>> the way i look at it is, i think if you want to have a same-sex thrape is fantastic. -- relationship that is fantastic. but marriage is pretty much defined as a man and a woman for, like, having children and so forth. the gay couples don't have couples -- i mean they do have children but it is not -- you know what i mean it is not their children. and therefore, they should get all the benefits, have some . her category put to them then there would bvent a problem. i'm not opposed to people being gay. i have great gay friends. it is fine. i have no problem with that. to be married, you have to have one category to be like gay couple. it seems simple to me. >> more calls in just a moment. e congress is out related to

same-sex marriage. they write that montana senator said today he is endorsing same-sex marriage joining the party's new consensus on the issue. he joins senator from missouri and mike warner of virginia as .ndorsing same-sex nuptials again, that case is coming up tomorrow. let's go to paul in north carolina supporting same-sex marriage. hi, paul. >> thanks so much for letting me comment. i've enjoyed your show for years. as a human being here on planet earth, we're reminded that god made some women that can't have baby, some men that can't fall in love. god has also made human beings that are male and female. the doctors can't decide what

they are. i think it is most enlightening that we address this issue of love. thank you very much. let's remind ourselves that if you want to involve religion, god made us all different. >> one more view from new york city. he owe poses same-sex marriage. mr. olson did not [unintelligible] on the constitution or the state nstitution, mr. cooper was more on the point. i got tim presentation from the justices questions and comments that it is this is an experiment at its early stages and perhaps

it should be given time. >> thank you. you set up our next part of the program. we're going to take more calls in just a bit. we're going to hear from the attorneys they came out to speak to reporters this morning in front of the u.s. supreme court. [applause]

>> go ahead. david. >> those of you who were in court today, saw why i like it better when this guy is on my side as opposed to against me. we had a thoughtful hearing.

we appreciate the attention to this issue. we appreciate the preparation of all the justices. there was 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 three and half years. i think we're all greatly encouraged that we're within a few months of a final decision on this terrible important case. i think the most remarkable thing that happened in there, was there was no attempt to defend the demands on gay and lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. all that was said is this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government. but because of the federal constitution we have and it is the federal government constitution that defends

everyone's rights. now we're down to the question, how do you establish marriage equality you can see what we've dealted for the last couple of years. >> you're going to hear from two people who have been, at the beginning of this case up until now, they are the people who about whom -- for whom this case is about. those and others like them in california and in the united states, their right to be treated with respect, dignity, and equality under the law throughout california and in the united states. ic one of the most important things that happened today is that the american people were listening to the argument. as david was saying, no one offered a defense for the awful discrimination that takes place when gay and lesbian citizens are not denied the right given to everyone else right to have the family relationship

recognized and respecteded equlely. ow, everybody -- respected equally. later this rch, people can listen to these arguments and decide for themselves. we're confident where the american people are going with this. we're not sure what the united states supreme court is going to do but we're gratified they listened, they heard, they asked hard questions and there is no denying where the right is and we hope the supreme court will come out that way when they make this decision in june. i want you to -- >> can i ask you, bationed on the questions -- based on the questions, do you feel confident that if supreme court is ready to make a sweeping ruling in this case? >> based on the questions that the justices asked, i have no idea. [laughter] the court has several ways to ecide this case from a broad

sweeping conclusion with respect to our citizens in this country, to a narrower ruling that would be limited on california. the court never gives you an idea on how they are going to decide. they care about the issues and they read the briefings, then we'll see how the court decides. i want everyone to hear from the individuals about for whom this case is about, the real people sandy and chris, and jeff and paul who have been just everyone's hero from the beginning of this case. we're in love with them and we're so humbled by the fact we get to speak for them in the united states supreme court. do you want to go first? >> i'm chris, the plaintiff in this case as you just heard in 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 this equality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately, with the passage of proposition 8, we learned a group of people in california who are not being treated equally and that was recognized by the circuit court and a federal court. we look forward to the day when proposition 8 is eliminated and equality is restored in the state of california. >> i'm sandy and i like all americans i believe in equality. i also believe in our judicial system. more than anything i believe in love. proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people, it hurts gays and it hurts the children that we're raising and it does so for no good reason. it is our hope that we can move forward and remove this from our society so that gays and

lesbians in california can go back to our lives living equally with all the same rights and protections as everyone else. thank you so much. >> my name is paul. from the beginning of this case is about securing the right to marry the person i love. also i want the equal access to the most important relationship i know in life and that is marriage. i look forward to the day where i can be married to the person i kris nd start a farm like and sandy have. it is a constitutional right and . can't wait to start my family >> i'm jeff. we're so pleased that we were able to have our case before the court today. we're so thankful. it has been a long journey.

we're so thankful for our attorneys and we're looking forward to the court's decision. thank you. >> now sandy and i would like to introduce you to two of our sons, spencer and elliott. >> hello. my name is spencer perry and this is my twin brother. we're two of kris an sandy's proud sons. on behalf of myself and my twin brother, 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'll be treated equally just like our neighbor's families. thank you so much. [applause] >> david and i will be willing to answer questions but it is very important to introduce chad

griffin who has been with this case from the beginning, right from the very, very start. e recruited me and together we recruited david to handle this case. it has been almost four years since we filed the case. it has been four and half years since we first met and started talking about what we would do in this case. chad griffin, i can't say enough wonderful thing about him and what he has done for the gay and lesbian citizens in this country. and what the human rights campaign has done for equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens. >> thank you so much. i want to thank ted and david o enabled us to lift the partisan vail and for the first time shine the spotlight on the

human faces. the human face of suffering and kris and sandy, and paul and jeff, and to be able to look them in the face. we can tell them that they and their family deserve anything other than equality under the law is something i challenge anyone to do. we're honored that our court system has worked. we've gone from the district court in northern california over these four years, all the way here to washington before the united states supreme court. we are all cautiously optimistic as we wait to see what that this court will do. thank you very much. >> if you have questions other than how the court is going to decide the case. [laughter] >> the rule that petitioners have [unintelligible] that would be a win for you, will it not? >> yes. i will mention it briefly then

david can. there's four way we can succeed in this case. because california decided that proposition 8 was unconstitutional and they were enforcing it but they quit defending it once it was ruled that it was unconstitutional. then you had the argument that no one can appeal this case. the opponents that were in court today did not have the right to move it forward. in that is the case, finding proposition 8 unconstitutional stands and the officials of california are -- that would be the end of proposition 8. or the ninth circuit decided that because of the circumstances in california, proposition 8 was unconstitutional because of those circumstances in california. the third way, there is many states who have acknowledged the rights of gays and lesbians to raise children and live together

in households, the court can decide that structure is unconstitution pam because california has admitted that individuals can live together and have familyings and raise children they are going don't have a defense on that. the broadest argument we made, it is just brong, it is not consistent with the laws of this country to take our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights that we give to everyone else. that is the broadest possible outcomes and any one of those four outcomes would be a success n overturning proposition 8. >> did you get an impression that they did not find an argument that they really love. >> i don't think you can read that much into the questions. i think what they were doing was trying to pull both sides in

terms of the argument. they did have four alternatives. i think the questions jumped around some these tried to evaluate each of those four alternatives. i think trying to read too much into those questions is risky proposition. >> while they may look at the narrow road in front of them, they were very, very reluctant to look at a broader issue? >> no, i think there are a number of questions about the broad issues. i think a number of the questions went directly to whether there ought to be a broad right. as i said, i don't think you can read much into either of those approaches. ut i think they will look at all of the different alternatives. >> they seemed incredibly energized if not excited about this case. how would you describe it?

>> the supreme court is an institution. ey hear the cases that the people bring to them and their lawyers stand in front of the justices -- anybody who is in that courtroom can realize that we're standing within 10-12 feet of the justices. they are dealing with the issues, they are asking hard questions, they are listening to the answer, then they will write a decision. the supreme court is a marvelous institution and they don't miss an opportunity to asks hard questions. the questions may not reveal how they are thinking but they want to know the answers to those questions. so they put every advocate to the test, so to speak. the american people will see how this works. i want to say one thing about -- david and i are coming together for this case. we come from different perspectives on the political spectrum, so to speak.

but coming together is intended to make the point to america that this is not a democratic issue, or a republican issue, or conservative or liberal, this is an issue on american rights and everyone should agree about what we're talking about. we treat our citizens with equality, dignity, fairness. the equal protection of the laws is the protection of equal laws. david and i are trying to make that point, it is not something that is partisan or anything like, that it is about american values. >> thank you. >> this is -- in terms of the outcome of this case, the question is if this is a landmark case or if it will be a landmark case? it is so valuable to so many citizens to be treated equally and with dignity.

as what david said, this is maybe the final civil rights battle that we're 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. were on on and david the opposite side of the case. here they are together and representing the opponents of california proposition 8 in the case before the supreme court today. the first of two cases on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. a live look at the u.s. supreme court. we're going to get back to your phone call reaction in just over five minutes or so. we want to bring you mr. cooper who is who is a backer of proposition 8 and he spoke to reporters after the oral

rgument today. >> please identify yourself. >> my name is charles cooper and i represent the petitioner ins in this case. the parties and their lawyers have litigated this case for almost four years. finally, to this point, the case was presented to court as you have seen. the court asked some penetrating, measured questions of both sides and now it is in the hands of the court. 're looking forward to a hopefully prompte response on this difficult, controversial issue. there is no way to sum up my

argument in a couple of sentences. we believe that proposition 8 is constitutional and the decision to be made in redefining mirgee is with the people no with the the courts. >> what do you think of their questioning? >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. new pugno. today we feel we presented the winning case for marriage. we think our lead counsel charles cooper did an outstanding job and we think the hearing went very well. we want to thank all the supporters and the people who helped pass proposition 8 and have stuck with us through this long, lengthy legal battle of nearly four years.

we look forward to a positive decision from the court that will uphold the will of the eople. ok. >> can you address some of the earlier questions and the questions about -- nintelligible] >> we're going to stand on all the arguments that we made in court today. we're not going to reargue the case here on the sidewalk. we think we were able to say everything we wanted to say in this hearing. we thought the questions from the court were probing but very good questions, very thoughtful questions for both sides. i think we'll see a very reasonabled decision come out of this court. >> by and large, the reaction to the questions inside is that it

seems that the court is reluctant to deliver a sweeping ruling. what do you think might come out of this? > without predicting a result, i think there are multiple options. the court is exploring. we have to see which direction the court goes. i think different views were presented by the opponents of proposition 8, and the supporters of prop 8 and the general solicitors office. >> if the court decides those marriages should stand are you prepared to accept that? >> that is not an issue in this case. california supreme court has said that marriages created for the brief time it was legal in california remain recognized. >> but this whole battle starts over again, does percentn't its?

> our position is that the political process for states to decide for themselves is where this debate belongs. this should not be imposed by the judiciary, the courts. this means that the issue returns to the people, the legislatures and where the debate belongs. >> do you think laws can be left undefended? >> one of the big issues of this case is not only state's rights but in california the integrity of the process. if it is determined that a bill passed by voters, then that would be perhaps, a fatal blow to the process. think we're done.

>> does that leave open the idea that this is a state issue and it could be referendummed again in california and other states? >> i'm sorry. i can't make a prediction on that so thank you for your questions. hello, nice to see you. -- they u talk about were asking about the harm that would be done by allowing same-sex couples to marry. what is your answer to that? >> briefly, i'm going to make a small exception to talk about the merits. i think both sides have agreed that it is impossible to know the changes that would be put on society by redefining a fundamental institution like marriage. think is something that both sides agree on. so thank you very much for you questions.

