have seen on tv, cnn, and espn, commentator, no stranger to 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] i am here because we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal. that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. pursuitberty, and the 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. -- to beg. 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. base.the

do we seriously live in a 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 it 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] my children's happiness and 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 board 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. i am a proud lesbian activist 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. happense because what

in the supreme court in these next two days matter to me, to you, and to all of our families. theoo long we have let 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] for too long the religious right 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. -- with my daughter. 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 us 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. friendsght, tell your 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. i represent the 6 million children that have lgbt parents. lovemazing declaration of 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. federalneed is for the government to recognize the relationship and alive that we have built together deserves the same rights and protections everyone else has. marriage strength and all 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. sameamily deserves the respect and support that all families count on every day. [applause] >> how are we doing out here? forve some much gratitude the tremendous live and work of bishop robinson. his daughter is quite beautiful. you know what is beautiful about this couple? they have been together for 55 years and they are from phoenix arizona.

>> i want to thank the united for marriage coalition for inviting us to speak today. we have a loving and committed relationship. that we met when we were in college when i was 18. we have the right to love but not of a legal marriage. we took care of them in their

elderly years and we take daughters to the movies. we play with our path and we laugh and cry together. just because we are to women, our life is not recognized. i was awarded custody when she was 4. we are a loving family and we all believe that we deserve the same rights as any other citizen in this country. thataughter should have same stability in their lives. and they provide fairness for gays and other couples. they deserve to live their lives in a legal and committed relationship with the person that they love and the protection of their families.

we ought to have the same opportunity and privileges that other married couples have. two weeks ago, they both declared their support for marriage and quality. 75% of voters say the freedom to marry the person you love is a constitutional right that is given to all americans. the nation is ready for marriage equality, and so are we. thisy said in church morning, let this be the moment now. let history began. -- begin. >> i'm karen's partner. i want to thank the united for

marriage coalition for giving us this opportunity to speak at this rally. it is an honor to be here with all of you. we have been in a loving and committed relationship for 55 years. like our song states, we do have a right to love. no one should tell us who we cannot love, especially the legal rights. we believe it is our constitutional right to marry the person we loved because that right has been denied to us. theica was founded on principle of freedom and treating everyone equal under the law. in this country, freedom needs to mean freedom for everyone, including gay and lesbian family members, co-workers, or

neighbors. marriage between two loving individuals create and protect families. we have two girls that we have raised. i have no legal rights to the girls. if karen were to pass away, they would be taken away from me. i have helped to raise these girls for 17 years and it would be unfair for them to be taken away from what they know as their home. the law is not on our side. the current defense of marriage act denies same-sex couples 1138 federal rights and benefits. for example, if i should pass away before karen, she will have to pay an inheritance tax on my assets and investments. we are unable to leave our money to the partners without

an inheritance tax. if one of buses in the hospital, we should have the right to visitation. we should be able to make decisions for the one who is ill. i know karen better than anyone else. if there was an end of life decision, i know what decision she would want me to make. we are asking the supreme court justices to put the lot on our side. be we are asking is to provided the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. usnk you again for giving the privilege of being here with all of you today. this is our moment in history.

>> wow. touching stories and what an incredible day. our next speaker, an incredible person for what he is doing for our movement. and pretty incredible on the football field as well. tos an honor and pleasure give you baltimore ravens linebacker -- [applause] brendon ayanbadejo.

>> thank you. first and foremost, i am not here as a baltimore ravens. i am here as a patriot, a patriot for the constitution of the united states. and being that i am in baltimore, i have to show you my maryland pride. takes that the scotus notice of what's been done in d.c. and maryland. hold on. let me put my socks down. you were going to leave me here with my pants up? come on. my phone just turned off, i have to go ad lib on you guys.

all right, let's do this. this is a fight we have seen before. how is this any different? i am a child of the '70s, in some states in the '60s, i would not be here. i am a testament to progress and things are changing. love is always going to win the game. being part of the ravens and winning a super bowl was a very special and monument this occasion for me. it was a dream come true and there is a secret as to why we won that football game. everyone here in the lgbt community, you know what that secret is. nflnt to make sure no other teams are listening.

every day, i go to lunch with a guy that lines up next to me and i love that player like he is a family member. we talk about families, we talk about issues. i'm going to do everything i can to not let that man down because i love that man next to me. i talked to that man about my wife and kids and one day he will talk to me about his husband and his kids. [applause] we won the football game because of love. that we love our teammates, more than the opposition and all the people that are against us. like i said, love is always going to win the game. toave to give credit bipartisanism, a lot of people

jumping on board for marriage and quality. we know it is not the popular thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. we won't stop until everyone knows marriage equality and protections are received by all couples in the united states. strengtheningy the family unit and the communities. we are strengthening schools. we are allowing kids to stand up color. we are strengthening america. and we are strengthening locker rooms all across the country. you can play.

i forgot the rest of what i was going to say. phonon, could turn my but i can't. i think i will have to wrap it up. i am one of the most unlikely candidates, and i could not be more proud of the community for you guys are and believing in yourself. you are on the right side of history. and all of your allies, we will continue to fight with you. love is always going to win the game. >> i love that message. at the end of the day, love will win the game. i love that. it is now my pleasure to introduce the national cathedral, the rev..

>> we are gathered this morning for a multitude of identities. gay, straight, bisexual, trans gender, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters. we come from a variety of faith communities. themselves consider spiritual but not religious. and all of those traditions, people who have suffered persecution by those claiming to speak for god. we are gathered here this morning to say in spite of that message, it is time for marriage in quality.

i am here as a straight episcopal priest. i believe in god's blessings for all faithful, committed, long-term relationships. i am also here as the leader of the washington national cathedral, a church that strives to be a spiritual home for the nation. in january, i announced that our national cathedral will begin performing same-sex marriages. it is right, and it is time to do that. moste of the nation's iconic faith communities, the national cathedral strives to be a house of prayer for all people, a place where all are welcome.

we want to be as clear as we can that all means all. every person is loved by god. we can preach that from the pope that until we are blue in the face. the most emphatic way to say it is to unite it by uniting the same-sex couples that come before our altered. -- our altar. many of you have felt unwelcome and on love, or ostracized by your faith community. you know all too well how he teaching and religion have been used to bolster the other side in this fight. there are many that say any orientation but strait is a sen. they pick and choose various verses to support their claims.

