. [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] >> how are you going to reference this bible "and denied the things you're climbing now? -- you're claiming now. ? >> you do not know. >> will you tell me? >> i could be wrong. that's why i am asking the question. i am waiting. who even says i am day? it is time for marriage equality. let me explain -- it is well and good that you

believe in god and you are entitled to that. whichr, the government was formed by the people and for the people -- read the first amendment -- the first line of the first amendment -- the word of god is irrelevant in my government. i am entitled -- [indiscernible] >> the bible is not wrong. the government was not based on christianity. this country was formed on religious freedom. you can derail the topic however you want. why are you claiming god -- [indiscernible] >> but you don't.

[indiscernible conversation] >> in the old days, people didn't know there were people coming in from outer space but what if they were? >> [indiscernible] >> you are entitled to your religious beliefs. [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation]

gay-rights is not the same thing as civil-rights and i will tell you why -- [indiscernible] when blacks in the '40's and 50's did not have the vote and could not use the same bathroom or use the same water fountain -- [indiscernible] gay-rights can have their agenda. denied rights as americans. [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises] >>[indiscernible conversation] >> what's your name? >> laura. >> i am joe.

[indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises] >> if you are just joining us, this has been the scene in front of the supreme court this morning as the court debates same-sex marriage this week. testimony started at about 10:00 this morning. early this afternoon, they will release audio of their deliberations and at 1:00, we will play back what happened in the court and will appear on c- span and you can listen on cspan radio at about 1:00 p.m. eastern. this is the scene in front of the court where we expect

reporters -- where we expect some of the attorneys to show up as they will address reporters on just what happened in the court today. remarks from those attorneys are expected in a moment as we think deliberations in the court will end shortly. while we wait for that, we will go back to this morning's "washington journal" and the discussion on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. >> some people in california one before the supreme court on proposition 8. a group of voters put out a measure on the ballot, proposition 8, that amended the state constitution to say that marriage was limited to a man

and woman. that passed narrowly, 52% in 2008. a year after that, two very well-known lawyers decided to challenge it and argued it was unconstitutional on vote -- under the federal constitution. they made the big argument there is a fundamental right to marry in the united states and that it is an equal right. you can't deny it to gays and lesbians. they won in a court before a judge in san francisco. the ninth circuit upheld that decision. now, the defenders of prop. 8 have appealed to the supreme court and that is the case they will hear today. the ninthovered circuit court's case here on cspan so you can go to our website, c-span.org, to hear the foundation for that. the tworguing besides lawyers? who is behind -- who is against

proposition 8? >> they will have three attorneys up today. two reagan-era attorneys. the reaganr came to administration in the early 1980's and he is representing the sponsors of prop. 8. he has 30 minutes to argue that this is a matter of great national debate and it should be decided by the voters in every state. he is going to tell supreme court that you should stand back and not decide this is a constitutional issue. it is being decided state-by- state. he has 30 minutes and then ted olson is up for 20 minutes -- 30 minutes that it is a matter of equal rights and the supreme court should decide it narrowly and roll there is a right to marry. virrilli who is the obama administration's solicitor general will join the case on argue thate to

discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is, to notion -- constitutionally suspect. he will say the supreme court should rule is kind of discrimination is unwarranted and proposition 8 should be struck down on those grounds. host: what is the role of the 14th amendment in this case? guest: it says no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of laws. the underlying question in this case is -- are gays and lesbians entitled to the full equal protection of laws? in the 1950's, in the brown case, the court said racial discrimination is unconstitutional and the 1970's, the court camera around to the view that gender discrimination, sex discrimination was unconstitutional. states could not keep women out of various jobs or whatever.

now the question is -- his sexual orientation discrimination -- a type of discrimination that violates the equal protection clause? that is the underlying constitutional issue. host: those that say it does will point to what cases? and traditiony entered t for 200 years. when the 14th amendment was adopted in 1868, no one thought that the phrase "equal protection of law" involves gays and lesbians, that the original view of the 14th amendment was about race and the end of slavery. the argument is that this has been understood that sexual orientation was not covered by the equal protection clause. that is basically the argument. they don't have a case where the court rejected it. it essentially never came up before.