>> from this morning at the supreme court supreme courters -- supreme court spurters, which amended the state's constitution to recognize marriage between a man and woman. today, before the supreme court the justices heard an hour and 20 minutes of debate on that case. the first of two cases dealing with same-sex marriage. here on c-span we're going to open up our phone lines to find out your thoughts on this case and more broadly on thish yufe same-sex marriage. if you support same-sex marriage or if you oppose it, the numbers are on your screen.

make sure you mute your television when you call in. you can also get us on twitter. we'll check with the tweets this evening as well. the second case is coming up tomorrow around 10:00 a.m. before the supreme court but we'll get the oral argument to u and on the air here at c-span about 2:00 p.m. eastern. it will be longer than today's case. the case tomorrow is the second of the two cases on same-sex marriage on the defense of marriage act. the act defines marriage between a man and a woman and it defines benefits. it was signed by president clinton. tomorrow at 2:00 eastern here on c-span. let's go to the phones. he is in illinois. >> thank you very much. i want to say i'm glad that this case -- these cases are finally

getting the justice, you know that they deserve so it can be viewed and be brought before the supreme court and it can be jude kated. i think it is truly a civil right. it is something -- we have to move forward. the people want this and i think the laws should be supportive of that. >> nashville is next. nashville, tennessee, hello. >> hi. thank you for taking my call. >> absolutely. >> i just wanted to say i've heard a lot of opposition on this and on the religious end. that other thing -- regardless of your religion or lack of allowed in america -- you are allowed to be married. my sband passed away when

months old. 9 his brother and his partner have been together for a long time. i can't think of a better couple to have them raise my child if i was not able to. thankfully, she is going to grad school. she is probably there at the supreme court right now. really just -- i just support the equality and i don't understand a lot of the religious issues. just because it -- you know, love is love as my daughter puts it.

>> thanks for you call this evening. wanted to let you know that tomorrow we're covering a news conference with the democratic leader nancy pelosi. the house and senate are out for the passover recess but she will be speaking about the same-sex marriage. law is the case the federal passed in 1996. the case the obama administration decided not to defend in court. the act is actually being defended by attorneys paid for by the republican leadership in congress. we will have that for you tomorrow. also, a reminder, at 2:00 tomorrow, you will see the oral argument. hear it here on c-span and c- span radio. back to calls in florida. supporting same-sex marriage.

>> thank you for taking my call. i think the real issue is you have to tie it into a human rights issue. a lot of the opponents of same- see gay people not even as human beings. really going to see gay people not having any rights, whether it be marriage rights, or the rights to work, or serve in america but -- or serve in the military. i am not talking about all religious people. the right-wing religious people. gaythey would either put people in sale or in prison or have us put to death because they do not see gay people as human beings. >> tell us what the law is in florida. there are basically no rights or protection at all for gay

people. areasare gay-friendly but the state as a whole, no protections at all. i have theitizen, right to not believe in a god, not believe in a religion, and that is my right as a u.s. citizen. >> thank you for your comments on the issue of rights. a couple of tweets we want to ook at using the hashtag #samesexmarriage.

next up is in arkansas. opposed to the issue. hello. >> yes, sir. i want to touch on a couple scriptures. genesis 2:14. leave your mother and father and be united to his life. they will become one flesh. it does not say to another man. 7:2, andinthians should sell his marital della's wife.- duty to his that sums up my opposition to same-sex marriage. thank you and have a good

evening. >> thank you. next supporting same-sex marriage. >> good evening. i call in support of gay marriage. this is because of two legal logistics. when we consider the institution of marriage throughout history, it has primarily been a religious or spiritual institution. these to haved roots in the civil-rights of the government. to give those rights of individuals making choices of each other in issues of disability or life problems, it takes a secondary legal logistic of the american

disabilities act, which takes upon the fact that individuals can not be discriminated against because -- because of the physical attributes they may be born with. and therefore could subject them to disability discrimination. not to say any heterosexual, homosexual entity would be considered an anomaly of disability, but it would more be an issue that most people are not respecting the united states government stands as an institution of rights roll-call under equal respect. when we take separation such as the institution of marriage and place it on the concept of procreation, and then take the issue of age and inability to procreate, the idea of opposite sex marriages compared to same- sex marriages, changes the dynamic and whether or not

those individuals would also have rights. toriage in itself, there has be two individuals, based on commitment, love, fidelity, and faithfulness, and that they choose with in that commitment, not necessarily to commit to the opposite individual, but to commit to the rules that go to the respect of morality and discipline of the commitment. it should not be based on issues of the biological attributes a person is born with. >> did you get a chance to hear much of the oral argument today? >> yes, i did. >> what did you make of the efforts to discuss the issue of procreation in terms of marriage? how far do you think either side got on that? >> i have been in support of same-sex marriage and have had the issue of when two individuals of the same sex cannot procreate, when women change into the inability of not

being able to produce children, and their elderly husbands still can, does that mean there is a dynamic of lessening of the importance of the commitment of marriage and their rights to be married should be lost? it should not. the inability of procreation to individuals who cannot procreate. the same as that of institutional commitment yet -- of love and faith on this has to be respected. you look at an inability to act in a manner of others that could procreate, and you look at the institution of the american disabilities act of those who can do and those who cannot do, and make a lot -- law. >> thank you for weighing in. a couple of early headlines you may see in the morning news tomorrow morning. this is the new york times -- the new york times -- the new

york times -- "the new york times." the article this evening in the new york talk -- "the new york online -- it suggested it would not issue a decision -- >> a couple more calls. we -- you saw the videos we were showing you during the calls. john is in indiana and he opposes same-sex marriage. hello. >> our you doing? thank you.

i will be brief. rights andout civil- allowing people to express themselves. support ornt to say oppose. we look back to simulations -- civilizations, the romans, the greeks, and what we have at ifst -- have to look we want discontinue, what about a man who wants to marry two or three women. that is illegal now. there are people in prison for polygamy. how will you deny them their civil rights? or threen to marry two men if she wants to. you cannot deny them that? what about the person who wants to marry their sister?

30 years ago, same-sex marriage shocked the conscience of the united states. you get deeper if you allow this and you have to merit -- allow that. you examine all rights and privileges to their other spouses. you have a man married to three women. they want insurance for all three of them. and think of everything that comes into play when you start allowing people their civil rights to do what they want to do. >> thank you for your comments -- a couple more here. >> thank you for having me on. to me the semantics of same-sex marriage, it does not make sense.

this is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. this is about our constitution and the bill of rights. i can get married and have children. and my lesbian brothers and sisters are beside me and they are denied the same rights. it does not seem fair or equal. we standited states, for freedom, justice, and the quality. it does not make sense to me. the whole argument seems really silly. it is simple. if a person is gay or lesbian, whoever they are, if they want to get together and get married, they shouldn't be able to express their love with no issue at all.

>> we did not have a middle line for people. -- question i ask >> that seems interesting. seems very much support or oppose it, but i hear your point. >> the question i want to ask you is, the debate on the merits defense act, president bill clinton, just recently, in the last week and a half, also admits he has written law into constitution that directly violated our constitution. >> he signed that bill into law, yes. >> he has just recently admitted. we have had a lot of admissions, from the pope, to queen elizabeth, on some practices in

the law that have not been kosher, and under this doma act, admittedtute, that he he wrote under doma and it directly violated the united states constitution. [indiscernible] rhetoricald a good question. we will let your statements stand. we appreciate you calling in. seeill give you a chance to that argument tomorrow before the supreme court. that is the second of the two cases before the supreme court. have it fore will you at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c- span radio. we will show you a good portion of both rallies, starting with a rally supporting same-sex marriage, supporters of proposition 8 and the issue in general at the steps of the supreme court before, during, and after today's argument before the supreme court. here is a look.

>> thank you. very loud. my beautiful wife is here. i think she deserves a special recognition. the extraordinary, loving, and .oving ceremony she gave it was danielle and made that beautiful event for 100 people. i am delighted to be here also, my friend, margaret. if you had been so minded, you could have had the entirely made up eisenhower, bush, and cheney.

it would not be quite the republican convention, but pre close. i speak here today as one of the more than 130 republicans and services -- and conservatives who signed in favor of marriage rights. [cheers and applause] you know, republicans and democrats in this country have enough to disagree about. no shortage. there are many issues that are the property of no one party. the freedom of every american to pursue happiness as an american sees it on the block. -- under the law.

that promise signed into the declaration of independence so many years ago is the promise that is coming true in our times. [applause] for a conservative, the remarkable thing about the movement for same sex marriage is that it is a civil rights movement that is less about claiming rights than it is about accepting responsibility. marriage is a source of great joy. but, as i speak here as someone who has been married for 25 years, we are celebrating our anniversary this summer, marriage is also the most solemn of human undertakings. it is an undertaking to care for another person. two nurse that person when ill. to sustain her or him in times of struggle. to raise children together. to provide for those children. to mourn when it becomes time to mourn. no agency of government can ever begin to do for anyone what loving spouses do for each other. [applause] the stronger our families are, every kind of family, the less government we will need. today, your families gather before this house of law to claim the right to live as others to without shame and

without fear. the mind of a nation is changing. it is an awesome thing to see. it is a loud thing to hear. [laughter] it is an awesome thing to be a part of. your words, your actions, and your example has power. it will overcome. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. this is quite a moment. david, you remind us with your words something that we know here in washington. we need bipartisanship to carry our movement through. we thank you for all that you do toward that and. david, thank you so much. our next speaker, many of you have seen on tv, cnn, and espn, commentator, no stranger to our

movement, mr. lz granderson. let's give it up. [applause] >> hey, there, ms. margaret. what is up, d.c.? what a beautiful day this is. this is awesome. this is absolutely amazing. i am so stoked to be here. my son would be here, but i made his butt go to school. i still believe in education first. i pour my heart and soul out in all that i do. one thing i have not shared with many of you is a couple of years ago i said i was going to die. i was hanging out with a friend of mine and suddenly without warning, my chest started to hurt.

the room started to spin. i was drenched in a cold sweat. i was having a hard time staying conscious. my friend called 911. and the paramedics came, they were afraid i was having a heart attack. that is when an erratic ekg warning, they thought i was having a heart attack. they called for surgery right away. as the gas was beginning to take affect and my eyelids got heavy, i remember looking up to god and i had one prayer. please, take care of my family. and when i opened my eyes, there they were. my son, isaiah, my partner, steve, huddled up, cramps, a sleep on the tiny furniture in my hospital room. i am grateful that i did not die that night. i am even more grateful for the two people who make my life work -- worth living every single day. that is my family. [applause] i did not come here to ask anybody permission to love.

i did not come here to seek approval. i am not here looking for special rights. i am here because 14 times the supreme court has described marriage as a fundamental right and gay and lesbian couples deserve our fundamental rights. [applause] theseere because we hold truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal. theirhey are endowed by creator with certain unalienable rights and those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i am blessed to be born in this great country. i am blessed to be able to have my health care be behind me. i am blessed to have fought and

love with someone who has proven to me time and time again that he is committed to me in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. [applause] he is my world. i am his. and our son is ours. same-sex couples are not here asking for a seat at the table because we have always been here. we are not here at the steps of supreme court to bake. i am here as a proud, black gay man from the east side of detroit. i am here to remind everyone that my family, like everyone else's, demand our full, fundamental rights. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you so much. it they do so much. -- thank u so much. our next speaker, i am proud to bring another person representing one of our incredible families. casey mclachlan -- certain that national guard. she is here today from the great state of massachusetts. [applause] >> my name is casey mclachlan. i come to you today as a military wife. my spouse shannon is a major in the massachusetts national guard. directly after 9/11, she deployed and has served his country for nearly 15 years. even though don't ask don't tell has been repealed, we are still

not equal. i am now a stay at home mom raising our two-year-old twins. this would not be unusual if we were straight. many couples operate on one income and have a family plan for health insurance. but despite being legally married in the state of massachusetts, i am excluded from the family healthcare plan. in fact, despite being a mother, i am technically a legal stranger to my spouse because of the so-called defense of marriage act. like any other soldier, if she is called to a war zone, she has to go. often without little notice.