i am here to tell you that there are communities of faith, including your nation's cathedral where we do not believe that to be true. we read our bibles, too. we find a different story there than the ones our adversaries discovered. we see got a making and blessing people in god's own image. we see jesus eating and walking with people from every walk of human life. standith leaders that with you today say that time for marriage equality in this country has come. hasso believe that god given each of us the gift of our sexual orientation. uselieve that god has given the gift of marriage as the

best way for faithful people to live out that sexuality. as a straight man, my church and my government have long given me the right to live with those gifts. those of us from churches and synagogues that are gathered today are saying that our communities are ready to extend those rights to everyone. governmentthat the do the same. the freedom to marry the person you love is not only a constitutional right, it is a moral right. it is time for marriage in quality, thank you. >> thank you so much to the rev. and all of your leadership with the national cathedral. we are so proud, thank you so

much. i am here to introduce no stranger to my organization, the leadership conference. the national african american citizens league, -- the national american citizens league came to us in our civil rights and it gives me great pride to bring out priscilla representing the japanese american citizens league. >> i am priscilla, i am the 10,000 plus members of the japanese american citizens league. we are proud to be here to celebrate the right to love. japanese americans know what it

is like to be treated differently. 120,000 men, women, and children were imprisoned during world war two. there was a time when this nation out lot of the right of a japanese immigrant to marry an american. that law was wrong. there was a time when people of different races could not marry. that law was wrong. today, many states prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. that is wrong, too. we believe in a great america, a country where every person has the same rights, no matter

the color of your skin, no matter of your gender, no matter your sexual orientation. in 1994, a japanese american citizens league was one of the first organizations to support the right of every person to marry the one that they loved. every person. we can be a greater america when there are no barriers to the right to love. for a greater america. >> what an incredible history lesson. reminding us that we have come

so far and we have a little bit further to go. though we are ready. the assistant to president george w. bush, 2005-2007. >> is good to see so many familiar faces in the crowd. i come today and speak to you as a conservative, someone who signed the amicus brief. someone and anyone that knows me understands the most important things in my life are my family and my faith. i believe that marriage is a conservative principle and is a human right that should be given to everyone that in america. i came to washington d.c. in

the spring of 1999. and i have the hopes of making the world a better place. i immediately got the political bug and navigated my way through many circles. the state department, working in three presidential campaigns, and eventually the senior aide in the bush white house. coming out in my mid-20s, working inside the bush white house would seem daunting to most people. to me, it gave me the greatest hope for our country. because of the positive response i received, i knew in that someday we would all be standing here together, united for this cause. what may be deeply personal

process easier was someone could listen when i needed them the most. we talk about policies but there are thousands of young men and women struggling with the same vein. all they need is someone to listen to their journey and not pass judgment. we are here to listen to your story. we are here because real change occurs in the courts. and people like you and me, we stand together on an issue that unites 80% of americans. it unites across party lines in such high numbers. signedingle person that

the amicus brief is aware of the change that is sweeping across the nation. as a republican, i am proud to be on the right side of history. proud to be part of this wave of new americans that will never be divided on this issue again. >> thank you for this grant showing of bipartisanship. and just a quick announcement, given up for yourselves. thank you for your incredible respect for those folks walking down the street. we also want to keep showing the appreciation for the

capitol police at the supreme court police. i just wanted to the knowledge that and say thank you. >> these are people that love end respect so deeply. theou have not had opportunity to meet the ship, this is a treat that you're going to have today. bishop. they are the presiding bishop, the fellowship of affirming ministries, he is a fantastic speaker and a wonderful mentor. they have been working tirelessly for our right, so help me welcome the bishop.

>> good morning, brothers and sisters. claim all right, let me that out. ofm the pastor of the city refuge in san francisco, california. many times in the history of our country, the question of my new laborites -- rights. my rights as a woman, african american, and a same-gender loving woman. i have been in a loving relationship with my partner shirley for 29 years. we were legally married during the window of opportunity in

california i stand on behalf of all couples, our families, friends, and religious communities to thank our supporters for the overwhelming support for our right to marry. i also stand to encourage the court to follow the art of justice. as you have in the past. and we can put this issue to rest. can we say, put this issue to rest? put this issue to rest. our children already wonder why this is still an issue. no matter the outcome, we will not surrender our right to marry. we will come back again and again and again. until we prevail.

providence has determined that the time has come for all couples and families to enjoy the same rights and privileges in this country. remember our faces. this is surely. -- shirley. i'm yvette. we are women. we are black. we are mothers. we are grandmothers. we are faced leaders. we are just as warriors, and we have loved each other for 30 years. my ancestors stood in this same spot between that building and that building. ican hear their voices and can feel their blood from the ground. they sang a song.

♪ ain't gonna let nobody turn me around turn me around ain't gonna let nobody turn me around keep on a walking, walking up freedom's way ♪ sing it with me! ♪ ain't gonna let nobody turn me around turn me around ain't gonna let nobody keep on walking keep on talking walking up freedom's way ♪ [applause]

>> what a treat. darlene was right. it gives me pleasure to bring up our next speaker is. -- speakers. a republican with a gay family member. they come all the way from new hampshire to be with us today. >> what a wonderful and momentous day. thank you so much, everyone. >> will always figured that my brother was gay, but it wasn't

until thanksgiving 2007 when he came out. i mentioned a friend had told me his relationships that this had changed on f-- status had changed on facebook. mom almost appeared with a barrage of questions about who the mysterious person could be. you could see the fear building in his eyes and i knew i had probably gotten him into something he wasn't ready for that day. but my mom knows her kids and she knows the right things to say. she looked at him and said, is it a boy? if it's a boy, it's ok. you could see the wall that he had built the starting to crumble.

and use all the wall crash down. he turned to calvin and he said, nothing has changed between us. we love you the same, no matter what. you are our son. when i look at my brother, i can't help but want him to have the same rights i had. but that courage is stripped away so many of the freedoms that we take for granted. the idea that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry is flat out wrong and not american. as a marine, i don't take freedom lightly. i really do believe in limited government.

itan't even imagine what must be like to have someone say you can't get married. i looked at my wife and i think back to roe v. wade and it kills me to think that people had to go through that. it needs to end. when we got married, calvin was standing there right next to me as my best man. and let me tell you something. when he is ready to get married, i will be standing right next to him. tell them, i want you to know that we love you so much. we could not be more proud of the man you have become. and no one has the right to take away your freedom.

>> thank you so much for those moving words. to next speakers are going be joining us together, and these are no strangers to me personally. janet, the president and ceo of the national council of the largest grass-roots latino civil rights organization. and my boss and a good friend, wade henderson, president of the leadership council on civil and human rights. >> good morning, brothers and sisters. make some noise if you want equal rights for all.

the president and ceo of leadership conference on civil and human rights. i am proud to stand here with my friend, president of the national council. i'm especially proud to stand here in solidarity with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters representing the broad civil and human rights community to tell our supreme court that civil rights must be measured by a single yardstick. marriage equality is not only a matter of civil rights. it is a human rights and basic dignity as well. denying benefits to millions of gay and lesbian americans is to undermine the principle of equal protection under the law and the family and that that many straight americans take

for granted. as americans, we know that love knows no color. it knows no religion. we know that love knows no gender. nearly 50 years ago, the rev. dr. martin luther king jr. stood not too far from here on the steps of the lincoln memorial. his dream was our dream. those of us that grew up in segregation, we know that dreams do come true. he warned that a great nation, the world winds will continue to shake the foundations until the bright day of justice emerges. tospoke a righteous truth

power, saying it would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. proposition 8 is unconstitutional. we know which end of the court knows it. i stand with you today to say that it would be fatal for a nation that made strides and civil-rights for african- americans, latinos, asian- americans, women, people with disabilities, and so many others to take a wrong step now. the time for marriage equality is now and we will not accept anything less. and now i have the privilege of introducing janet.