if 42 states ratified this, it would be easy to say the country has made its decision on this.

do we move now on this issue or do we take a minor step and try to defer the big question if there is a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians. >> we are live in from the supreme court where shortly, we're expecting remarked from attorneys arguing the california proposition a case this morning. we will have their comments as soon as they come to this location live on c-span. a public rallies are taking place this morning in front of the court. there's a rally in support of gay marriage that has been underway since 9:00 this morning. we are covering that live on c- span 2 but right now, this is taking place on the national mall -- the national organization for marriage -- a pro-traditional marriage rally

and this has been underway for a couple of minutes. >> hello -- olluccio and i c am here to say that the next generation, my generation, is not entirely on one side of the marriage issue. [applause] here to speak out on behalf of millions of young people around the country who believed that the law should define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. [applause] my generation must make a stand for this issue now. we can choose to stand and defend marriage or we can sit back and watch as the definition of marriage is changed by people

who want to redefine it. my generation knows better than any generation before us how a generation can be devastated by the lack of a -- 9 >> you can watch this as it continues online at c-span.org. we will go live again to the front of the supreme court, the area around the court this morning has been filled with demonstrators. adjust this is continue their deliberations over the first of two same-sex cases this week. attorneys are arguing proposition 8 dealing with the state's -- dealing with california's same-sex marriage and they will focus on the doma case tomorrow. we are standing by waiting for attorneys who have been arguing the case this morning. we will have them as soon as that becomes available.

[crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] [rally noises]

[crowd noises] [cheering] [crowd noises] [crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[indiscernible] [announcements] [crowd noises] [crowd noises] [cheering] [indiscernible] [announcements]

[chanting] [cheering] [crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[cheering] [crowd noises] [cheering]

[crowd noises] [cheering] [crowd noises] [cheering]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [cheering] [cheering] [cheering] [cheering]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation] [cheering] is this close enough? good, david. >> those of you who were in

court today, so why i like a lot better when this guy is on my side as opposed to against me. we had a very thoughtful hearing. appreciate the court's attention to this issue. we appreciate the preparation of all the justices. there were a number of thoughtful and tough questions to both sides. it is now in the hands of the supreme court. it has been a long journey here for the last 3.5 years. i think we are all greatly encouraged that we are within a few months of a final decision on this terribly important case. i think the most remarkable thing that happened in their was that there was no attempt to gay andhe ban on lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. all that was said in there was

that this important constitutional right to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government. it is a federal constitution that we haven't was the federal constitution guaranteed fundamental rights to every citizen in every state. when we are now down simply to the question of how do you establish marriage equality -- i think you can see how far we have come in the last few years. >> you are going to hear in a moment from crest and a sandy and jeff and paul who have been at the beginning of this case right up until now. they are the people about whom this case -- for whom this case is about. they and others like them in california and throughout the united states -- their rights should be treated with respect and dignity and equality under the law in california and throughout the united states. i think one of the most important things that happened today was the fact that the american people were listening

to the argument. as david was saying, the other side, no one really offered a defense for the awful discrimination that takes place when gay and lesbian citizens are not denied the right given to everyone else to have their family relationship recognized and respected equally. everybody, starting later this afternoon, people will be able to listen to these arguments and decide for themselves. we are confident where the american people are going with this. we're not sure what the united states supreme court will do but we are very gratified that they listened and heard and asks more questions and there is no denying where the right is and we hope the supreme court will come out in that way when they make this decision in june. >> can i ask you -- question, do you feel confident the court is

ready to make a sweeping ruling in this case? questionsupon the that the justices asked, i have no idea. [laughter] the court has several ways to decide this case. from a very broad sweeping conclusion with respect to the rights of our citizens in this country to a narrower ruling that would be limited to california. the court never gives you an idea how they are going to decide. they did not today and i have read the brief and they care about the issues. we will see what the court decides. we will answer some more questions. i want everyone to hear from the individuals about for home this case is about, the real peopleaboutsandy and chris and jeff and paul who have been everyone's here right from the beginning of this case and we are in love with them and we are so humbled by the fact that we get to speak for them in the united states supreme court. do you want to go first? please state your name.