like any other military family, the kids and i get left to manage without her. yet, unlike any other soldier, shannon does not get the comfort of knowing that if something happens to her, we will be taken care of. that's the benefits that she has earned for nearly 15 years in service to this country would go to her family. unlike any other soldier, we would not get to go overseas with her because we are ineligible for base housing. and unlike any other military wife, i could not even bring the kids to their medical and dental appointments without her because as a legal stranger, i cannot get on the bank. a we seriously live in country in which shannon is putting her life on the line every day, get is not afforded the peace of mind to know that

her family will be taken care of? tell any other soldier that when they go into harms way that their family will be left to fend for themselves, and see how they react. it would never be tolerated. so why is it ok for gay soldiers who have the same families and make the same sacrifices? [applause] because of doma we are separate, forced into two tears in recognition of support. hands of the military art tied by the federal government and is now in the hands of the supreme court. i know these justices and you know these justices will do the right thing because they have done it before. it was this court that

desegregated public schools. [applause] it was this court that struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriages. [applause] let the same be true in the two cases before the court right now. we are equal. [applause] my marriage is equal to any other marriage. [applause] andhildren's happiness their future are as precious to me as any other mother's. [applause] if i lost my spouse in combat, i would suffer as painfully as any other military wife would suffer. [applause] because, because we are equal. [applause] >> wow. let's take a moment to thank the families. we are equal. our families are equal. our families are equal.

our families are equal. our families are equal. all right. thank you, thank you. it brings me great pleasure to bring up gets another family. kathy thomas and her family from marriage equality usa, the members in new york thank you. >> can you hear me? my name is cathy marino thomas. i am the co-board president of -- my family and i worked on the issue of marriage equality for 16 years. i am a proud american. activistoud lesbian woman. but most importantly, i am the

proud wife of sheila marino thomas. igether, there, sheila and are the proud parents of jackie. the three of us are a family. as jackie's parents, it is important to us to stand here today and teach our daughter that our country believes in freedom and fairness for all families. that's our family father -- that our founding fathers made room for us. there are privileges that we want the right to share as a family. that when one of us dies, the other does not lose anything so that a family can live with dignity and love and even acceptance. the right to marry, our family would be protected under the law in a way that it would not be without that right. sheila and i have been together for 18 years. [applause] we married in 1995 without legal support and we have created a life. we ask our government to help us protect that right. jackie is now 13 years old. we raise our daughter like any

other family, going to school recitals, dance performances, doing homework. we are saving for her college education. more than anything, sheila and i want to be able to offer our daughter the life that all parents dream of. a life full of achievement and respect. however, when we suffer the unfair treatment of equity under the law, we cannot do that for her. currently, we pay tax on medical insurance. it is considered income for us, but not by couples who have full marriage equality. under the current law, our state is taxed as if we are giving a gift to a friend when in fact we work together to gain everything we have. our family exists and needs the rights and benefits that civil marriage provides. without these rights, my wife would have to pay inheritance tax on the life we built together should she outlive me. we would not be eligible to receive social security benefits when one of us passes away. we would cut the amount of monthly income in half. you know and i know that the

bills do not get cut in half. this would come at a time in life when we should feel secure and proud of a life lived. the love is already there. the commitment, as well, already there. what is required is marriage equality. [applause] the margin between justice and injustice is growing. -- it is narrowing, sorry. nobel prize winning journalist said it best when he said democracy not the law of the majority. it is the protection of the minority. we stand here today with our doctor, in front of the supreme court of the united states in light of history in the making. we believe in the principles of our founding fathers. we believe in a nation whose fundamental concepts are liberty and justice under the law. thank you so much.

>> thank you. what a beautiful family. thank you so much. thank you so much. it gives me great pleasure now to bring up a true friend of our movement as we all are. bishop and his daughter. the first openly gay bishop. >> good morning. join me in being -- and not being distracted by all of that noise. our focus is right there today. i am here as an out gay man. as a proud gay dad and a bishop of the episcopal church. i am here because what happens in the supreme court in these next two days matter to me, to you, and to all of our families. or too long we have let the religious right hold the bible hostage. you know, the bible they used as a weapon against us but which actually proclaims god's love for all of god's children. [applause]

righto long the religious has acted as if a family values was its own possession. but i am here with my doctor today to say that our families value love and commitment, too. we deserve the support that marriage equality will bring. thoughtful, progressive religious people of all faiths have come to understand that the synagogues, mosques, and to the church have gotten it wrong and our relationships and that now our families deserve equal protection under the law. our families have changed this debate and changed people's hearts. president obama mama when standing up for marriage equality, said that one of the things that help changed his mind was his own two doctors talking about their classmates who have two moms or two dads.

no big deal, right? except that it is a huge deal. the right to marry the one we love matters more than those nine justices would ever understand. so, let's be strong and keep our eye on the prize. we can persevere in this struggle no matter what the supreme court decides in a couple of months because we know how this is going to end, don't we? it'll end with our full acceptance and inclusion into the life and citizenship of this nation. and even the conservatives,

those out there making all that noise, even they know it. and all were arguing about now is timing. but time, time is important because we still have lgbt kids hanging themselves and jumping off of bridges. so, tonight, tell your friends and families where you were today and why.

tonight, tell your friends and families where you were today, and why. if you have a partner, snuggle especially close tonight. if you have kids, tell them you were here for them today. get up tomorrow thankful for the opportunity to have been of part of history. however long it takes and wherever it may lead. god bless you all. and now one of the great honors of my life, to present to you my daughter. >> i am very proud daughter of two gay dads. millionent the 6 children that have lgbt parents. the amazing declaration of love for his bombs in the court in iowa, we are the cochairs of the outspoken generation program which gives a voice to us kids and an opportunity to share our stories. how we love our gay parents and we want to tell the world. it is time for their relationships to be recognized and for families to receive equal rights that we so deserved.

they are being raised with a strong family values and ethics, ready to be active participants. as we share stories of those on the fence, we can see the love in the living rooms and encouragement around the kitchen table as we are changing hearts and minds. i don't need validation for my family. i know we are a strong and stable family unit. what we need is for the federal government to recognize the relationship and alive that we have built together deserves the same rights and protections everyone else has. alliage strength and families, there is no question about it. we have this opportunity to make this country a better place to those that want to commit their life to a loved one, gay or straight. i will keep telling anyone who will listen, i love my dad and i love our family.

my two dads and i love our family. our family deserves the same respect and support that all families count on every day. [applause] >> opponents of california's proposition 8 as the supreme court heard the first of two oral arguments today. we will show you the other rally in just a moment. we want to remind you the second of the two same-sex marriage cases is coming up tomorrow. that is the case that deals with whether and the defense of marriage act passed in 1996 pre- tax legally married gay couples from benefits afforded straight married couples. more arguments tomorrow, we will have that for you here on c-

span and c-span ready at o'clock p.m. eastern. it will be closed on the web site at season and at work as soon as the supreme court makes it available. on the national mall today, another rally with supporters of california's proposition 8, defining america's between a man and woman. and the supporters rallying on mall, a large crowd, an organization, an event hosted by the national organization for marriage and concerned women for america. we will show you a portion. you can see the entire rallies, both of them, on our website, c- span.org.

>> hello? welcome back, everyone. first i want to say you did an amazing job. thank you so much. [applause] ho[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] i think our message was heard. what do you think? before we get started with the speakers we have a great program. i first want to thank the many people who made this possible. buseswere a number of that were paid for to come to this event from all over. awant to first bank be foundation that made a generous grant to allow all those buses to come. as you can see from the banner,

many other groups came by to support this event. i'm going to mention a few groups that donated money also to allow us to do this. the manhattan declaration, family research council, heritage foundation, and john paul the great high school, and the culture of life and director, the catholic diocese of arlington. of catholic diocese providence. christian union, human life international, the institute for religion and democracy. i want to remind everyone that if you take pictures of what happened as we marched by the supreme court, anyone you saw the beginning of the march

there was an intent to try to block us and we were able to keep going, we kneel down and we prayed, thank you for that. if you have pictures of that please e-mail them to mm@nationformarriage.org. there will be people walking around that have petitions that will go to the supreme court. sign the petition. this is not an end. this is a beginning. ours my honor to introduce first speaker. you have heard a brief prayer from him before. he is someone that stood up during proposition 8, that helped raise the money and get people together to get proposition 8 on the ballot. is the head of the said committee on marriage. and the archbishop of san francisco. come on. we can do better than that.

>> my brothers and sisters and friends, right now we're at the center of the country. a lot of people are watching us right now. a lot of people are watching us to disagree with us. i want to begin with words to those who are watching you disagree with us. i want to speak on behalf of all of us. i want to say we love you.

we are your neighbors. we want to be your friends. we want you to be happy. we do not hate you. we're not motivated by bigotry. it is not our intent to offend anyone and never have i apologize. i would ask that you try to listen to is fairly and tries to understand our position as we will try to do the same for you. to all of you, my brothers and sisters gathered here, thank you for your presence here, you're courageous support in defending this defining issue of our day. it takes courage to stand up for the natural meaning of marriage. why are we here? marriage matters to kids. kids deserve a mother and a father and society need an institution that connect children to their parents. what could be more beautiful are sacred than a man and a woman coming together to create? marriage is the only that connects children to their parents and the parents to their children into one another. sometimes that is impossible. sometimes due to circumstances the ideal does not happen.

those parents need our love and support. this is not about parenting skills. sometimes kids can do well in less than ideal circumstances. it is about rebuilding the marriage culture. rebuilding this culture begins with preserving in the law the principle that children deserve a mother and father. it means preserving the principle of that society should do everything they can to help ensure children get what they deserve a. only a man can be a father and only women can be a mother. i find it hard to believe that i have to stand here and say that. it is like, anyone home? children need both. no matter how happy their childhood may be to grow up without a father or mother is always a deprivation. this is not discrimination. marriage benefits everyone. it benefits those who are not married and those who disagree with us on this issue. finally, i want to say to the nine justices on the supreme court, please preserve the meaning and marriage in the law, meaning common to every society since the beginning of human race, for the sake of the children. >> it sounds like you are chanted out. we can do better for the archbishop. that is good. our next speaker is with the american principles of project which stands up for court american principles as outlined in the declaration of independence. >> hello. i am 22.

i am recent graduate. i'm here to say today that the

next generation is not entirely on one side of the marriage debate. [applause] i am here to speak out on behalf of millions again people around the country who believe that the law should define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

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 it handed over to people who want to redefine its. the truth is my generation is better than any generation before us how a generation can be devastated by the lack of a mother or a father in the household. or by broken marriages. i know from firsthand experience that the mother and father are very important geared for a while my mother was a single mother. from that experience i know that both male and female bring important balance to parenting that people long for and deserve. this does not protect the institute a marriage. many people have given up on the idea of marriage. i have not.

the more i think about the implications redefining marriages will have, the more i believe traditional marriage will grow. i'm asking the supreme court to learn from the experience of roe versus wade. the country expected support for abortion to grow. instead the support for abortion has dwindled. i expect the same thing is going to happen was support for traditional marriage my generation had a choice. we can either recognize these truths of the importance of our classic understanding or we can deny it. we can either protect marriage

and by ford or we can hand it away to people who want to redefine its common to separate it from its roots. it is ok to be counter cultural to represent a few that may not be popular at the moment. thank you. support andto defend traditional marriage. [applause] >> now have one of our close friends help bring some buses from the country. aloysius with them in tennessee. it is a great event supporting families.