>> a privilege and honor to be here today. it is a privilege to be here with such an amazing group of civil-rights leaders in support of our brothers and sisters in the community. and particularly the thousands of couples that live in our great nation. we are here because, more than half of latinos are in favor of marriage equality. year, here because last the national council of became one of the first hispanic organizations to endorse marriage equality which our board unanimously approves. we are here because when some of us are denied a fundamental

right, it diminishes all of us. and we are here because of something dr. martin luther king jr. wrote. in the middle of mistreated migrant workers, dr. king wrote, our separate struggles are really want. a struggle for freedom, dignity, and humanity. that is no more true today than ever before. that is why we are here. much more recently, the dream back activists and pulitzer prize-winning journalist put it this way. my quality is tied to your equality. we are here because we do not believe our policies should be in the business of separating families in any respect due to their immigration status, sexual orientation, or anything

else for that matter. it is important to know that half of the same-sex couples is hispanic. separatedfaced being from their parents. we are here because there is no community that values family more than the latino community. for us, family is family. we are here in support of family and of the of the bt -- lgbt families in our community. do what is inscribed on those very walls of their, provide equal justice under the law. we support families, we support your families.

>> make some noise if you love justice. make some noise. >> give it up for two of the amazing civil-rights leaders of our time. working in the trenches. it gives me great pleasure to introduce another person that worked tirelessly for our community. the advocate that contributed to the marriage of quality victory in the great state of maryland. please help me welcome alex. >> i brought a prop. this is a five my mom made for my wedding.

you see, growing up as a gay kid in a small, southern mountain town, i never thought i would be able to get married. i never pictured myself walking down the aisle surrounded by loving friends and family. i did not even consider there were legal barriers forbiddingly from marrying my future beloved. two years ago, i was putting the final touches on my perfectly planned marriage proposal. i never thought that my new state of maryland would accept our love as legal. in may of last year, my partner and i walked out a makeshift i'll, a boardwalk at the beach, packed full of friends and family. in august, i got a call from a

friend asking me about my newly won marriage rights. i was to find housing for those trying to help us win the ballot initiatives. i knew that i had to say yes. i accepted the position not just because my marriage would be legal, i said yes for all of those folks like myself that never thought that this day would come. these days are here and we are here together. we can never go for work -- only go forward, never go back. [applause] >> thank you so much. it gives me great pleasure to bring out by next speaker.

a member of the republican representation here today. and he is on the board of directors of the log cabin republicans. >> what a great day is. i am delighted to be here as an open and a gay man. i used to be chairman of the republican party. it now endorses marriage equality. we move from a 2000 a platform of supporting states' rights for marriage to a 2012 endorsing marriage equality.

and we're proud that d.c. is one of those jurisdictions. i am delighted to be following republican speakers, one of whom worked with george bush. openly gay in the early '80s, and president reagan was proud to do that for several years. i was elected chairman as an openly gay man. i support marriage equality because it is the right thing to do. each of these couples recognizes the responsibility to come along with marriage. it is time for them to receive the right to get married for everybody else.

a longtime friend of mine, i want to thank him for his courage and the supporting gay marriage. it won't be the last. i grew up in ohio, as i said. when i was growing up, they respected people, and everyone respected their private lives. we're going to change it back. i am honored to be here today and i appreciate all of you being here as well. >> this has been an incredible morning. [applause]

it is now my pleasure to introduce to you -- the first same sex couple to marry in the cadet chapel at westpoint. please give them a warm welcome, ok? >> my name is patty mason. the masons were russian jews that came to this country seeking freedom and fair treatment under the law. what i want is no more and no less than what my parents had. the freedom and the right to marry the what i love. thank you.

>> fundamental, basic rights. the same one our parents had. thank you, penny. she is dealing with ms, standing isn't easy. >> i am lucky that she stands with me. i am sue fulton, part of the first west point class to include women. in 1976, i raised my right hand and less for a solemn of to support and defend the constitution of the united states. but i did not know if that constitution would protect me. in december, like thousands of for me, i stood in the chapel and made my commitment to the woman i love.

in the eyes of the law, we are strangers. in may, he is going to marry the love of his life, ben shocke. the marine corps is sending matthew to japan. the other officers will be accompanied by their husbands and their wives. but not matthew. in the eyes of the law, that does not count. last month, we buried my friend charlie morgan of the new hampshire national guard. the honor guard carefully folded the american flag that covered

her coffin. there is a moment where the sergeant touches the flag to the coffin. before he hands it to the general who then handed it to charlie's wife, karen. her wife. the new hampshire national guard knows what marriages. -- marriage is. they know marriage when they see it. the military is prohibited from treating karen as charlie's wife. we are better than this. as americans, we know in our bones what freedom and equality are. what they really mean. that is why the majority of americans, including my aging

parents and pretty much everyone who has ever had a conversation with my mother stands with us. we stand here today as defenders of the constitution. we stand here today as patriots. we say now is the time, we will not let another chief charlie morgan or staff sgt donna or andrew wilbert die without knowing that his husband or wife will be accorded the full measure of our respect. now is the time. [applause] >> now is the time.

it now is the time. [chanting] thank you so much for that personal story. aren't they wonderful? they were incredible. i will now bring out a young person in the incredible movement. we are young at heart. this young man is here today as a sophomore at the george washington university. he is in the house as a representative of allied and pride. he is here with us to carry a torch for marriage in quality. >> i stand here today as a proud gay man, part of a generation that overwhelmingly understands that same-sex marriage is a

human right, not a special right. we understand a merger quality is about fairness, love, commitment. we believe the government should allow any one of customary the individuals that we love. support is at an all-time high. i am excited to see everyone embracing my generation's view of this most basic human right. our nation is not only ready, it demands it. thank you. >> we are now going to move to another family. married in same-sex parents from new york, and they are joined by their daughter.

>> we are honored to be here today. this is my wife. we have been in a committed and a loving relationship for 31 years. and on july 24, 2011, we finally made it legal along with hundreds of other half the couples on the first day that marriage equality became a reality in new york state. our journey toward marriage activism started nine years ago, around the time when a renegade mayor is began to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. when massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, we were inspired by the images of these happy couples.

we never thought that getting married would be an option for us. we lived as if we were married for over two decades, sharing our lives in raising a daughter together. it was our daughter that inspired us to consider fighting for marriage rights. she framed marriage as a civil right, and urged us to get involved in the growing marriages quality movement in new york. she said, this is your chance to be part of history. and in the fall of 2004, we were proud to sign on as one of five couples at the ground-breaking marriage equality lawsuit in new york. the lawsuit have the victories, defeats, and lost in the highest court.

that helped lay the groundwork for the sweet legislative victory that we all enjoyed almost two years ago in new york. although we are thrilled to be legally married in new york state, federal laws prevent our marriage same-sex couples from realizing full equality as an unfairly denied federal protection to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. because of that, i would not be entitled to social security benefits. if mary should become seriously ill, we have been together for 31 years and i would not be able to take time off to care for her and know that my job would be mating -- waiting for me. these and other crucial benefits of marriage is a protection that all same-sex -- all other

couples are denied to us because of who we are and who we love. it is unfair, discriminatory, and the american. >> i would like to close by saying a couple words about how we got to this watershed moment. whenever we share our stories, families, lives, whenever we speak up, we change hearts and minds. there is no group that has been more outspoken on this issue that young people. their voices have been strong and inspiring. i am extremely proud to introduce my daughter and my inspiration. it is such an honor to be speaking here today on this

historic occasion. on behalf of my wonderful parents. i hold a personal stake in the outcomes of these cases and the implications of the ruling in part of theality. reason is when i think of my own on breaking, -- a breaking, my parents made sure made sure i was happy. the relationship is one that i have -- i hope to have for my own family. as a kid, i remember being very confused. she had to adopt me. she is just as much as my mother as joanne. despite the legal and financial hurdles, they still fostered a

loving environment. it is because of my happy childhood that i feel sad and anger on behalf of my parents when i hear arguments that gay. it is harmful. it is the quality of parenting, not the sexual orientation that is the most important factor in a child's ability to thrive. actually, it is denial of equal rights that is harmful. to meet the most important aspect is the message it will send to the millions american children's being raised in lgbt families. it shows that our families are valued and equal. a decision against the quality sends a message that our families are not worthy of equal respect and protection despite our unwavering bonds of love. i hope they are aware of the real impact this will have on their families. our families may look different but we share the same love.