>> i am chris kerri, planted in the case heard and saw the supreme court. in this country, as children, we learn that there is a founding principle that all men and women are created equal. we want to see quality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately, with the passage of proposition 8, we learned there is a group of people in california not being treated equally and that was recognized by a federal court and the ninth circuit court. we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and the quality is restored to the state of california. and i i am sandy spoear lived in inequality. i believe in our judicial system and have great faith that more than anything, i believe in love. proposition 8 is a

discriminatory law that hurts people, the gays, lesbians in california, hurts the children we are raising and does so for no good reason. it is our hope that we can move forward and remove this harm from society so that gays and lesbians in california can go back to their lives, living equally alongside their neighbors, with the same rights and protections as everyone else, thank you all very much. andy name is paul katami for me, this case has been about securing the right to marry the person i love and having the equal access to the most important relationship i know in life and that is marriage. i simply look forward to the day when i can be married to the person i love and start a family like cress and sandy have. it's as simple as that. it is a constitutional right and i cannot wait to start my family with jeff. rullo, we're ce

pleased to have presented their case to the supreme court today. it has been the culmination of a long an amazing journey and we are thankful, so thankful for ted olson and david boyce. we are really looking forward to this court decision, thank you. >> sandy and i would like to introduce you to our -- two of our sons, eliot and perry. >> name is spencer perry and this is my twin brother elliot and we ar two of chris and sandfy's very proud sons. i just want to say how incredibly proud we are of our parents. we love them. we love our family and we look forward to the day when we will be treated equally just like our neighbors families. thank you so much.

[applause] dave and and i will be willing to answer some questions but it is very important to introduce chad griffin of the human rights campaigner who has been with this case right from the beginning, right from the very start a parallel he recruited me and together we recruited david boyce to handle this case. it has been almost four years since a brief filed the case and 4.5 years has since we first met and started talking about what we would do in this case. say agriffin, i cannot number -- and of wonderful things about the things he has done for the rights of gay and lesbian citizens and what the american foundation of the equal rights which has supported this campaign and a human rights campaign have done for equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens. chad? >> thank you so much.

all i can do is to once again thank ted and david to enabled us to lift the partisan veil from which this issue is so often times discussed and, for the first on, shine the spotlight on the human face of suffering. press and sandy and paul and jeff and the boys, to be able to look them in the face and tell them that they and their family deserve anything other than a quality hon. law is something i challenge anyone to do. we are honored that our court system has worked and we have gone from the district court in northern california over these four years all the way here to washington today before the united states supreme court and we are all cautiously optimistic as we wait and see what this court will do. thank you very much. >> if you have any questions other than how the court is

going to decide the case -- [laughter] [indiscernible] there is four ways in which we can succeed in this case. because the state of california decided that proposition 8 was unconstitutional and although they were enforcing it, they quit defending it wants the district judge ruled it was unconstitutional. then you have the argument that no one could have appealed this case and the proponents who were in court today, the were the authors of the measure, did not have the right to carry it forward. if that is the case, the district court's decision, finding proposition 8 unconstitutional, stands and the governor and officials of california would be enjoined from enforcing it and that would be the end of proposition 8. or the ninth circuit could decide that because of the circumstances in california,

proposition 8 was unconstitutional because of those circumstances in california. third way is that there are many states who have acknowledged the rights of gays and lesbians to raise children and live together in households. the court could decide that structure is unconstitutional because california and those states have admitted that gay and lesbian individuals can live together and have families and raise children and they don't have any defense on that. finally, the broadest argument we made is that it is just wrong. it is not consistent with the ideals and laws and the constitution of this country to take our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights we give to everyone else. that is the broadest possible outcome. if any one of those four outcomes will would be a success in overturning proposition 8. >> [indiscernible]

did you get the impression they liked any argument anywhere? >> i don't think you can read that much into question. they were trying to probe both sides in terms of our arguments. that had four alternatives so i think the question has jumped around as they try to evaluate each of those four alternatives and i think trying to read too much into those questions is a risky proposition. >> did you not get the impression that while they may look at the narrow road, they were reluctant to look at the broader issue? >> i think there were a number of questions about the broad issue. a number of the questions went directly to whether there should be a broad 50-state basis of legality.