thank you. >> greetings. every morning i wake up and i look in the mirror. i see a black man. there is absolutely nothing i can do to change the color of my skin. otherhed in many thousands of people marched in the same location years ago on the claims we're being discriminated against. today the other community is trying to say that they are suffering the same thing that we are suffering.

i tell you they are not. they are not suffering what we suffered. who --the size of people people whoe with face discrimination. every person should be treated with dignity and respect. what they're going through does not compare to what we went through. there is no comparison. for many years the communities have been under assault about abortion, and households. it is an education system. i tell you today that we cannot stand any more. for the other side to try to change the definition of marriage is devastating to all families. perhaps you are not old enough to know of any in the civil rights movement.

thank you. [applause] >> leader of one of the most important churches.

do you have any members of the church of god and christ? we love you. i had the chance to spend some time with them. other leaders of the chance to our standing firm. >> greetings. we are here with a unified voice claim that families have affirmed the foundation and perpetuation of every credible society. i too will affirm that marriage and family are chief among the means by which human society stabilized and correlates

its value is. marriage has always been the union of a male and a female. doma is legal and should be up help. it represents the gough piece of action taken by the leaders. are we defeated? i guess i will keep rolling. true leaders want to uphold the correct decision by the court. we believe that married couples have standing as a class protected by law. and they have an unalienable right to protect the institution and definition of marriage.

we suggest the supreme court confirmed traditionally married persons as an original class predicated on the undeniable reality and indirectly affirm that doma seems to protect marriage against confusing redefinition in the book what is marriage, this has been said. the proposal would harm people special future generations. walking their idea of what marriage is. it would teach them marriage is about the emotional union cohabitation with out any inherent connection with bodily union or family life. designedhas been well throughout time. it has been ingrained through cultural patterns. marriage is written by physical and sexual attributes based upon which sexual function

exists. that is, men and women go together. i know that is right. we have correctly interpreted the constitutionality of traditional marriage. come on say it. do you hear this? the supreme court is mandated uphold the constitution. the explicit meaning of the constitution will be given this session. there is the original character

of marriage, thereby safeguarding marriage there any definition for all human history. we have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. that is right. that is right. that is right. one cannot the common sense aside. we should not alter the purpose of marriage. when we stop this action the court will respect our differences. and that marriages between one man and one woman. in my conclusion let me say and let me tell you this, be of good cheer. romance of god says 8:28, we know that all things -- of romans 8:28 we know the all things are loved by god to those that are caught in his purpose.

god bless america. god bless the church. god bless marriage. alright. and a's supreme court case, the proposition 8 case. the supreme court will hear the case on the defense of marriage act tomorrow. in five minutes, we will show you today's oral argument on the proposition 8 case. tomorrow, we will also concern federal regulations. the act passed in 1986, the obama and ministration deciding not to defend the act in the supreme court, and the republican leadership in the house instead engaging the legal

help to defend the act before the supreme court. that is coming up tomorrow. nancy pelosi will be in the courtroom, we understand. we expect a news conference. we will have that for you here on c-span. then, a couple of discussions on the issue of same-sex marriage over at the cato institute, we will be joining evan wolfson that is the founder of the freedom to marry coalition to talk about gay marriage live at 2:00 p.m. eastern,- 1:00 p.m. rather. also coming up in the afternoon at georgetown university, they will look at legal arguments with some of the attorneys from the gay marriage cases, beginning at 4:00 p.m. eastern. and here on c-span, following the oral argument in the defense of marriage act case, we will

have an argument for you expected to run longer than today, on c-span and c-span radio. .org.udio will be on c-span we spoke with david savage that covers the court for that newspaper. >> what is proposition 8? how did it make its way to the court? >> it is a long story, it goes over about 10 years. people tried to win same-sex marriage and one before the california supreme court in 2008. the group of voters put a for theon the ballot, state constitution to limit marriage between a man and woman, passing narrowly, 52% in 2008.

that, to very well known lawyers decided to challenge it and argued it was unconstitutional under the federal constitution. they made the argument there is a fundamental right to marry in the united states and it is an equal right. the ninth circuit upheld that decision. the defenders have appealed to the supreme court and that is the case for you will hear it today. >> we have covered it on c-span, so viewers can go to our web site a year the foundation for that if they want to. tedis arguing besides olson? againstlso behind proposition 8. >> to reagan era attorneys on

different sides. very gracious. and this is ates matter of great national debate. they have 20 minutes to argue it is a matter of equal rights and the supreme court should not only decided in a narrow way, you should rule there is a right to marry. discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation, there is no good

reason for it. it should be struck down on the grounds it is a discriminatory measure. of the fourteenth amendment, the equal protection of laws. they said racial discrimination is unconstitutional. in a series of cases, it came around to the view that gender discrimination and sex discrimination is unconstitutional. is sexual orientation discrimination a type that

violates the equal protection clause? >> does that say it does will point to what case? heristory and tradition, 200 years, they will make some point. when it was adopted in 1868, no one thought that the phrase involved and gays and lesbians. it was about slavery. this has been understood. that is basically the argument. never came upt before.

i think i am not alone in saying it is anthony kennedy, justice the libertarian conservative, on the conservative side of a lot of issues. and things that involve liberty, he has banned on the liberal side in the past. the issue here, justice kennedy wants to rule in a big way or a narrow way to strike down proposition 8? the presumption is that they will join with him. everyone will have their eye on

justice kennedy. everybody says over 20 years, it is amazing how the polls have changed. if you are in the supreme court , you move out and say that the country is changing and we should recognize this or that we ought to stand back 10 years from now. if 42 states authorize gay marriage and eight didn't, it would be easy for the supreme court to say that the country has made a decision on this end we say it is a constitutional right. only nine states authorize that. polls say that a majority of americans approve or accept same-sex marriage.

on this issue? or do we take a very minor step to try to defer the big question? >> on the next washington journal, we will be joined by a legal affairs editor to discuss the upcoming supreme court arguments over the defense of marriage act. we will discuss the cia's role in the syrian conflict and the possible use of chemical weapons by the u.s. institute of peace. , a national political reporter and a senior editor of the atlantic. she recently wrote about the lack of female leaders in the working sector in spite of the success of women. washington journal is live on c- span.

>> it is the opening day of oral arguments for historic gay marriage cases. next, we will hear today's case on california's statewide ban on same-sex marriage and we will get reaction from lawyers. against same-sex marriage. of thew is the second two same-sex marriage cases. they will look at if the federal defense of mayor jack that -- thates benefits denies benefits should be struck down. the oralring you argument on c-span and c-span radio. you can also follow at at 2:00 p.m. eastern. about the you do israeli and palestinian

conflict? it took them that long to develop an answer. state and a palestinian state, but only when that state will be a decent and stable, peaceful, democratic government. arafat has gotns to go. >> an insider's view into the failures of the bush administration's policy on the conflict. part of a tv this weekend. >> the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument in the first of two same-sex marriage cases this week. the first considers the constitutionality of the same- sex marriage ban. and proposition 8, passed by voters in the 2008 elections

amended the constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and woman. the lawyers in this case are charles cooper arguing in favor and ted olson. >> he will hear arguments this morning in case 12144, hollingsworth versus perry. >> until quite recently, it was an accepted truth for anyone who almost ever lived in any society in which marriage existed. >> we of the jurisdictional and merritt issue. maybe it would be best if you could begin with the standing issue. >> the official proponents of

proposition 8, the initiative, have the standing to defend that measure before this court as representatives of the people and the state of california, to defend the validity of the measure that they brought forward. >> have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives? >> no, your honor. the court has not done that. but the court has never had before it a clear expression from unanimous state's high court. >> the concern is, certainly, the proponents are interested in getting it on the ballot and miggy sure that all proper procedures are followed, but -- making sure that all proper procedures are followed, but once it is banned, -- once it is spent, how are they distinguishable from the

california citizenry in general? >> they are distinguishable because the constitution of the state of california and its election code provide, to the unanimously version of the california code that the official proponents in addition to the other official responsibilities and authorities that they have in the initiative process, that those official proponents also have the authority and responsibility to defend the validity of that initiative. >> i guess, the attorney general of the state does not have any proprietary interest either, does he? >> no, your honor. >> because the law says he can defend it. >> that is right, your honor, nor do the legislative leaders in the kircher case. >> could this date assigned to any citizen the right to defend the judgment of this kind -- could the state assigned to any

citizen the right to defend a judgment of this kind? >> that is a tough question. it is not any citizen. it is the official proponents that have the specific and carefully detailed -- >> if you would on the hypothetical, could the state assigned to anybody the ability to do this? >> your honor, it very well might be able to decide any citizen could step forward and represent the interest of the state and the people. >> that may be true in terms of who they want to represent, but a state cannot authorize anyone to proceed in federal court. that would leave the definition under article 3 of the federal constitution as to who can bring, who has standing to bring claims. i do not think we have ever

allowed anything like that. >> but the point i'm trying to make, your honor, is that there's no question that the state itself has standing to represent its own interest and ability of its own enactments. and if the state's public officials to -- declined to do that, it is within the state's authority, i would submit, to identify if not any citizen or supporter of the measure, certainly those that are a very clear an identifiable group. >> the chief justice has given a proper hypothetical to contest your theory. but in this case, the proponents must give their official address. they must pay money. and they must act in unison under california law. these five products are required at all times to act in unison -- these five proponents are required at all times to act

in unison and to register and pay money. in that sense, it is different from simply saying any citizen. >> but of course it is. >> can you tell me that is a factual background with respect to their right to put a ballot initiative on the ballot? how does it create an injury to them separate of that of every other taxpayer to have laws enforced? >> the question before the court, i would submit, is not the injury to the individual proponents, but to the state. kircherslators in the case had no individual particularized injury, but this court recognized they were proper representatives of the state's interests. >> at least one of them has suggested that it seems counterintuitive to think that

the state is going to delegate to people who do not have a fiduciary duty to them. that is going to delegate a responsibility of representing the state to individuals who have their own views. they proposed the ballot initiative because it was their own individual views, not necessarily that of the state. justice scalia offered the question of the attorney general. the attorney general has no personal interest. >> true. >> though he has a fiduciary obligation. >> the attorney general, whether a fiduciary obligation or not, is in normal circumstances the representative of the state to defend the ability of the state enactments when they are challenged in federal court. but when an officer does not do so, the state shirley hawes -- surely has every authority and i would submit, responsibility, to identify in particular an

initiative. >> why is the fiduciary requirement before the state indicative of representative? >> i do not think there is anything in article 3 or in any of this court's decision as to suggest that a representative of a state must be -- have a fiduciary duty. >> generally, you do not need to specify it, but it is generally the people who get to enforce the legislation of the government, those who are in government positions, let elected by the people. here they are not elected by the people or appointed by the people. >> and the california court specifically rejected that specific target and. they said it is in the context when the public officials, the elected officials have declined to defend a statute.