thank you. [applause] >> tomorrow is the second of the same-sex cases that the supreme court is considering this week. it will look at whether the 1996 defense of marriage act which denies benefits to same- sex couples should be struck down. it was passed by congress and signed into law by then president clinton. we'll bring you the oral arguments on c-span. you can follow it on c-span.org. on the next washington journal, will be followed -- will be joined by joan biskupic.

oforts on the possible use chemical warfare by the syrian government. , our guest isht the national political reporter in senior editor of the atlantic. she recently wrote about the lack of female leaders in the center despite of the success of women in higher education. it is life on c-span everyday day at 7 a.m. eastern. the supreme court heard humans in the first of to same-sex case. the first considers the constitutionality of california's ban. it was passed in the 2008 election amended the state's constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman in the state. the lawyers indicates are joined in favor of the ban.

the court is expected to hand down a decision before the end of the term in june. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 12-144, hollingsworth v. perry. mr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- new york's highest court, in a case similar to this one, remarked that until quite recently, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived in any society in which marriage existed -- >> mr. cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue. >> i'd be happy to, mr. chief justice. your honor, the official proponents of proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this court as representatives of the

people and the state of california to defend the validity of a 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 a unanimous state's high court that -- >> well, this is -- this is -- the concern is certainly, the proponents are interested in getting it on the ballot and seeing that all of the proper procedures are followed, but once it's passed, they have no proprietary interest in it. it's law for them just as it is for everyone else. so how are they distinguishable

from the california citizenry in general? >> they're distinguishable, your honor, because the constitution of the state of california and its election code provide, according to the unanimous interpretation of the california supreme court, 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 the responsibility to defend the validity of that initiative -- >> i guess the attorney general of this state doesn't have any proprietary interest either, does he? >> no, your honor, nor did -- >> but he can defend it, can't he -- >> nor did -- >> because the law says he can defend it. >> that's right, your honor. nor did the legislative leaders in the karcher case have -- >> could the state -- >> any particular enforcement -- >> could -- could the state assign to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind? >> justice kagan, that would be a -- a very tough question. it's by no means the question before the court, because --

because it isn't any citizen, it's -- it is the -- it is the official proponents that have a specific and carefully detailed >> well, i just -- if you would on the hypothetical -- could a state just assign to anybody the ability to do this? >> your honor, i think it very well might. it very well might be able to decide that any citizen could step forward and represent the interests of the state and the people in that state -- >> well, that would be -- i'm sorry, are you finished? >> yes, your honor. >> ok. that may be true in terms of who they want to represent, but a state can't authorize anyone to proceed in federal court, because that would leave the definition under article iii of the federal constitution as to who can bring -- who has standing to bring claims up to each state. and i don't think we've ever allowed anything like that. >> but, your honor, i guess the point i want to make is that there is no question the state has standing, the state itself has standing to represent its

own interests in the validity of its own enactments. and if the state's public officials decline to do that, it is within the state's authority surely, i would submit, to identify, if not all -- any citizen or at least supporter of the measure, certainly those, that that very clear and identifiable group of citizens >> well, the chief -- the chief justice and justice kagan have given a proper hypothetical to test your theory. but in this case the proponents, number one, must give their official address, they must pay money, and they must all act in unison under california law. so these five proponents were required at all times to act in unison, so that distinguishes -- and to register and to pay money for the -- so in that sense it's different from simply saying any citizen.

>> but of course it is, and i think the key -- >> but can you tell me -- that's a factual background with respect to their right to put the ballot initiative on the ballot, but how does it create an injury to them separate from that of every other taxpayer to have laws enforced? >> your honor, the question before the court, i would submit, is not the injury to the individual proponents, it's the injury to the state. the legislators in the karcher case had no individual particularized injury, and yet this court recognized they were proper representatives of the state's interests, the state's injury -- >> at least one of the amici have suggested that it seems counterintuitive to think that the state is going to delegate to people who don't have a fiduciary duty to them, that it's going to delegate the responsibility of representing

the state to individuals who have their own views. they proposed the ballot initiative because it was their individual views, not necessarily that of the state. so -- >> well -- >> justice scalia proffered the question of the attorney general. the attorney general has no personal interest. >> true. >> he has a fiduciary obligation. >> the attorney general, whether it's a fiduciary obligation or not, is in normal circumstances the representative of the state to defend the validity of the state's enactments when they are challenged in federal court. but when that officer doesn't do so, the state surely has every authority and i would submit the responsibility to identify particularly in an initiative -- an initiative context. >> why isn't the fiduciary duty requirement before the state can designate a representative

important? >> your honor, i would submit to you that i don't think there's anything in article iii or in any of this court's decisions that suggest that a representative of a state must be -- have a fiduciary duty, but i would also suggest -- >> well, generally you don't need to specify it because generally the people who get to enforce the legislation of the government are people who are in government positions elected by the people. >> and, your honor -- >> here these individuals are not elected by the people or appointed by the people. >> and the california supreme court specifically addressed and rejected that specific argument. they said it is in the context when the public officials, the elected officials, the appointed officials, have declined, have declined to defend a statute. a statute that, by the way, excuse me, in this case a

constitutional amendment, was brought forward by the initiative process. the court said it is essential to the integrity, integrity of the initiative process in that state, which is a precious right of every citizen, the initiative process in that state, to ensure that when public officials -- and 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, then the initiative process would be invalidated. >> that's -- historically, i think, 40 states, many states have what was called a public action. a public action is an action by any citizen primarily to vindicate the interest in seeing that the law is enforced. now, that's the kind of action i think that this court has

interpreted the constitution of the united states, case in controversy, to say that it does not lie in the federal system. and of course, if that kind of action is the very kind that does not lie, well, then to say, but they really feel it's important that the law be enforced, they really want to vindicate the process, and these are people of special interests, we found the five citizens who most strongly want to vindicate the interest in the law being enforced and the process for making the law be enforced, well, that won't distinguish it from a public action. but then you say, but also they are representing the state. at this point, the dellinger brief which takes the other side of it is making a strong argument, well, they are really no more than a group of five people who feel really strongly that we should vindicate this public interest, and have good reason for thinking it. so you have read all these arguments that it's not really the agent and so forth. what do you want to say about

it? >> what i want to say, your honor, is according to the california supreme court, the california constitution says in terms that among the responsibilities of official proponents, in addition to the many other responsibilities that they step forward and they assume in the initiative process, among those responsibilities and authorities is to defend that initiative if the public officials which the initiative process is designed to control have refused to do it. it might as well say it in those terms, your honor. >> counsel, if you want to proceed to the merits, you should feel free to do so. >> thank you very much, your honor. excuse me. as i was saying, the accepted truth -- excuse me. the accepted truth that the new york high court observed is one

that is changing and changing rapidly in this country as people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. the question before this court is whether the constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all 50 states. and it does so only if the respondents are correct that no rational, thoughtful person of goodwill could possibly disagree with them in good faith on this agonizingly difficult issue. the issues, the constitutional issues that have been presented to the court, are not of first impression here. in baker v. nelson, this court unanimously dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. >> mr. cooper, baker v. nelson was 1971.