you cannot read much into those approaches but every one of the four alternatives was considered. incrediblymed energize did not excite about this case. how would you describe this? a the supreme court is marvelous institution. they hear the case is that the people bring to them and their lawyers get to stand in front of the justices -- anybody who was in the courtroom could realize we're standing within 10-12 feet of the justices -- they are dealing with the issues, they are asking hard questions. are listening to the answers and then they will write an opinion that explains their decision. the supreme court is a marvelous institution and they do not miss the opportunity when an argument is presented to them to ask penetrating and hard questions. the questions may not reveal how they are thinking but i want to know the answers to those questions so they put every

advocate to the test, so to speak, and the american people will be able to see how this works. i want to say one thing about david and i coming together for this case. we come from different perspectives on the political spectrum, so to speak, but are coming together is intended to make the point to america that this is not a democratic or republican issue or a conservative or liberal issue. this is an issue of american constitutional rights and everyone in this country should agree on the things we have been talking about. we treat our citizens with equality, with dignity, with fairness. equal protection of law is the protection of equal laws and david and i are trying to make that point, that it is not something that it is partisan. it is about american values. >> thank you. >> can you compare this to a landmark case?

>> in terms of the outcome of this case, -- the question was whether this is a landmark case -- it is so valuable to sell many of our citizens to be treated equally and with dignity and as david said, is one of the major, maybe the major final civil-rights battle we are fighting in this country. it is so important to our values as americans that it be decided in the right way. thank you very much. [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises]

[cheering] >> we have counsel for prop. 8 coming up right now. while you are waiting, i would like to introduce the two original plaintiffs in california on marriage equality. and iyler, duiane olsen am gloria allred. we would challenge the ban on marriage equality and we fought for six years twice in the california supreme court including making the argument against prop. 8 in the california supreme court. we also argued that even though we felt that was unconstitutional, that the 18,000 couples who had married after her first victory in the california supreme court, that those marriages should remain

valid. after a first of factory, robyn and diane were able to marry and the 18,000 couples are permitted to have their marriages remain valid and we are here today because we would like the u.s. supreme court to overturn prop. 8. thank you very much. >> if 36,000 gays and lesbians are meriting california, 18,000 couples, what will it harm it more couples get married? we have been married for five years. california has not dropped into the sea. nothing is -- as happened to california. we were called an experiment and the supreme court. we are not an experiment. we are a civil rights and open and a look -- and as our sole rights and i hope they come down on the right side of history because it is not a matter of if we're going to be married. it is a matter of when this

issue is solved. we will win eventually because the public is on our side. thank you. >> that is robin tyler. spouse also diane olson, who is the granddaughter of a former governor of california, governor olson. also i filed an amicus in brief inan amicus this case. >> please identify your cells. >> my name is charles cooper. i represent the petitioners in this case. the parties and their lawyers have litigated this case for almost four years. finally, at this point, the case, as you have seen, which

presented to the court. the court asked some penetrating, majored questions of both sides, and now it is in the hands of the court. we're looking forward to a prompt response. a difficult,is is controversial issue. thank you. >> [indiscernible] to sum up myo way argument in a couple of sentences. believe proposition 8 is constitutional. we believe the place to make the decision is with the people, not with the courts. >> [indiscernible] thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the general counsel for that protect marriage coalition. today we feel we clearly

presented the winning case for marriage. lead the council did an outstanding job delivering the arguments with great rate. we would like to thank our supporters and the people that proposition 8 and have stuck with us to this long lengthy battle, and we look forward to a positive decision that will uphold the will of the people. ok. can you address some of the early questions -- [indiscernible] >> we are going to stand on the arguments we made in court