constitutional amendment, was brought forth through initiative and it was the integrity of that state to protect the rights of every citizen. after all, the initiative process is designed to control those very public officials, to take issues out of their hands. and if public officials could effectively veto an initiative by refusing to appeal it -- >> many states have what is called a public action. byublic action is an action any citizen, primarily to

vindicate and to make sure the lot -- the law is enforced. that enables the court to say that it does not lie in the federal system. and then to say that they really feel it is important that the law be enforced, they really want to vindicate the process, and these are people of special interest, we found the five citizens who most strongly wants to vindicate the process of the lobbying and forth, that will not distinguish it from public action. thereen you also said

representing the state. at this point, the doniger brief, which takes the other side, is making a strong argument that they are really no more than a group of five people who feel really strongly that we should indicate this public interest, and have good reason for thinking it. you have read all of these arguments and you know they're not be the agents and so forth. what do you want to say? >> according to the california supreme. -- supreme court, the california constitution says in terms that among the responsibility of official proponents, in addition to any other responsibilities that they assume in the initiative process, among those responsibilities and authorities is to defend that initiative if the public a officials within the initiative process is designed to control have refused to do it. it might as well say in those terms, your honor. >> if you want to proceed to the merits, you should feel free to do so. >> thank you, sir. as i was saying, the accepted

truth that the new york high court observed is one that is changing, and changing rapidly in this country, as people throughout this country engage in the debate over whether an age old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex marriage. the question before this court is whether the constitution put a stop to that ongoing debate and answers the question for all 50 states. and it does so, only of the respondents are correct that no rational, thoughtful person of good will could possibly disagree with them on this agonizing lead difficult issue. in baker against nelson, this court unanimously dismissed the federal question. >> baker-nelson was 1971. the supreme court had not even decided that gender based

classification had any type of heightened scrutiny. the same sex intimate contact with considered criminal in many states in 1971. i don't think we can extract months -- to extract much from banker against nelson. >> baker against nelson also came fairly fast on the heels of a loving decision. -- of the loving decision. i merely make the argument that it seems plausible in the extreme decision for nine

justices to have seen no substantial federal question if it is true, as the respondents maintain, that the traditional definition of marriage insofar as it does not include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained as a result of anti-gay malice and a desire to harm. >> do you have a defense that can be treated as a gender based classification? it is a difficult question that i'm trying to wrestle with. >> yes, your honor. we do not think it is properly viewed as a gender based classification. virtually every appellate state with the exception of hawaii in

its superseded opinion have agreed that it is not a gender based classification. i guess it is gender based in the sense that marriage itself is a gendered term, a gender institution, and the same way that fatherhood is gendered, or motherhood is gendered. it is gendered in that sense. of we agree to the extent the classification. it impacts, as it clearly does, same-sex couples krabak classification can be viewed as one of sex role orientation -- sexual orientation. >> outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits?

or imposing burdens on them? is there any other rational decision making that the government could make? in denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort any other decision? haveur honor, i do not anything to offer you. >> if that is true, then why aren't they a class? makesy are a class that any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why are we treating them as a class for this one thing? are you saying that the interest of marriage is so much more compelling than any other interest they could have?

>> no, your honor, we certainly are not. we are saying that the interest in marriage in society's interest, in what we have framed is vital. but with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are similarly -- are simply not similarly situated. but to come back to your question, i think, justice sota meyer, you are probing into whether or not sexual orientation ought to be viewed as a suspect class. our position is that it does not qualify under this court's standard and traditional attest for identifying suspected as. -- suspectiveness. it is quite amorphous. it denies explanation, as

experts are quite vivid on. does not qualify as an accident of birth, amiability in that sense. -- in mutability in that sense. >> if you are not dealing with this as a class question, the more we do see the government is not free to discriminate against them? >> well, your honor, i think it is a very different question, whether or not the government can proceed arbitrarily and irrationally with respect to any group of people, regardless of whether or not they qualify under this court's traditional task force's effectiveness -- for suspectiveness. i would submit it would create, unless there's something not

occurring to me immediately, an arbitrary and capricious distinction among similarly situated individuals. that is not what we think is at the root of traditional definition of marriage. >> in reading the brief, it seems as though your principal argument is that same sex and opposite sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite sex couples can procreate and same-sex couples cannot. and the state's main interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. is that basically correct? >> >> that is the essential thrust of our position. >> you have a reason for not including same-sex couples. is there any reason for excluding them? in other words, you're saying,

well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it does not serve the state's interest. but do you go further and say that it harms any state interest? >> it your honor, we go further in the sense that it is reasonable to be concerned that redefining marriage as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harm's to that institution and to the interest to society that has always used that institution to address. trex explain that a little bit to me, because i did not pick that up in your grief. what harm do you see happening? harmhen and how, and what to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples?

how does this cause and effect work? >> once again, i would reiterate that we do not believe that is the correct legal question before the court, and that the correct question is whether or not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage. >> are you conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration to traditional opposite sex married couples? >> no, your honor, i'm not conceding that. >> then it seems to me that you should have to address just as hagin's question. >> thank you, justice kennedy. i have two points to make. the first is this. the plaintiff's expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences and it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what

world consequences would be. worldmong those real- consequences, we would suggest there are adverse consequences. but consider the california voter. in 2008 in the ballot with the question of whether or not this age-old, bedrock institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there is no way that he or she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of the changing of a bedrock institution would be. that is reason enough. that would be irrational for that voter to say, i believe this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old even in massachusetts, the oldest state conducting it, to say that i think it better for california to hit the pause button and wait for additional information where the experiment is still maturing.

>> i do not know why you do not mention some concrete things. you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same- sex couples. and there is considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason. >> california does. >> do we know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child? >> no, your honor. >> that is a possible deleterious effect, isn't it? >> it would not be in california, because that is not an issue. in california, you can have

same-sex couples adopting. >> your right, your honor, that is true. >> it is true, but irrelevant. they are arguing for a nationwide rule, which applies to states other than california, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples. even those states that the league is harmful. i take no position on whether it is harmful or not, but it is certainly true that there is no scientific answer to that question at this point in time. >> and that is the point i'm trying to make, and it is the respondents responsibility to prove under rational basis review not only that there will clearly be no harm, but that is beyond debate that there will be no harm. >> you are opposing a judgment that applies to california ...,

not to all of the state. >> that is true, your honor. and if there were a way to cavan the arguments presented to you to california, then the about redefining marriage in california could be confined to california, but they cannot, your honor. >> i think there is substance to the point that sociological information is new. we have five years of information to weigh against 2000 years of history, or more. on the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury, or what could be illegal injury, and that is, the voice of these children. children some 40,000

in california, according to the read brief, that live with same-sex parents. and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think? >> your honor, i certainly would not disputes the importance of that consideration, especially in the political process for this issue is being debated and will continue to be debated, and certainly in california and is being debated elsewhere. but on that specific question, your honor, there is simply no data. in fact, their expert. there is no data, no study even, that would examine whether or not there is an incremental beneficial effect from marriage over and above the domestic partnership laws that were enacted by the state of california to recognize, honor, and support same-sex relationships and their

families. there is simply no data at all that would permit one to draw that conclusion. i would qiote just as quiet -- i would quote justice kennedy in the state vs. grauman. >> mr. cooper, we will afford you more time. you should not worry about losing your rebuttal time. >> as long as you are on that, that i would like to ask you this. assuming you could distinguish california and except scalia's version of your argument and distinguish california, what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile

companies of different sex to marry would not? there are lots of people who get married you cannot have children. take a state that does allow adoption and say there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? certainly, not the one you said, is it? am i not clear? you said the problem is marriage as an institution that further procreation. and the reason there is adoption. but that does not apply to california. if i wall of california and i'm looking just there were your argument does not apply, what happens to your argument of using marriage as an institution toward procreation, given that there are couples that cannot

have children that get married all the time. >> yes, but redefining marriage as a genderless institution will redefine it away from its historic purposes and it will refocus the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults. >> suppose the state said, because we think the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we will not give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55? would that be constitutional? >> no, your honor, it would not. >> i would think that is the same states interest.

if you are over the age of 55, you do not serve the regulation of procreate -- of procreation through marriage. >> even with respect to couples over the age of 55, is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile. [laughter] >> i can just assure you that if both the woman and man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. [laughter] >> society's interest in response procreation is not just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. the marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, your honor, advances the interests of responsible procreation by making it more

likely that neither party, including the farag party -- the fertile party to that. >> i suppose we could have a questionnaire at the mayor's desk -- at the marriage and death, are you for all or not fertile? i suspect this court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, wouldn't you? >> i'm just talking about aids. not anything else. we ask about people's age all the time. >> even in asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. >> the chairman was not the chairman of the committee when justice cayton was confirmed. >> very few men outlive their own fertility. >> in a couple where both people are over the age of 55. >> and your honor, again, the

miracle norm, which imposes upon that couple the obligation of fidelity is designed to make it less likely that either party to that marriage will engage in your responsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. that is the marital norm. iniety has the interest seeing a 55-year-old couple, just as it has an interest in seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged time frame of cohabitation, to reserve that until they have made a marital

commitment. so that picture that union produced any offspring, it will be more likely that that child or children will be raised by a mother and father who brought them into the world. >> if you said somebody who is locked up in prison and is not going to get out has a fundamental right to marry, no possibility of procreation. >> your honor is referring, i am sure, to the turner case. and with no disrespect, justice ginsburg way over reads turner against shapleigh. that was a case in which it was decided within the specific context of a particular prison where there were both female and male inmates, many of them minimum security. it was dealing with the regulation that in a previously committed marriage in the case of a pregnancy and childbirth.

the court emphasized that among the incidents of marriage that are not destroyed by at least at present context was the expectation of eventual consummation of a marriage, and legitimization of the children. >> thank you, mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. olson? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. i know you will want me to spend a moment or two addressing the standing question. but before i do that, i thought it would be important for this court to have proposition 8 putting context, what it does. its walls off gays and lesbians from marriage, the us import relationship in live according to this court, thus stigmatizing

a class of californians based on their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second rate, different, not equal, and not ok. >> mr. olson, i cut off your friend before he could get into the marriage. >> i was trying to avoid that, your honor. >> i know you were. [laughter] i think it is only fair to treat you the same. perhaps you could address your jurisdictional argument? >> i think our jurisdictional argument is, as we set forth in the brief, california cannot create article 3 standing by designating who every once -- whoever it wants. >> its is not whoever wants. these are five proponents of the measure. if we are to accept your argument, it would give the states a one-way ratchet. thestate could give me heart -- a half-hearted defense

of the statute, and then when it is held invalid, simply leave. state other hand, if the loses, it can appeal. it is a one-way ratchet that favors the state and allows other constitutional officers in different states to thwart the initiative process. >> that is the way the california supreme court saw it with respect to california law. the governor and the attorney general of california are elected to act in the best interest of the state of california. they made a professional judgment, given their obligations as officers of the state of california. the california supreme court has said that proponents -- and by the way, only four of the five are here. dr. chamowitz drew from the case because of some things he said during the election -- dr. camp which drew from the case

because of some of the things he said during the election process. >> is it true that if the attorney general and the governor do not like the ballot initiative, it will go undefended? correct one of your colleagues? >> in one of your colleagues have suggested there could be an appointee of the state of california who had a fiduciary responsibility to the state of california and the citizens of california to represent the state of california. >> who would appoint him, the same governor who did not want to defend the? >> it happens all the time, as in the case of -- let's not spend too much time on an eventual counsel provisions. -- on individual counsel provisions. [laughter] but the governor can have a perceived person of interest. that person might have the responsibility of the state and also possibly attorney fees. >> i suppose there is a person who could perform marriages, but prefer not to perform same-

sex marriages. it seems that the only options here are proponents for the state. i'm not sure there are not other people out there who would not have individual, personalized injury. >> it might be in some other case. i do not know about this case. this was an issue of allocated resources of the state of california and maybe it was a primary system of resources and other people did not get resources and there could be standing of showing actual injury. the point at the bottom of this is, the supreme court decided in range versus bird that congress could not specify members of congress in that congress -- in that context, even where the measure diminished powers of congress. >> the states are not bound by

the same separation of powers doctrine that underlies the federal constitution. you could have a federal initiative -- you could not have a federal initiative, for example. start with the state having the standing to defend the constitutionality of a state law beyond dispute. who represents the state? in the state that has the initiative, the whole process would be defeated if the only people who could defend the statute are the elected public officials. the whole point, and you know this better than i do because you are from california -- the whole point of the initiative process was to allow the people to circumvent public officials about whom they were suspicious. if you reject the proposition about what is left is the proposition that state law can choose some other person, some other group to defend the constitutionality of a state law.