the supreme court hadn't even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. >> that is -- >> and the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so i don't think we can extract much in baker v. nelson. >> well, your honor, certainly i acknowledge the precedential limitations of a summary dismissal. but baker v. nelson also came fairly fast on the heels of the loving decision. and, your honor, i simply make the observation that it seems implausible in the extreme, frankly, for nine justices to have -- to have seen no substantial federal question if it is true, as the respondents maintain, that the traditional definition of marriage insofar as -- insofar as it does not include same-sex couples,

insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained, can only be explained, as a result of anti- gay malice and a bare desire to harm. >> do you believe this can be treated as a gender-based classification? >> your honor, i -- >> it's a difficult question that i've been trying to wrestle with it. >> yes, your honor. and we do not. we do not think it is properly viewed as a gender-based classification. virtually every appellate court, state and federal, with one exception, hawaii, in a superseded opinion, has agreed that it is not a gender-based classification, but i guess it is gender-based in the sense that marriage itself is a gendered institution, a gendered term, and so in the same way that fatherhood is gendered more

motherhood is gendered, it's gendered in that sense. but we agree that to the extent that the classification impacts, as it clearly does, same-sex couples, that classification can be viewed as being one of sexual orientation rather than -- >> outside of the -- 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? denying them a job, not granting

them benefits of some sort, any other decision? >> your honor, i cannot. i do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard. i think marriage is -- >> all right. if that is true, then why aren't they a class? if they're a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren't 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 as they could have? >> no, your honor, we certainly are not. we are saying the interest in marriage and the -- and the state 's interest and society's interest in what we have framed as responsible pro -- procreation is vital, but at

bottom, with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated. but to come back to your precise question, i think, justice sotomayor, you're probing into whether or not sexual orientation ought to be viewed as a quasi-suspect or suspect class, and our position is that it does not qualify under this court's standard and traditional tests for identifying suspectedness. the class itself is quite amorphous. it defies consistent definition as -- as the plaintiffs' own experts were -- were quite vivid on. it does not -- it does not

qualify as an accident of birth, immutability in that -- in that sense. again, the plaintiffs -- >> so you -- so what -- i don't quite understand it. if you're not dealing with this as a class question, then why would you say that the government is not free to discriminate against them? >> well, your honor, i would think that -- i think it's a -- it's 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 test for suspectedness. and the hypothetical i understood you to be offering, i would submit would create -- it would -- unless there's something that is not occurring to me immediately, an arbitrary and capricious distinction among

similarly situated individuals, that is not what we think is at the -- at the root of the traditional definition of marriage. >> mr. cooper, could i just understand your argument. in reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite -- opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the state's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. is that basically correct? >> i -- your honor, that's the essential thrust of our -- our position, yes. >> is there -- so you have sort of a reason for not including same-sex couples. is there any reason that you have for excluding them? in other words, you're saying, well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn't serve the state's interest. but do you go further and say that it harms any state interest?

>> your honor, we go further in the sense that it is reasonable to be very concerned that redefining marriage to -- as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harms to that institution and to the interests that society has always used that institution to address. but, your honor, i -- >> well, could you explain that a little bit to me, just because i did not pick this up in your briefs. what harm you see happening and when and how and -- what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and effect work? >> once again, i would reiterate that we don't believe that's 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 as a

>> well, then are you conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? so you're conceding that. >> no, your honor, no. i'm not conceding that. >> well, but, then it -- then it seems to me that you should have to address justice kagan's question. >> thank you, justice kennedy. have two points to make on them. the first one is this -- the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences, and that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. and among those real-world consequences, your honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences. but consider the california voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before

her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. that is reason enough, your honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, i believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in massachusetts, the oldest state that is conducting it, to say, i think it better for california to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing. >> mr. cooper, let me give you one concrete thing. i don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. if you redefine marriage to

include same-sex couples, you must -- you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's considerable disagreement among among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- 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 -- no, california does. >> i don't think we know the answer to that. do you know the answer to that, whether it -- whether it harms or helps the child? >> no, your honor. and there's -- >> but that's a possible deleterious effect, isn't it? >> your honor, it is certainly among the -- >> it wouldn't be in california, mr. cooper, because that's not an issue, is it? in california, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child. >> that's right, your honor. that is true. and -- but, your honor, here's

the point -- >> it's true, but irrelevant. they're arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to states other than california, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples. and so even though states that believe it is harmful -- and i take no position on whether it's harmful or not, but it is certainly true that there's no scientific answer to that question at this point in time. >> and that, your honor, is the point i am trying to make, and it is the respondents' responsibility to prove, under rational basis review, not only that there clearly will be no harm, but that it's beyond debate that there will be no harm. >> mr. cooper, you are defending you are opposing a judgment that applies to california only, not to all of the states. >> that's true, your honor. and if there were a way to cabin the arguments that are being

presented to you to california, then the concerns about redefining marriage in california could be confined to california, but they cannot, your honor. >> i think there's substantial that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. we have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. on the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california, according to the red 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 dispute the importance of that consideration. that consideration especially in the political process, where this issue is being debated and will continue to be debated, certainly, in california. it's being debated elsewhere. but on that specific question, your honor, there simply is no data. in fact, their expert agreed there is no data, no study, even, that would examine whether or not there is any incremental beneficial effect from marriage over and above the domestic partnership laws that were enacted by the state of california to recognize, support, and honor same-sex relationships and their families. there is simply no data at all that would permit one to draw that conclusion. i would recall, justice kennedy,

the point made in romer, that under a rational basis of review, the provision will be sustained even if it operates to the disadvantage of a group, if it is -- if it otherwise advances rationally a legitimate state interest. >> mr. cooper, we will afford you more time. you shouldn't worry about losing your rebuttal time, but please continue on. >> oh -- >> as long as you are on that, then i would like to ask you this -- assume you could distinguish california, suppose we accept your argument or accept justice scalia's version of your argument and that distinguishes california. now, let's look at 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 couples of different sexes to marry would not? i mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have

children. to 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? >> you're -- >> am i not clear? look, you said that the problem is marriage, that it is an institution that furthers procreation. >> yes, your honor. >> and the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to california. so imagine i wall off california and i'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? given the fact that, in california, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time. >> yes, your honor. the concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its

historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. suppose, in turn -- >> well, suppose a state said, mr. cooper, suppose a state said that, because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to 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 be constitutional. >> because that's the same state interest, i would think, you know. if you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. so why is that different? >> your honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both

couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -- [laughter] >> no, really, because if the couple -- i can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. [laughter] >> your honor, society's interest in responsible procreation isn't 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 in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -- >> actually, i'm not even -- >> i suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get

the marriage -- you know, are you fertile or are you not fertile? [laughter] >> i suspect this court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think? >> well, i just asked about age. i didn't ask about anything else. that's not -- we ask about people's age all the time. >> your honor, and even asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. again -- >> strom thurmond was -- was not the chairman of the senate committee when justice kagan was confirmed. [laughter] >> very few men -- very few men outlive their own fertility. so i just -- >> a couple where both people are over the age of 55 -- >> i -- >> a couple where both people are over the age of 55. >> and your honor, again, the marital norm which imposes upon that couple the obligation of fidelity --