today. we're not going to reargued the case on the sidewalk, but we the courtestions from were probing, but very good questions, very thoughtful questions for both sides, and we are going to see a reasoned decision from this court. >> their reaction to the questions inside was that the court was reluctant to issue a sweeping fuling. does that tell you in terms of how it will play out? what do you think will come out of this? >> without predicting a result, ere are multiple options. the different views of the case were presented by the proponents, the challengers of proposition 8, and the solicitor general's of us, and the court

will have to choose between those visions in the outcome of this case. thatll the court decide those marriages should stand? >> that is not an issue in this case because the supreme court has already said that the marriages created for the brief time that it was legal remain recognized. our position has been the political process means that states deciding for themselves, that is the forum where this debate belongs and is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary. us means this for issue returns to the people and -- in their legislatures and their elected representatives where the debate blogs. >> >> [indiscernible] >> one of the big issues of the

case is the integrity, not only thetes' rights, but initiative process, and if it is determined that the initiative voters, that would be a blow to the process. >> do you think we are done? >> [indiscernible] still leaves open the idea that this is a state issue referendedd be again in california? >> i am not going to take a stand on that. >> [indiscernible] about the harm that would be done by allowing same- sex couples to marry --

>> briefly, i will make the small exception talking about the merits. i think both sides have agreed in this case it is impossible to know with any certainty the changes that would be worked on society by redefining a fundamental institutions like marriage, and that is something that both sides agree on. that you very much for your questions. -- thank you very much for your questions. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> remarks from attorneys arguing bedsides of the case

this morning. earlier we heard theodore olson speaking for the plaintiffs, saying he expects the court to release a ruling in a couple of months. we understand that argument lasted one hour and 20 minutes this morning. we will have the audio available. we are told is going to come down at about 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will also take your phone calls and reactions later today. filed this story -- a lawyer seeking an end to the the ban on sinn-sex marriage is comparing it to interracial marriages. with exchanges with justices, lawyer olsen said that the court should deal with the 1967 loving case when the court invalidated interracial marriage. john roberts told olsen it seems supporters of gay marriage are trying to change the meaning of

marriage by including same-sex couples. same-day audioe of the deliberations this morning beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will have it at c-span. it will also be on c-span radio. we are live in front of the supreme court. area has been filled with demonstrated for hours. the justices just wrapped up their deliberations. this morning attorneys argued about california's proposition 8. tomorrow the court will take up the doma case, focusing on marriage only between a man and a woman.

[indiscernible] we have seen in evidence in those countries like spain, that it harms no one by allowing st. essex couples to marry, but it

has great harm on those couples when they are denied that right. it hurts their families. thank you. thank you very much. [indiscernible] hello, how ar eyou? >> and therefore it is enough that we do not know. if you never allow the couples to get married, you will never

know. so far there is no harm of the -- there is no evidence of harm to anyone. >> [indiscernible]

>> krauts remained at the front of the supreme court as the court has heard testimony in the first of the two sing-sex cases this week. onay the proposition 8 ban sync-sex marriage, and tomorrow, the defense of marriage act. and look inside the court this morning, marc sherman of the associated press has filed this

story. he says the supreme court is raising the prospect that it will find a way out of the ban without issuing a ruling about whether gays have a right to marry. liberals raised doubts that the case is properly before then. courty suggested the could could dismiss the case with no ruling at all. the final decision in the case is not expected for a couple of months. probably sometime in june. the oral argument lasted an hour and 20 minutes. we will have the audio as soon as it becomes available. it will also be available on c- span radio. we're told this will happen at about 1:00 p.m. eastern, so in about 45 minutes. we will be open our phone lines and get your calls and reaction to what has happened today. we will leave this area and go to another rally that is taking place, on the national mall this

afternoon. the national organization for marriage is the host, a pro- traditional marriage rally. as has been going on for about an hour now. been going on for about an hour now. ♪