and the california supreme court has told us that the plaintiffs in this case are precisely those people. how do you get around that? >> that is exactly what these -- the california supreme court thought. the california supreme court thought it could decide the proponents, whoever they were, and this could be 25 years after the election, it could be one of the performance, four of the proponents, they could have the interest of the state because they have no fiduciary responsibility. they may be incurring attorneys' fees on behalf of the state or on behalf of themselves, but they have no official responsibility to the state. and my only argument, and i know it is a close one because california thinks this is a system that would be the fault system i'm suggesting that from your decisions with respect to article 3, it takes more than that. >> mr. olson, i think you're not answering the fundamentals here. in the amica brief that sets forth the fiduciary duty.

the assumption is that there are not executive officials who want to defend the law. no one is going to do it. how do you get a lot offended in that situation? >> i do not have an answer to that question, unless there is an appointment process either built into the system where it is an officer -- >> why is it in dispute that the appointment process, the ballots initiators have now become that body? >> and that is the argument that our opponents make. but it must be said that it happens all the time that federal officials and state officials decide not to enforce a statute, to enforce a statute in certain ways. we do not then come in and

decide that someone else ought to be in court. >> the brief says that of course to appoint people. it is not just that you appoint. it is that the state's interest when you uphold the law is the interest in executing the laws of the state. all you have to do is give a person that interest. but when the person has the interest of defending this law as opposed to defending the law of state of california, there can be all kinds of conflicts. the is what i got out of brief. give the person that interest. and that, they say, is what is missing here. i mean, they say it is here, and you say it is missing. why is it missing? >> because you are not an officer of the state of california and you do not have a fiduciary duty to visit california and you are not bound by the ethical rules of of california and there

could be conflicts of interest. and you could be incurring enormous legal fees on behalf of the state when it states goes that route. >> you should feel free to move on to the merits. >> thank you, your honor. as i pointed out, this is the end -- a measure that walls of the institution of marriage, which is not society's right. it is an individual's right that this court has said again and again, the right to the relationship of marriage is a personal right, the right of privacy, association, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and the cases in which you have described the right to get married under the constitution, you have described it as marriage, procreation, family, other things like that. the procreation aspect, the responsibility or the ability or the interest integration is not a part of the right to get married.

>> i'm not sure that it is right to view this as excluding a particular group. when the institution of marriage developed historically, people did not say, let's have this institution, but keep out homosexuals. the institution developed to serve persons that by their nature did not include homosexual couples. yes, you can say that it served some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. it seems to me that if your friend argues on the the side that you have an institution that pursues additional interest, you do not have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them. >> there are a couple of answers to that, it seems to me. in this case, that decision to exclude gays and lesbians was made by the state of california. >> that is only because proposition 8 kaine 140 days after the california supreme court issued its decision. >> that is right >> and don't you believe is right to view it as a change parties about -- the california supreme court?

>> the california supreme court decided that equal protection and due process clause of that california constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married. >> you led me right into a question i was going to ask. california's supreme court does not decide what the law is. that is what we decide, right? we decide -- we do not prescribe for the future. we decide what the law is. when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868 when the 14th amendment was adopted? sometime after baker where we said it did not even raise a substantial federal question? when did the law become this?

>> i would like to enter the form of a rhetorical question. when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? >> the question for that one, at the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. that is absolutely true. but don't give me a question to my question. [laughter] when do you think it became unconstitutional? has it always been? >> when the california supreme court face the decision it had never faced before of, does excluding gays and lesbians based upon their status as homosexuals, is it constitutional -- ? >> that is not when it became ogs -- unconstitutional. that is when it acted in an unconstitutional manner. when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit

ghaith from marean? >> -- days from marean? >> -- i'm talking about your argument. you say now it is unconstitutional. >> yes. >> was it always unconstitutional? >> it was unconstitutional when we as a culture decided that is characteristic of individuals that they cannot control -- >> when did that happen? >> there is no date in time. >>, i suppose to know how to decide a case? >> -- how am i supposed to know how to decide a case when you cannot give me a date? >> after the california supreme court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in california and in californians decide in proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to get married.

>> your case would be different if proposition 8 was enacted into law prior to -- >> that distinguishes it in one respect. but what also -- i would also make the argument, mr. chief justice, if marriage is a fundamental right and we are making a classification based on a status of individuals, this court has repeatedly decided that gays and lesbians are defined by their status, there is no question about that. >> that it would be unconstitutional even in states that did not allow it. to tell me able when. >> i sent you have never required that before.

deciding thatfter they are permissible, you decided that was unconstitutional. was ok?ars ago it >> i can't answer that question. >> i tell you now that the pace before you today is whether or not california can take a class of individuals based upon their characteristics, distinguishing characteristics, removed from them the right to privacy, liberty, association, spirituality, and identity that marriage gives them. it is not an answer to say procreation because procreation is not part of the right to get married. >> that is a broader argument in this case if the court wants to make it. the rationale of the ninth circuit is much more narrow.

it basically says that california, which has been more generous and open to protecting same-sex couples than almost any state in the union did not go far enough and is being penalized for not going far runoff. -- far enough. >> the new orleans case involving the gambling casinos, but the context of what was permitted and what was not permitted. does it make any sense in the context of what craigslist we did what exists?

substantive benefits of marriage to same-sex domestic partnerships, are you seriously arguing that if california -- if the state -- if the case before us now were from a state that doesn't provide any of those benefits to same-sex couples, this case would come out differently? >> no, i don't think it would come out differently, because of the fundamental arguments we're making with respect to class- based distinctions with respect to a fundamental right. however, to the extent that my opponent, in the context of california, talks about child- rearing or adoptions or of rights of people to live together and that sort of thing, those arguments can't be made on behalf of california, because california's already made a decision that gay and lesbian individuals are perfectly suitable as parents, they're perfectly suitable to adopt, they're raising 37,000 children in california, and the expert on the other side specifically said and testified that they would be better off when their parents were allowed to get married. >> i don't think you can have it both ways. either this case is the same, this would be the same if this were utah or oklahoma, or it's different because it's california and california has provided all these -- >> i think that it's not that

we're arguing that those are inconsistent. if the fundamental thing is that denying gays and lesbians the right of marriage, which is fundamental under your decisions, that is unconstitutional, if it is -- if the state comes forth with certain arguments -- utah might come forth with certain justifications. california might come forth with others. but the fact is that california can't make the arguments about adoption or child-rearing or people living together, because they have already made policy decisions. so that doesn't make them inconsistent. >> so it's just about -- it's just about the label in this case. >> the label is -- >> same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label. >> the label "marriage" means something. even our opponents -- >> sure. if you tell -- if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, i suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. and that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of

proposition 8 are saying here. you're -- all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label. >> it is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. there are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. you could have said in the loving case, what -- you can't get married, but you can have an interracial union. everyone would know that that was wrong, that the -- marriage has a status, recognition, support, and you -- if you read the test, you know -- >> how do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? that's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right. >> but you have said that marriage is a fundamental right with respect to procreation and at the same level getting married, privacy -- you said that in the zablocki case, you said that in the lawrence case, and you said it in other cases, the skinner case, for example. marriage is put on a pro -- equal footing with procreational

aspects. and your -- this court is the one that has said over and over again that marriage means something to the individual -- the privacy, intimacy, and that it is a matter of status and recognition in this -- >> mr. olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and it is one that i'm interested the answer -- if you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- i can -- i can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left? >> well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by

this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. and if you -- if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. if it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status. it's selecting them as a class, as you described in the romer case and as you described in the lawrence case and in other cases, you're picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom that you've said is fundamental, important and vital in this society, and it has status and stature, as you pointed out in the vmi case. there's a -- there's a different -- >> is there any way to decide this case in a principled manner that is limited to california only? >> yes, the ninth circuit did that. casean decide the standing

that limits it to the decision of the district court here. you could decide it as the ninth circuit did -- >> the problem -- the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff. whatever that was. [laughter] >> but you're -- you're doing so in a -- in a case where the opinion is very narrow. basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on -- on standing. i just wonder if the case was properly granted. >> oh, the case was certainly properly granted, your honor. i mean, there was a full trial of all of these issues. there was a 12-day trial, the judge insisted on evidence on all of these questions. this -- this is a -- >> but that's not the issue the ninth circuit decided. >> the issue -- yes, the ninth circuit looked at it and decided because of your decision on the

romer case, this court's decision on the romer case, that it could be decided on the narrower issue, but it certainly was an appropriate case to grant. and those issues that i've been describing are certainly fundamental to the case. and i don't want to abuse the court's indulgence, that what i -- you suggested that this is uncharted waters. it was uncharted waters when this court, in 1967, in the loving decision said that interracial -- prohibitions on interracial marriages, which still existed in 16 states, were unconstitutional. oldt was hundreds of years in the common law countries. this was new to the united states. >> and what we have here -- >> so -- so that's not accurate. >> i respectfully submit that we've under -- we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. guess the language that justice ginsburg used at the closing of the vmi case is an important thing, it resonates with me, "a

prime part of the history of our constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded." >> thank you, counsel. general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- >> you don't think you're going to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer this observation based on the discussion today and the briefing. we do think that while it's certainly not free of doubt,

that the better argument is that there is not article iii standing here because -- i don't want to go beyond just summarizing our position, but -- because we don't have a formal position. but we do think that with respect to standing, that at this point with the initiative process over, that petitioners really have what is more in the nature of a generalized grievance and because they're not an agent of the state of california or don't have any other official tie to the state that would -- would result in any official control of their litigation, that the better conclusion is that there's not article iii standing here. >> well, tomorrow you're going to be making a standing argument that some parties think is rather tenuous, but today, you're -- you're very strong for article iii standing? >> well, we said this was a -- we said this was a close question, and our interests are, justice alito, in tomorrow's issues where we have briefed the matter thoroughly and will be

prepared to discuss it with the court tomorrow. with respect to the merits, two fundamental points lead to the conclusion that there's an equal protection violation here. first, every warning flag that warrants exacting scrutiny is present in this case. and petitioners' defense of proposition 8 requires the court to ignore those warning flags and instead apply highly deferential lee optical rational basis review as though proposition 8 were on a par with the law of treating opticians less favorably than optometrists, when it really is the polar opposite of such a law. >> general verrilli, i could understand your argument if you were talking about the entire united states, but you -- your brief says it's only eight or nine states, the states that permit civil unions, and that's -- brings up a question that was asked before. so a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but at least the government's position is, if it has done -- the state has done absolutely nothing at all, then

it's -- it can do -- do as it will. >> that gets to my second point, your honor, which is that i do think the problem here with the arguments that petitioners are advancing is that california's own laws do cut the legs out from under all of the justifications that petitioners have offered in defense of proposition 8, and i understand your honor's point and the point that justice kennedy raised earlier, but i do think this court's equal protection jurisprudence requires the court to evaluate the interests that the state puts forward, not in a vacuum, but in the context of the actual substance of california law. and here, with respect to california law, gay and lesbian couples do have the legal rights and benefits of marriage, full equality and adoption, full