>> i'm sorry, where is this -- >> i'm sorry, maybe you can finish your answer to justice kagan. >> i'm sorry. >> it's designed, your honor, to make it less likely that either party to that -- to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. outside of that marriage. that's the marital -- that's the marital norm. society has an interest in seeing a 55-year-old couple that is -- just as it has an interest of seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged period of cohabitation to reserve that until they have made a marital commitment, a marital commitment. so that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world. >> mr. cooper, we said that

somebody who is locked up in prison and who is not going to get out has a right to marry, has a fundamental right to marry, no possibility of procreation. >> your honor is referring, i'm sure, to the turner case, and -- >> yes. >> i think that, with due respect, justice ginsburg, way over-reads -- way over-reads turner against safley. that was a case in which the prison at issue -- and it was decided in the specific context of a particular prison where there were both female and male inmates, many of them minimum security inmates. it was dealing with a regulation, your honor, that had previously permitted marriage in the case of pregnancy and childbirth. the court -- the court here emphasized that, among the incidents of marriage that are not destroyed by that -- at least that prison context, was

the expectation of eventual consummation of the marriage and legitimation of the children. so that -- >> thank you, mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. olson? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- i know that you will want me to spend a moment or two addressing the standing question, but before i do that, i thought that it would be important for this court to have proposition 8 put in context, what it does. it walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this court, thus stigmatizing a class of californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal, and not ok. >> mr. olson, i cut off your friend before he could get into

the merits. >> i was trying to avoid that, your honor. >> i know -- [laughter] >> well, i think it's only fair to treat you the same. perhaps you could address your jurisdictional argument? >> yes. i think that our jurisdictional argument is, as we set forth in the brief, california cannot create article iii standing by designating whoever it wants to defend the state of california in connection with the ballot. >> but this is not whoever it wants. these are five proponents of the measure, and if we were to accept your argument, it would give the state a one-way ratchet. the state could go in and make a defense, maybe a half-hearted defense of the statute, and then when the statute is held invalid, simply -- simply leave. on the other hand, if the state loses, the state can appeal. so this is a one-way ratchet as it favors the state, and allows governors and other

constitutional officers in different states to thwart the initiative process. >> that's the -- that's 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 interests 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. tam withdrew from the case because of some -- many things he said during the election campaign. >> well, mr. olson, is it your position that the only people who could defend a ballot, a law that's adopted in california through the ballot initiative are the attorney general and the governor, so that if the attorney general and the governor don't like the ballot initiative, it will go undefended? is that your position? >> i don't think it's quite that

limited. i think one of your colleagues suggested that there could be an officer appointed. there could be an appointee of the state of california who had responsibility, fiduciary responsibility to the state of california and the citizens of california, to represent the state of california along -- >> who would appoint him? the same governor that didn't want to defend the plebiscite? >> well, that happens all the time. as you recall in the case of -- well, let's not spend too much time on independent counsel provisions, but -- [laughter] >> the governor -- the government of the state of california frequently appoints an attorney where there's a perceived conflict of interest >> i suppose -- >> and that person would have a responsibility for the state and might have responsibility for the attorneys' fees. >> i suppose there might be people out there with their own personal standing, someone who performs marriages and would like that to remain open to everyone but would prefer not to

perform same-sex marriages, or other people. we seem to be addressing the case as if the only options are the proponents here or the state. i'm not sure there aren't other people out there with individual personalized injury that would satisfy article iii. >> there might well be in a different case. i don't know about this case. if there was, for example, this was an initiative measure that allocated certain resources of the state of california and the people -- maybe it was a binary system of people got resources and other people didn't get resources, there could be standing. someone would show actual injury. the point, i guess, at the bottom of this is the supreme court, this court, decided in raines v. byrd that congress couldn't specify members of congress in that context even where the measure depleted or diminished powers of congress -- >> mr. olson, i think the bottom line -- >> the states are not bound by the same separation of powers doctrine that underlies the federal constitution. you couldn't have a federal initiative, for example. they're free of all that. so start from the proposition that a state has standing to defend the constitutionality of

a state law un- -- beyond dispute. the question then is, who represents the state? now, in a state that has initiative, the whole process would be defeated if the only people who could defend the statute are the elected public officials. the whole point -- you know this better than i do, because you're from california -- the whole point of the initiative process was to allow the people to circumvent public officials about whom they were suspicious. so if you reject that proposition, what is left is the proposition that the state -- 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. so how do you get around that?

>> the only -- that's exactly what the california supreme court thought. the california supreme court thought that it could decide that the proponents, whoever they were, and this could be 25 years after the election, it could be one of the proponents, it could be four of the proponents, they could have an interest other than the state because they have no fiduciary responsibility to the state, they may be incurring attorney'' fees on behalf of the state or on behalf of themselves, but they haven't been appointed, they have no official responsibility to the state. and my only argument, and i know it's a close one, because california thinks that this is the system. the california supreme court thought that this was a system that would be a default system. i'm suggesting from your decisions with respect to article iii that that takes more than that under -- >> mr. olson, i think that

you're not answering the fundamental fear. and so -- and the amici brief that sets forth this test of fiduciary duty doesn't quite either. the assumption is that there are not executive officials who want to defend the law. they don't like it. no one's going to do that. so how do you get the law defended in that situation? >> i don't have an answer to that question unless there's an appointment process either built into the system where it's an officer of california or -- >> so why -- why isn't this viewed as an appointment process, that the in -- the ballot initiators have now become that body? >> and that's the argument -- >> is that your argument -- >> that's our -- that's the argument our opponents make. but it -- but it must be said that it happens all of the time, that federal officials and state officials decide not to enforce a statute, to enforce a statute in certain ways. we don't then come in and decide that there's someone else ought to be in court for every particular -- >> what the brief says is, of course, you can appoint people. it's not just that you appoint them, it's that the state's interest, when it defends a law, is the interest in executing the

law of the state. so all you have to do is give a person that interest. but when a person has the interest of defending this law, as opposed to defending the law of the state of california, there can be all kinds of conflicts, all kinds of situations. that's what i got out of the brief. so give the person that interest. and that, they say, is what's missing here. and you'll say -- i mean, that's that's here, and you say it's missing here. >> yeah, i don't -- >> why is it missing here? >> it is -- what is missing here, because you're not an officer of the state of california, you don't have a fiduciary duty to the state of california, you're not bound by the ethical standards of an officer of the state of california to represent the state of california, you could have conflicts of interest.

and as i said, you'd be -- could be incurring enormous legal fees on behalf of the state when the state hasn't decided to go that route. i think -- >> you should feel free to move on to the merits. >> thank you, your honor. as i pointed out at the -- at the outset, this is a measure that walls off the institution of marriage, which is not society's right. it's an individual right that this court again and again and again has said the right to get married, the right to have the relationship of marriage is a personal right. it's a part of the right of privacy, association, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in the cases in which you've described the right to get married under the constitution, you've described it as marriage, procreation, family, other things like that. so the procreation aspect, the responsibility or ability or interest in procreation is not a part of the right to get married. now, that -- >> i'm not sure, counsel, that it makes -- i'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's

keep out homosexuals.

..