>> anybody got joy today? say --got joy,

lujah. like you love jesus. itre going to declare together. we are going to declare this the, for he has won victory. just could not hold him down. we celebrate our lorton and save your -- halllujah you have won the victory eluah you have won

hold youh could not down kingre the risen hallujah victory won teh hallelujah you have borne it all for me death could not hold you down you are the risen king

hallelujah you are the risen king sing hallelujah hallelujah he victoryon te hallelujah hold you downt kingre the risen o esty you are the risen king you downld not hold

kingre the risen o majesty you are the risen king hallelujah ♪ ♪ toryhave won the vic sing hallelujah me have won it all for lord you, we believe it today you are the risen king

majesty you are the risen king one more time down could not hold you you are the risen king o majesty the risen king one last time death could not hold you down you are the risen king o majestyn you are the risen king

hallelujah hallelujah to the lord our god to the lord our god hallelujah hallelujah ♪ thank you, lord. godre to declare that our can control. hallelujah. we worship your name of god. we celebrate the victory that is in your name. hallelujah, hallelujah.

thank you, lord. we're just going to do one more song with you. this song says i will bless your name, i will bless the lord with all my soul and all that is within me. hallelujah. how libya. thank you, lord. i will bless your name. your namess i will bless your name i will bless your name ♪bill bless your name kelly a. can we bless his name together? hallelujah.

>> getting tired? our next speaker is the director of domestic policy at the heritage foundation. she has been an ally at the fight in washington, d.c., and it is my honor to introduce jennifer marshall. welcome to washingtonm marchers. welcome. it is a joy and a privilege to stand with you here today, to stand for marriage, and we know that we stand for millions of americans who want the freedom to continue telling the truth about marriage. what is that truth? that truth is that marriage

reflects the reality that children should have a chance at a mom and a dad. month, a 11-year- old grace evans went to the minnesota legislature and testified before lawmakers there, who were considering redefining marriage. she credited her mother and her father for the is it contributions that each made to her life. then she asked the question, she said, tell me, which parent don't i need, my mom or my dad? you know what? nobody answered her. the proponents of redefining marriage cannot answer grace's question. but we know the answer to grace's question. we have known it throughout american history. we have known it from the beginning of human history.

the issue before the supreme court this week is whether we will have the freedom to continue answering grace's question. will we have the freedom to make marriage policy that reflects the truth that children need a mother and father? americans need to live and love as we choose, and we have learned to make do, where for one reason or another a mother and father cannot permanently be together with the children they bring into this world. we have continued to give a unique status in law to the union of a man and a woman. the only relationship that produces children, as a permanent, monogamous, an exclusive relationship. ideal in thes interest of children coming in the interest of limited

constitutional government, and in the interest of america's future. so we call on the supreme court to uphold these marriage laww and continue to respect the constitutional authority of the american people to make marriage policy. and we will continue to stand for marriage as the union of a manned and a woman. let the supreme court hear your voice now. thank you. >> jennifer briefly mentioned the 11-year-old who testified before the minnesota legislature and ask a simple question, which one don't i need, my mommy or my daddy? and if we are ready, i would of anto show this example 11-year-old standing up for

marriage. >> please introduce yourself for the record. >> my name is grace abbas, and i want to thank you for letting me speak today. had a momeveryone has and dad. law, it wouldthe take away --[indiscernible] my mother is very important me. she is kind, thoughtful, and gentle. she cares for me and listens - [indiscernible] even though i learned these things for my dad, my mom teaches them and a special way. without her, and would be very hard for me to learn that. she is my role model, and i love her very much. my dad is important to me, because he protect me and helps

me get the confidence to the girl who was growing up to be a woman. he takes care of problems in a way that my mom cannot. i would not be able to be the woman i want to be without my dad, because he is strong, wise, and different from my mom. i learned things from him that i would not be able to learn from my mom. since any person needs a mom and a dad to be born, i do not think we need to change that. i know some disagree. which parent do i not need, my mom or my dad? i asked again, which parent do not need, my mom or my dad for? dad? i hope you can see that every child needs a mom and a dad.