access to assistive reproduction, and therefore, the argument about the state's interests that petitioners advance have to be tested against that reality, and they just don't measure up. none of the -- >> well, the argument -- >> none of the -- >> justice breyer. >> what is the one -- look, a state that does nothing for gay couples hurts them much more than a state that does something. and, of course, it's true that it does hurt their argument that they do quite a lot, but which are their good arguments, in your opinion? i mean, take a state that really does nothing whatsoever. they have no benefits, no nothing, no nothing. ok? and moreover, if you're right, even in california, if they have -- if they're right or, you know, if a pact is enough, they won't get federal benefits, those that are tied to marriage, because they're not married. so -- so a state that does

nothing hurts them much more, and yet your brief seems to say it's more likely to be justified under the constitution. i'd like to know with some specificity how that could be. >> well, because you have to measure the -- under the standard of equal protection scrutiny that we think this court's cases require. >> i know the principle, but i'm saying which are their good arguments, in your opinion, would be good enough to overcome for the state that does nothing, but not good enough to overcome california where they do a lot? >> well, we -- what we're -- what we're saying about that is that we're not prepared to close the door to an argument in another state where the state's interests haven't cut the legs out from under the arguments. and i think -- i suppose the caution rationale that mr. cooper identified with respect to the effects on children, if it came up in a different case with a different record, after all here, this case was

litigated by petitioners on the theory that rational basis applied and they didn't need to show anything, and so they didn't try to show anything. our view is that heightened scrutiny should apply, and so i don't want to -- i don't want to kid about this, we understand, that would be a very heavy burden for a state to meet. all we're suggesting is that in a situation in which the state interests aren't cut out from under it, as they -- as they are here, that that issue ought to remain open for a future case. and i -- and i think the caution rationale would be the one place where we might leave it open. because you can't leave it open in this case. >> general, there is an irony in that, which is the states that do more have less rights. >> well -- well, i understand that, your honor, but i do think that you have to think about the claim of right on the other side of the equation here. and in this situation, california -- the argument here that gay and lesbian couples can be denied access to marriage on the ground of an interest in responsible procreation and child rearing just can't stand up given that the parents have full equality, the gay and lesbian parents have full equality apart from --

>> you want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on -- of same-sex marriage, the potential -- the effects of proposition 8. but what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the concept of same- sex marriage. the one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. it's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. same-sex marriage is very new. i think it was first adopted in the netherlands in 2000. so there isn't a lot of data about its effect.

and it may turn out to be a -- a good thing, it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of proposition 8 apparently believe. but you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? i mean we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. on a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials? >> i have four points i would like to make to that in response to that, justice alito, and i think they are all important. first, california did not through proposition 8 do what my friend mr. cooper said and push a pause button. they pushed a delete button. this is a permanent ban. it's in the constitution. it's supposed to take this issue out from the legislative process. so that's the first point. second --

>> well, just in response to that, of course the constitution could be amended, and i think i read that the california constitution has been amended 500 times. >> but the -- >> so it's not exactly like the u.s. constitution. >> but it does -- of course not. but it is -- but the aim of this is to take it out of the normal legislative process. the second point is that, with respect to concerns that your honor has raised, california has been anything but cautious. it has given equal parenting rights, equal adoption rights. those rights are on the books in california now, and so the interest of california is -- that petitioners are articulating with respect to proposition 8, has to be measured in that light. >> yeah, but the rest of the country has been cautious. >> and that's why -- >> and we're -- and you are asking us to impose this on the whole country, not just california. >> no, respectfully justice scalia, we are not. our position is narrower than that. our position -- the position we have taken, is about states, it applies to states that have, like california and perhaps

other states, that have granted these rights short of marriage, but -- >> i don't want to -- i want you to get back to justice alito's other points, but is it the position of the united states that same-sex marriage is not required throughout the country? >> we are not -- we are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country. we think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other states that don't have the situation california has. >> so your -- your position is only if a state allows civil unions does it become unconstitutional to forbid same- sex marriage, right? >> i see my red light is on. >> well, you can go on. >> thank you. our position is -- i would just take out a red pen and take the word "only" out of that sentence. when that is true, then the equal protection clause forbids the exclusion of same-sex marriage, and it's an open question otherwise. and if i could just get to the third reason, which i do think is quite significant.

the argument here about caution is an argument that, well, we need to wait. we understand that. we take it seriously. but waiting is not a neutral act. waiting imposes real costs in the here and now. it denies to the -- to the parents who want to marry the ability to marry, and it denies to the children, ironically, the very thing that petitioners focus on is at the heart of the marriage relationship. >> but you are willing to wait in the rest of the country. you saying it's got to happen right now in california, but you don't even have a position about whether it's required in the rest of the country. >> if -- with respect to a state that allows gay couples to have children and to have families and then denies the stabilizing effect -- >> so it's got to happen right away in those states where same-sex couples have every legal right that married couples do. >> well, we think -- >> but you can wait in states where they have fewer legal rights.

>> what i said is it's an open question with respect to those states and the court should wait and see what kind of a record a state could make. but in california you can't make the record to justify the exclusion. and the fourth point i would make on this, recognizing that these situations are not -- >> how would the record be different elsewhere? >> well, they might try to make a different record about the effects on children. but there isn't a record to that effect here. and the fourth point i would make, and i do think this is significant, is that the principal argument in 1967 with respect to loving and that the commonwealth of virginia advanced was -- well, the social science is still uncertain about how biracial children will fare in this world, and so you ought to apply rational basis scrutiny and wait. and i think the court recognized that there is a cost to waiting and that that has got to be part of the equal protection calculus. and so -- so i do think that's quite fundamental. >> can i ask you a problem about --

>> sure. >> i -- it seems to me that your position that you are supporting is somewhat internally inconsistent. we see the argument made that there is no problem with extending marriage to same-sex couples because children raised by same-sex couples are doing just fine and there is no evidence that they are being harmed. and the other argument is proposition 8 harms children by not allowing same-sex couples to marriage. which is it? >> well, i think what proposition 8 does is deny the long-term stabilizing effect that marriage brings. that's -- that's the argument for -- for marriage, that -- >> but you also tell me there has been no harm shown to children of same-sex couples. >> california -- there are 37,000 children in same-sex families in california now. their parents cannot marry and that has effects on them in the here and now. a stabilizing effect is not there. when they go to school, they have to, you know -- they don't have parents like everybody else's parents. that's a real effect, a real cost in the here and now.

>> well, the real cost right now would be you're asking me to write these words -- "a state that has a pact has to say 'marriage,'" but i'm not telling you about states that don't. well, i would guess there is a real-world effect there, too. that states that are considering pacts will all say "we won't do it," or not all, but some would. and that would have a real effect right now. and at the moment, i'm thinking it's much more harmful to the gay couple, the latter than the former. but you won't give me advice as the government as to how to deal with that. >> well, we think that, as i started my argument, your honor, that all the warning flags for exacting equal protection scrutiny are present here. this is a group that has suffered a history of terrible discrimination. the petitioners don't deny it. petitioners said at the podium today that there is no justification for that

discrimination in any realm other than the one posed in this case, and the -- and so when those two factors are present, those are paradigm considerations for the application of heightened scrutiny, and so i don't want to suggest that the states that haven't taken those steps -- >> but they are not the only ones. >> that states that haven't taken this step, that they are going to have an easy time meeting heightened scrutiny, which i think has to apply -- >> suppose one of those states repeals its civil union laws? >> it would be a different case. and all i'm saying is that the door ought to remain open to that case, not that it would be easy for the state to prevail in that case. >> thank you, general. mr. cooper, to keep things fair, i think you have 10 minutes. >> thank you very much. >> and you might address why you think we should take and decide this case. >> yes, your honor, and that is the one thing on which i wholeheartedly agree with my friend mr. olson. this case was properly -- is now properly before the court

and was properly granted, even if, even if, your honor, one could defend the specific below for the ninth circuit, a defense that i haven't heard offered to this court. judicial redefinition of marriage even in -- even if it can be limited to california, is well worthy of this court's attention, particularly, your honor, as it come from a single district court judge in a single jurisdiction. i would also like -- >> i think that begs your -- mr. olson doesn't really focus on this. if the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer? >> because, your honor -- >> we let issues perk, and so let racial segregation perk

for 50 years from 1898 to 1954. >> your honor, it is hard to -- >> and now we are only talking about, at most, four years. >> it is hard to imagine a case that would be better, or more thoroughly, i should say, at least, briefed and argued to this court. >> it's too late for that, too late for that now, isn't it? i mean, we granted cert. i mean, that's essentially asking, you know, why did we grant cert. we should let it percolate for another -- you know, we have crossed that river, i think. >> and in this particular case, to not grant certiorari is to essentially bless a judicial decision that there -- that at least in the state of california, the people have no authority to step back, hit the pause button, and allow the experiments that are taking place in this country to

further mature, that in fact, at in california -- and it's impossible to limit this ruling, your honor, even to california, even the solicitor general's argument, he says, applies to at least eight states. it's impossible to limit these propositions to any particular jurisdiction, so this court would be making a very real decision with respect to same- sex marriage if it should simply decide to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, justice kennedy. and let's just step back and just consider for a moment the solicitor general's argument. he is basically submitting to the court that essentially the one compromise that is not available to the states is the one that the state of california has undertaken, that is, to go as far as the people possibly can in honoring and recognizing the families and the relationships of same-sex couples, while still preserving

the existence of traditional marriage as an institution. that's the one thing that's off the table. >> i thought he was saying, mr. cooper, that it's not before the court today. and remember loving against virginia was preceded by the mclaughlin case. so first there was the question of no marriage, and then there was marriage. so, in that sense i understood the solicitor general to be telling us that case is not before the court today. >> forgive me, justice ginsburg. the case of -- what case isn't before the court? >> i think it was mclaughlin against florida. >> yes. >> it was cohabitation of people of different races. >> certainly. >> and the court took that case and waited to reach the merits

case. >> it's -- yes, your honor. and well, forgive me, your honor. i'm not sure i'm following the court's question. >> i may -- my memory may be wrong, but i think the case was that people of different races were arrested and charged with the crime of interracial cohabitation. and the court said that that was invalid. >> yes. >> unlawful. >> yes. thank you, your honor. forgive me. and, you know, i'm glad that counsel for the respondents mentioned the loving case, because what this court -- what this court ultimately said was patently obvious, is that the colors of the skin of the spouses is irrelevant to any legitimate purpose, no more so than their hair colors, any legitimate purpose of marriage, that interracial couples and same-race couples are similarly situated in every respect with

respect to any legitimate purpose of marriage. that's what this question really boils down here, whether or not it can be said that for every legitimate purpose of marriage, are opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples indistinguishable, indistinguishable. and with all due respect to counsel and to the respondents, that is not a hard question. if, in fact, it is true, as the people of california believe that it still is true, that the natural procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples continues to pose vitally important benefits and risks to society, and that's why marriage itself is the institution that society has always used to regulate those heterosexual, procreative -- procreative relationships. counsel -- the solicitor general has said that the ban that the proposition erects in is permanent.

well, it's -- certainly that is not the view of the respondents and what we read every day. this is not an issue that is now at rest in the state of california, regardless -- well, unless this court essentially puts it to rest. that democratic debate, which is roiling throughout this country, will definitely be to california. it is an agonizingly difficult, for many people, political question. thatuld submit to you that question is properly decided by

the people themselves. thank you, mr. chief justice. >> thank you, counsel, counsel. the case is submitted. >> tomorrow is the second of the two same-sex cases the supreme court is considering. the accord will look at whether the defense of marriage act should be struck down. it was passed by congress and signed into law by president clinton in 1996. our websiteow in on at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> we will be joined by the editor for reuters to discuss

the arguments for the defense of marriage act. we will discuss the cia's role on the simmering conflict and report on possible use of chemical weapons -- on the syrian conflict and possible use of chemical weapons. and then the national reporter for the atlantic. she recently wrote about the women at the center. live every day at 7:00 a.m. >> after the supreme court heard oral argument, the lawyers from both sides spoke with reporters outside of the court. ted olson for george w. bush argued the same-sex marriage ban should be overturned.