>> good afternoon. [speaking in spanish] my fellow citizens, today we stand together to proclaim our great republic shall endure and continue to prosper to uphold the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. marriage is something not imposed on society centuries ago. it is a basic institution of society, ordained and defined by nature, to ensure the continuity of the humankind and which provides the ideal setting for the upbringing of our children.

it is obvious that only a man and a woman can have children and that children need a mother and father as they grow up. each one of us from our own experience knows that a mother cannot place of a father and a father cannot take the place of a mother. each plays a unique and distinctive biological role in the lives of their children. these are essentials, self- evident truths that no one can redefine. there is no question that the fundamental principle of equality, which is also defined and ordained by nature and is proclaimed by our constitution, must be guaranteed by our government and defended by our courts, but equality to have any real meaning must be rooted in truth.

and so today, for the future and welfare of our country and our children, we call on the supreme court to defend natural law marriage. [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] my fellow americans, let's defend marriage. [applause]in spanish] >> i want to remind everyone that we have tables -- you can sign up to petition the supreme

court at the tables. you can make a donation to support traditional marriage. the next speaker you have seen on television, defending the truth about marriage. he is a former republican presidential candidate and the head of american values, gary bauer.[applause] >> good afternoon, pro-family of america. welcome to washington, d.c., and thank you for defending the fundamental institution of our nation, the normal family, the normal marriage between a man and a woman. my friends, you are all standing up against a powerful movement. you know that.

it has got hollywood on its side it has got the culture on its side. it has got that corporate elites and the weak-kneed the politicians get all squishy when they see these folks. what do we have to stand up against that? all we have got is a couple thousand years of western civilization, teachings of every major faith, common-sense, and the god of abraham, that is who we have got. my friends, when you are standing up for marriage, you are also standing up for freedom for the american people. 34 states have voted on this

issue. they listened to all the arguments, and those states voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. tens of millions of the american people have voted this way. we live at a time when freedom is back in vogue. well, what about the freedom of millions of americans of all races to decide what they want marriage to be? they have decided it. they want it to be between a man and a woman. my friends, children need mothers and fathers. and so i say shame on the politicians and the judges that are trying to undermine the institution of marriage. i am a republican. many of you i am sure are democrats. i am a republican.

let me say to my party, if you bail out on this issue, i will leave the party and i will take as many people with me as i possibly can. [applause] so, my friends, all honor to you, all praise to you for standing up for family, faith, and freedom. i am with you, and we are one to win. god bless you. [applause] >> the next speaker is from another co-sponsor for the event, and a leader of the

family research council, cathy ruse. [applause] >> hi, you brave people for staying through the cold. thank you for staying. i am a lawyer. i am also a member of the supreme court bar, but i decided not to try to go there, but instead stay here with you and march with this historic march. i have some good news potentially from people inside the court who were blogging. it appears that justice kennedy is potentially the swing vote on this. well, some lawyers inside the court say he appeared to be not quite that comfortable about overturning proposition 8.

so can we say a prayer right now that his discomfort continues? [applause] this debate is framed in the desires of the adult. the children are never mentioned from the other side. that is the entire reason government is involved in the first place. i would like to read you something the obama administration department of justice is arguing before the court today. they are saying that same-sex couples divide childcare evenly and are quite satisfied with their childcare arrangements. what about the children? are they satisfied? are they set aside when government tells them it does will goer, that they

through life without the tenderness of a mother or protection of a father? i am a mother of two daughters. on behalf of daughters everywhere, i call that an injustice. [applause] i want to end by saying on sunday, 1.4 million people in paris marched for traditional marriage. [applause] we stand in solidarity with them. two years ago, one million spaniards marched in majority for marriage. [applause] we stand in solidarity with them. thank you for the sake of of the children being here today and kicking off the marriage movement in this country. thank you. [applause]

>> only about 20 more minutes, guys. and we will conclude. our next speaker is the leader a clearat group, it is statement of principles on what people think should stand for as a public square. many of you have probably signed .t, the manhattan declaration come on, guys. let's hear it for the manhattan decoration. [applause] >> what a beautiful sight. anybody under 30 out there? [applause] anybody else on the wrong side of history?

i have a letter. paul wrote it a couple of thousand years ago. i have a copy. paul said something i think applies to us, especially. he said let us not grow weary of doing good, for we will reap the harvest if we do not give up. in 2009, over 100 religious leaders including many speakers here today joined together to author a landmark statement of libertyn conference on that became too known as the manhattan decoration. this described marriage as the first institution of society, the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education and welfare of all persons in society.

we understand where marriage is honored and a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits. the spouses, their children, and communities and societies in which they live. on the other hand, where marriage begins to erode, social pathologies quickly manifest themselves. ,xperience confirms this science confirms this, and even president obama recognizes this fact. it is the reason his administration ran the fatherhood initiative that describes fatherless as a growing crisis in america, one that faces many challenges. when dads are not around, young people are more likely to drop out of school, used drugs, the involved in the credible -- criminal injustice system and become young parents themselves. these are the reasons we are gathered here today. marriage is not about personal

intimacy. it's a a public good. marriage is not about what adults want, it is about what children need. advocates of same-sex marriage often point out that we fail to uphold our own definition of marriage. you know what, too often they are right. discussn, we do not marriages true meaning. let's commit ourselves to renewing a culture of marriage. the manhattan declaration points the way forward, to strengthen families, we must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of institution of marriage, including no-fault divorce laws, to strengthen families we must work in the legal, cultural and religious domains to instill in my generation a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifice. that is why this week i helped to launch a new group, marriage

generations, whose purpose is to be a voice for marriage for the next generation. [applause] to strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the andound beauty, mystery holiness of faithful, marital love. have not already, today is the day to join the 535,000 christians who have committed themselves to the manhattan declaration movement. today is the day to say when it comes to religious liberty, we must stand up and never render to caesar those things that rightly belong to god. thank you very much. [applause] >> i want to quickly thank the

archdiocese of philadelphia over here. my hometown, philadelphia. thank you. [applause] if we could come in a little closer, we are coming to the end. thank you for staying. the next speaker, i think you will really want to hear. his story and his views are not something that you see a lot in the mainstream media. i will let him tell you where he is from and what he stands for. [applause] >> i am doug, and i am gay. for a very long time, i was pro- same-sex marriage. after all, it only seemed fair until i began to consider why i

supported it. i came to the following conclusion, marriage is and immutable term and we should not mess with it. when i was in minnesota a couple of weeks ago testifying before the state legislature, i heard the constant refrain, marriage is about love and commitment and responsibility. not exactly true. the state's sole in marriage is kids, period. that is the reason the institution exists. we should tremble in fear at the notion of on doing it. of course, children need both a father and a mother. this is a no-brainer. two men or two women in a relationship is not exactly the same as a man and a woman. kids need and serve both a mother and a father.