thank you for letting me speak today. >> thank you. the next time someone tries to intimidate you or someone may call you a name because you are standing up for marriage, think about that 11-year-old girl, think about that girl standing up for marriage before a legislature and no one being able to answer that basic question. as the fight has progressed, we have more friends around the world predestinate our friends -- with more than 1.5 million people. i see the french flag over here. let's hear it for france. we're supposed to be the last

place where you would see a strong opposition to redefining marriage, and yet in france, i was there on march 24, i was there -- the manifestation before on the eiffel tower, looking at a sea of people. standing together proclaiming the truth about marriage. also, and other places around the world, just a few weeks ago, on very short notice, over 200,000 people rallied in puerto rico to support traditional marriage. can we hear it for puerto rico? and we are blessed to have one of the leaders in that fight to help assemble those 200,000

folks in puerto rico. t is an honor to introduce wanda rolan. >> good morning. god bless every one of you. the lord has given us. said, my name is one rolon, and i am so happy to be here with my brothers. it is a great delegation from puerto rico today. given the lord a round of applause today. we are united today. cause, marriage between a man and woman. day.y marks an important an

in this nation's history. will of iand a woman on whether arguments marriage could be defined as a legal union of only one man and one woman. spanish] we have gathered here to let them know without a shadow of a as a church and the citizens of this great .ation we are not afraid, and we are

not ashamed. openly express that marriage was and shall be ever to be a between one man and one woman. praise his name. 19, verse 5, god says, for this reason a man will ande his father and mother unite with his wife, and the two .ill become one

will haveng fathers never imagined the threat for the sameacing we are called to protect. they may not be here today. -- i saidus a legacy they left us a legacy that we must be -- that we must defend, a pillar ofiage is humanity.

here defending the ttles thatthe libe got asked us to do, the children that be brought up in a family composed of a family and andther -- of a father mother. no society, no society can ever reach their full potential without protecting and encouraging traditional family values. marriage is not a civil right. that an institution

possesses cultural and legal recognition. hasto the unique benefits, to children, adults, and and also our society. as brother brian said, a few february 18, over 200,000 people gathered in front of the capital of san juan of defending our traditional values.

protestants, the jewish, moslems, and even those who have no religious belief, they participated in the biggest event that has ever taken place in puerto rico. they were defending our defense of -- and they were offering our defense of traditional marriage and defending the right of children. we are here defending the right of children. repeat and say we are here defending the rights of the children. have the right to have a mother and a father. -- i repeat, this

ation has a strong latino hispanic heritage. where traditional families are great, significant. whatever the outcome of the supreme court, states and ,erritories of this nation including puerto rico, will suffer the consequences whether they will be positive or negative. .hat is why we are here today

today, this massive movement has to letd washington, d.c., the president of obama quest to let president obama, the congress, and the supreme court, marriage is know, between a man and woman. between a man and a woman. hildren cannot be brought up without a father and a mother. ist we have to do today bring forth education about

families. we got to look back and we got [indiscernible] [indiscernible] between a man and a woman. our children have the right of a father and mother. tot is why we parade today our god almighty [indiscernible] , and god bless puerto rico. and god bless america. thank you. god bless you all.

>> one of the sponsors of the event and one of the advocacy groups and washington who does so much good for protecting marriage is concerned women for america. have allisond to howard to speak with us today. >> thank you for coming out on the side of truth today.

thank you. i stand here on behalf of more than 500,000 members of concerned women for america. and i want to take a minute and talk to the grown-ups and the room for a second. do not give up on us young people. on us onve up people. the media will tell you that i do not exist. i do exist, and i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. my culture, my generation grew up in this culture that does nothing to support or protect marriage. we bear those scars. every young person bears those scars of a culture that sought to force to tear apart our country. ask any little girl who never loveo have the embrace and