[applause] members andoard come down here.

>> how close? david. >> those of you in court today saw why i like it a lot better when this guy is on my side. very thoughtful hearing. we appreciate the attention on this issue. we appreciate the preparation of the justices. now in the hands of the supreme court. it has been a long journey. i am encouraged that we are in the and no final decision in this case. the most terrible thing is there was no attempt to defend the ban

gay and lesbian marriage. all that was said is this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government. but because of the federal constitution we have and it is the federal government constitution that defends everyone's rights. now we're down to the question, how do you establish marriage equality you can see what we've dealted for the last couple of years. >> you're going to hear from two people who have been, at the beginning of this case up until now, they are the people who about whom -- for whom this case is about. those and others like them in california and in

the united states, their right to be treated with respect, dignity, and equality under the throughout california and in theunited states. ic one of most important things that happened today is that the american people were listening to the argument. as david was saying, no one offered a defense for the awful discrimination that takes place when gay and lesbian citizens are not denied the right given to everyone else right to have the family relationship recognized and respecteded equlely. now, everybody -- respected equally. later this rch, people can listen to these arguments and decide for themselves. we're confident where the american people are going with this. we're not sure what the united states supreme court is going to do but we're gratified they listened, they heard, they asked hard questions and there is no denying where the right is and we hope the supreme court will come out that way when they make this decision in june. i want you to --

>> can i ask you, based on the questions, do you feel confident that if supreme court is ready to make a sweeping ruling in this case? >> based on the questions that the justices asked, i have no idea. \[laughter] the court has several ways to decide this from a broad sweeping conclusion with respect to our citizens in this country, to a narrower ruling that would be limited on california. the court never gives you an idea on how they are going to decide. they care about the issues and they read the briefings, then we'll see how the court decides. i want everyone to hear from the individuals about for whom this case is about, the real people sandy and chris, and jeff and paul who have been just everyone's hero from the beginning of this case. we're in love with them and we're so humbled by the fact we get to speak for them in the united

states supreme court. do you want to go first? >> i'm chris, the plaintiff in this case as you just heard in 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 this equality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately, with the passage of proposition 8, we learned a group of people in california who are not being treated equally and that was recognized by the circuit court and a federal court. we look forward to the day when proposition 8 eliminated and equality is restored in the state of california. >> i'm sandy and i like all americans i believe in equality. i also believe in our judicial system. more than anything i believe in love.

proposition 8 is a hurtsminatory law that people, it hurts gays and it hurts the children that we're raising and it does so for no good reason. it is our hope that we can move forward and remove this from our society so that gays and lesbians in california can go back to our lives living equally with all the same rights and protections as else. thank you so much. >> my name is paul. from the beginning of this case is about securing the right to marry the person i love. also i want the equal access to the most important relationship i know life and that is marriage. i

look forward to the day where i can be married to the person i love and start a farm like kris and sandy have. it is a constitutional right and i can't wait to start my family. >> i'm jeff. we're so pleased that we were able to have our case before the court today. we're so thankful. it has been a long journey. we're so thankful for our attorneys and we're looking forward to the court's decision. thank you. >> now sandy and i would like to introduce you to two of our sons, spencer and elliott. >> hello. my name is spencer perry and this is my twin brother. we're two of kris an sandy's proud sons. on behalf of myself and my twin brother, 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'll be treated equally just like our neighbor's families. thank you so much. \[applause]

>> david and i will be willing to answer questions but it is very important to introduce chad griffin who has been with this case from the beginning, right from the very, very start. he recruited me and together we recruited david to handle this case. it has been almost four years since we filed the case. it has been four and half years since we first met and started talking about what we would do in this case. chad griffin, i can't say enough wonderful thing about him and what he has done for the gay and lesbian citizens in this country. and what the human rights campaign has done for equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens.

>> thank you so much. i want to thank ted and david who enabled us to lift the partisan vail and for the first time shine the spotlight on the human faces. the human face of kris and sandy, and paul and jeff, and to be able to look them in the face. we can tell them that they and their family deserve anything other than equality under the something i challenge anyone to do. we're honored that our court system has worked. we've gone from the district northern california over these four years, all the way here to washington before the united states supreme court.

we are all cautiously optimistic as we wait to see what that this court will do. thank you very much. >> if you have questions other than how the court is going to decide the case. \[laughter] >> the rule that petitioners have \[unintelligible] that would be a win for you, will it not? >> yes. i will mention it briefly then david can. there's four way we can succeed in this case. because california decided that proposition 8 was unconstitutional and they were enforcing it but they quit defending it once it was ruled that it was unconstitutional. then you had the argument that no one can appeal this case. opponents that were in court today did not have the right to move it forward. in that is the case, finding proposition 8

unconstitutional stands and the officials of california are -- that would be the end of proposition 8. or the ninth circuit decided that because of the circumstances in california, proposition 8 was unconstitutional because of those circumstances in california. the third way, is many states who have acknowledged the rights of gays and lesbians to raise children and live together in households, the court can decide that structure is unconstitution pam because california has admitted that individuals can live together and have familyings and raise children they are going don't have a defense on that. the broadest argument we made, it is just brong, it is not consistent with the laws of this country to take our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights that we give to everyone else. that is the broadest possible outcomes and any one of those four outcomes would be a success in

overturning proposition 8. >> did you get an impression that they did not find an argument that they really love. >> i don't think you can read that much into the questions. i think what they were doing was trying to pull both sides in terms of the argument. they did have four alternatives. i think the questions jumped around some these tried to evaluate each of those four alternatives. i think trying to read too much into those questions is risky proposition. >> while they may look at the narrow road in front of them, they were very, very reluctant to look at a broader issue? >> no, i think there are a number of questions about the broad issues. i think a number of the questions went directly to whether there ought to be a broad right. as i said, i don't

think you can read much into either of those approaches. but i think they will look at all of the different alternatives. >> they seemed incredibly energized if not excited about this case. how would you describe it? >> the supreme court is an institution. they hear the cases that the people bring to them and their lawyers stand in front of the justices -- anybody who is in that courtroom can realize that we're standing within 10-12 feet of the dealing withy are the issues, they are asking hard questions, they are listening to the answer, then they will write a decision. the supreme court is institution and they don't miss an opportunity to asks hard questions. the questions may not reveal how they are thinking but they want

to know the answers to those questions. so they put every advocate to the test, so to speak. the american people will see how this works. i want to say one thing about -- david and i are coming together for this case. we come from different perspectives on the political spectrum, so to speak. but coming together is intended to make the point to america that this is not a democratic issue, or a republican issue, or conservative or liberal, this is an issue on american rights and everyone should agree about what we're talking about. we treat our citizens with dignity, fairness. the equal protection of the laws is the protection of equal laws. david and i are trying to make that point, it is not something that is partisan or anything like, that it is about american

values. >> thank you. >> this is -- in terms of the outcome of this case, the question is if this is a landmark case or if it will be a landmark case? it is so valuable to so many citizens to be treated equally and with dignity. as what david said, this is maybe the final civil rights battle that we're 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. >> ted olson and david were on the opposite side of the case. here they are together and representing the opponents of >> now we will hear from the

other side of the case. he spoke to reporters outside of the supreme court. >> make sure you face the camera. >> my name is charles cooper, and i represent the practitioner in this case. seen. the court asked some penetrating, measured questions of both sides and now it is in the hands of the court. we're looking forward to a hopefully prompte response on this difficult, controversial issue. there is no way to sum up my

argument in a couple of sentences. we believe that proposition 8 is constitutional and the decision to be made in redefining mirgee is with the>> what do you think of their questioning? >> thank you very much. today we feel we presented the think our lead counsel charles and we think the hearing went the supporters and the people and have stuck with us through of nearly four years. we look forward to a positive decision the will of the people. ok.

>> can you address some of the earlier questions and the \[unintelligible] >> we're going to stand on all court today. we're not going to sidewalk. we think we were able to say everything we wanted to say in this hearing. we thought the questions from the court were probing but very good questions, very thoughtful questions for both sides. i think we'll see a very this court.

the questions inside is that reluctant to deliver a sweeping ruling. what do you think might come out of this? >> without predicting a result, i think there are multiple we have to see which direction different views were presented by the opponents of proposition 8, and the supporters of prop 8 office. thosethe court decides marriages should stand are you n.y.>> that is not an issue in this has said that marriages created for the brief time it was legal>> but this whole battle starts over again, does percentn't its? political process for states to this debate belongs. this

the courts. this means that the legislatures and where the debate belongs. >> do you think laws can be left undefended? >> one of the big issues of this case is not only state's but in california the integrity of the process. if it is determined that a bill passed perhaps, a fatal blow to the process. i think we're done. >> does that leave open the

idea it could be referendummed in california and other states? prediction on that so thank you to see you. were asking about the harm that would be done by allowing same-sex couples to marry. what is your answer to that? small exception to talk about have agreed that it is that would be put on society by institution like marriage. think agree on. so thank you very much for you questions.

>> tomorrow the second of two cases the supreme court is considering this week. of freedomhe founder to marry for a discussion on game marriage. that is live at 1 eastern on c- span to. the law school will take on the same topic. started atge get 4:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span 2. ofthere were a number rallies in support of and against same-sex marriage. one of the group said favors same-sex marriage held an event outside the supreme court.

>> i am very loud. danielle a isife here in the front row. i think danielle deserves special recognition, because part of my journey has been the extraordinary ceremony she gave for my oldest friend when he .arried two summers ago to have margaret hoover, and who spoke first. list ofd have had a up.kers madoff -- made

it would not have been quite the republican convention, but it would be close. in fact, i speaker today as more than one of the 100 30 republicans and conservatives who signed the brief in favor of equal marriage rights. i think if he had another week, there would've been twice as many. you know, republicans and democrats in this country have enough to disagree about. no shortage. and yet there are many issues that are the property of no one party. the freedom of every american to pursue happiness as that american sees it under the law,

that promise signed into the declaration of independence so many years ago is the promise that is coming true in our times. [applause] thea conservative, remarkable thing about the movement for same sex marriage is that it is a civil rights movement that is less about claiming rights than it is about accepting responsibility. marriage is a source of great joy. but, as i speak here as someone who has been married for 25 years, we are celebrating our anniversary this summer, marriage is also the most solemn of human undertakings. it is an undertaking to care for another person. two nurse that person when ill. to sustain her or him in times of struggle. to raise children together.

to provide for those children. to mourn when it becomes time to mourn. no agency of government can ever begin to do for anyone what loving spouses do for each other. [applause] the stronger our families are, every kind of family, the less government we will need. today, your families gather before this house of law to claim the right to live as others to without shame and without fear. the mind of a nation is changing. it is an awesome thing to see. it is a loud thing to hear. it is an awesome thing to be a part of. your words, your actions, and your example has power. it will overcome. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. this is quite a moment. david, you remind us with your words something that we know here in washington. carryd bipartisanship to our movement through. we thank you for all that you do toward that and. david, thank you so much.