of her father if it matter to her. ask any little boy who never got to hear the tone of his mother's loving voice, if it mattered to him. none people know that a mom and a dad is the best model for marriage. say yet, theg to media will tell you that my whole generation is a aboard this same-sex marriage bandwagon. guess what -- every young person here -- i want to hear you -- we are here. here, and we do exist. do not give up on us young people. and when it, we as women, where are my lady's out today? i know you're cold. we as women know what happens at the supreme court has a very

serious consequences for us. 40 years ago the nation was having a healthy, robust debate about the beginning of life and abortion. when the supreme court decided to play judicial despots and sweep in and and the process, cutting short for a new constitutional right to abortion. that stark day, nine men in black robes decided for the entire nation the fate of more than 50 million unborn babies lost to abortion today. women hurtingess physically, spiritually, and emotionally by their so-called choice. that day the supreme court robbed us of the chance to debate a life issues and decide for ourselves the best public policy that would take into concern all of its citizens born

and unborn. so today, the supreme court faces a very similar matter, don't they? they have a chance to up cold marriage laws and return marriage back to the people, the constitutional authority they have to decide marriage law and marriage policy for themselves. i think we are smart enough to figure that out. roe vnot need another wade, tell them today, let them hear you, we do not need another roe. we don't need another roe. we don't need another roe. keep marching. thank you for coming. keep marching in support of marriage.

>> the next speaker is the director of the latinos partnership for conservative principles. >> good afternoon. [speaking in spanish] my fellow citizens, today we stand together to proclaim our great republic shall endure and continue to prosper to uphold the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. marriage is something not imposed on society centuries ago. it is a basic institution of society, ordained and defined by

nature, to ensure the continuity of the humankind and which provides the ideal setting for the upbringing of our children. only a manus that and a woman can have children and that children need a mother and father as they grow up. each one of us from our own experience knows that a mother cannot place of a father and a father cannot take the place of a mother. each plays a unique and distinctive biological role in the lives of their children. these are essentials, self- evident truths that no one can redefine. there is no question that the fundamental principle of equality, which is also defined and ordained by nature and is proclaimed by our constitution, must be guaranteed by our

government and defended by our courts, but the quality -- but a quality to have any meal -- any real meaning must be rooted in truth. and so today, for the future and welfare of our country and our children, we call on the supreme court to defend natural law marriage. spanish] in

my fellow americans, let's defend marriage.

spanish] in >> i want to remind everyone you can sign up to the opposite -- petition to the supreme court at the tables. you can make a donation to support traditional marriage. the next speaker you have seen on television, defending the truth about marriage. he is a former republican presidential candidate and the head of american values, gary bauer. good afternoon, per-family of america. d.c., and washington, thank you for defending the fundamental institution of our

nation, the normal family, the normal marriage between a man and a woman. my friends, you are all standing up against a powerful movement. you know that. it has got hollywood on its side pick it has got the culture on its side. it has got that corporate elites and the weak-kneed the politicians get all squishy when they see these folks. what do we have to stand up against that? all we have got is a couple thousand years of western civilization, teachings of every major faith, common-sense, and the god of abraham, that is who we have got to. my friends, when you are standing up for marriage, you are also standing up for freedom

for the american people. 34 states have voted on this issue. they listened to all the arguments, and those states voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. tens of millions of the american people have voted this way. when freedomtime is back in vogue. well, what about the freedom of millions of americans of all races to decide what they want marriage to be? they have decided it. they want it to be between a man and a woman. children need mothers and fathers. and so i say shame on the politicians and the judges that are trying to undermine the

institution of marriage. i am a republican. many of you i am sure are democrats. i am a republican. youme say to my party, if bail out on this issue, i will leave the party and i will take as many people with me as i possibly can. my friends, all honor to you, all praise to you for standing up for family, faith, and freedom. i am with you, and we are one to win. god bless you.

>> the next speaker is from another coat-sponsor for the event, and a leader of the family research council. you brave people for staying through the cold. taking for staying. i am a lawyer. also a member of the supreme court bar, but i decided not to try to go there, but instead stay here with you and march with this historic march. i have some good news potentially from people inside the court who were blogging. it appears that justice kennedy is potentially the swing vote on this. mell,