same-sex marriage will not redefine marriage, it will and init and unravel it so doing, will undefined children. this is not progressive legislation, this is a regressive worried -- regressive. . this is not the first time our society has undefined marriage. no fault of the force, --divor ce changed marriage from a permanent relationship to a temporary one. almost any child of divorce will tell you divorce was a tragedy in their lives. same-sex marriage will bring us further down that path, the bribing children of their right to a mom or a dad. as a gay man, i can say categorically, it is not homophobic to oppose same-sex

marriage. [applause] , it is very wise to maintain marriage as it has always been. to the supreme court, legislatures and jurors around the country, slow this train down. ignore the media relentless many factored urgency to institute same-sex marriage. slow down, put on the brakes. thank you. applause]d should pray for doug and others that are standing up. doug has toine what go through. spoke inez who just

france, we need to pray and support them in any way we can. our next speaker knows a little bit about proposition eight. he was the campaign manager for proposition eight. he is also the national organization for marriage is political director, our national political director. he led the fight in california and has met the national led the fight in many states afterwards. his name is frank schubert. >> it is great to be here. thank you so very much. as reminds me of the proposition eight campaign. it was an amazing experience to see people come together across every barrier and division, men and women, young and old, republican, democrats, independents, people of every race, people of every faith, people of no faith, they came together over seven million of

them, to pass proposition eight. thatthis is a movement shocked the world in 2008, but it has not been confined to california. over 50 million americans have stood up in over 30 states and cast their votes saying marriage is one man and one woman. we have a fundamental disagreement with those on the other side. our opponents said that marriage is a private relationship that simply is about love and commitment. we say, marriage is more than that. it is a very public institution. best way ofy's bringing men and women together, providing children with the

environment that they are most likely to thrive, and that is an environment with a mother and a father. now, we know that same-sex couples love their children. of coarse, they do. the reality is, a man can love his children but he can never be their mother. , willmother, naturally love her children, but she can never read their father. children do best when they have the love of both a mother and a father. in many ways, whether marriage should be preserved or not is not the real issue before the court today. the real issue is this, who gets to decide? debate was held in california concerning proposition eight. it was the most closely-watched campaign in the nation outside

of the presidential race. our side deployed 250,000 volunteers. millions of people. we campaigned in over 20 different languages. our opponents campaigned equally as vigorously. they spent $43 million communicating with california voters. the people of california heard both sides. they weighed the argument, and for the second time in a decade , they voted that marriage inuld be in law what it is reality, and that is the union of a man and a woman. [applause] now, this is a debate that is worth having. and i am confident, it is a debate that we will win. i hope and pray for the nation that as we go through this process, that people will come

to seek equally about what is at stake. do we really want a society where our laws actively encourage a child to be deprived of either her mother or her father intentionally? plea to the justices of the supreme court is this, let the democratic debate continue. let the people speak, and let the considered decision of over 7 million california voters be respected and be honored. thank you very much. ]cheers and applause >> please, everyone, come back in. we have more -- one more speaker. we are coming to the close.

thank you for sticking through the cold. is a key leader, the chinese church from chicago. is that you back there? thank you guys, thank you guys. all the way from chicago. [applause] dr. jim garlow was the leader of the pastors that helped fight for proposition eight. he is a key leader and defending marriage. we will close with him. >> if you are a follower of you callist, if yourself a christian, you care about what the bible has to say.

i acknowledge that some don't call themselves christian. they don't care what the bible has to say. i get that. if you are a follower of christ, you care what the bible has to say. no amount of historical theology one that marriage is between one man and one woman. when we start with genesis, we have a marriage between a male and a female, and we go to the end of the book and revelations where we have a wedding between a bride and a grim -- groom. in matthew, jesus says very clearly for this reason, we were created male and female. humanity comes together. by himself represents the full spectrum of the image of god. no female by herself represents

the full spectrum of the image of god. it is only as a male and a forme come together, they a union and the two become one, says jesus, quoting genesis and matthew, chapter 19. they become the creators with almighty god and act appropriations. , thousands of authentically biblical or the bash orthodox pastors across america will stand in their pulpit apart what is called the speech of movement.org, june 9, and they will flood this nation with the truth, the scriptural truth, that marriage is one man, one woman. why did god order it that way? , loves humanity, loves children, he loves family. he wants nations to be healthy. he wants communities to be healthy. i havey legitimacy

standing before you as a pastor. i have no authority, no power in the city at all, except the truth of the word of god. that is the authority i bring today. isn't it interesting that the supreme court would be one ofring obliterating the core aspects of the gospel of jesus christ on the week we were member the death of our lord upon the cross and we celebrate his following resurrection? incredibly sacred week, the court would try to flex their muscles against almighty god. no one can win, your arms are should -- too short to buck with god. what is spectacular about the

cross of christ jesus is that all of us through his death can have our sins forgiven, and we become into moving with compliance in the way of god. , weon the resurrection celebrate his lordship. as we acknowledge him as lord, our lives come into conformity with his word, his way, his will, which includes the definition of marriage. if you call yourself a christian or a follower of jesus, you will affirm what god says marriage is, one-man, one- woman. don't let anyone go to a church this weekend on a sunday and act like they celebrate the resurrection of jesus and then turn around and deny what god has established. let no one but us under. if i can paraphrase jesus in

matthew 19, what god has defined, no court can redefine. lause]s and app. i say to the members of the supreme court, i knowledge i am powerless in the city. i'd knowledge i have no authority, but i speak on the authority of the word of god. and everyone of us, including you, will stand before the chief justice of this universe, the ultimate supreme court, some day, and you will will be accountable if you defy his way s. we recommit ourselves to submit ourselves to the full authority of his word, his will, his way. we are going to pray right now. rather mean leading in prayer, i would like you to follow in that prayer with me, a brief prayer, where we declare the truth of god's word over the city and this nation.

follow me one phrase phrase of the time. god as our father, we decree and , onare this day, your will earth as it is in heaven, in including the definition of marriage in the city and over this nation, in jesus name we pray, amen. [applause] >> before we end, i do want to thank all of the speakers. i want to thank all of you, my wife, susan, who has put up with a lot. our kids are all here. i do what i do,

because of the future. as we end, as all the speakers come up, i want to ask you a question. will you stand? when those in the media say this is a lost cause? will you stand when friends and family be little something that you know is true? will you stand when some have words say such words as this is discrimination or bigotry to accept marriage as the union of a man and a woman? will you stand on the soldiers of giants that went before us, the great social movement of our time have not been easy. william whoand with stood against slavery in england, where the group was

mocked and was told that the death of the slave trade would never happen is time -- in his time? will you stand with those that were before us that said we are all created equal, with dignity and the civil rights movement for the truth? will you stand for the civil of the kids to have a chance to have both a mother and a father? this daystand up forward, for the truth that we are standing here today to proclaim, that marriage is a great and good thing and it's definition is simply, plainly and truthfully, the union of one man and one woman? will you stand?

god bless each and everyone of you for staying the entire time here. again, you can sign up. we will take our petition to the supreme court. i have word from inside the core that things went very well for our side. someone is listening to your prayers. someone is listening to your prayers. a lot of you have to get back to your buses. is here.iaz .od bless you today was a historic day. we are going to be back next year. [applause] in spanish] >> today, the second of two

same-sex marriage cases, the u.s. supreme court is considering this week. at the cato institute, former , the founderairman of freedom to marry for a discussion on gay marriage. that is live at one eastern on c-span 2. later in the day, georgetown university law school will take up the same topic. we will hear from same attorneys in the gay marriage cases. live coverage get started at 4 p.m. eastern, also on c-span 2. homeland security secretary, janet napolitano best -- yesterday talked about citizenship and immigration reform. you can watch her entire remarks at the christian science monitor at c-span.org. talk about including border security trigger that would have before a path to

citizenship can be opened. given what you said about the difficulty creating this metric for evaluating border security, how possible do you think a measure like that could be as part of a reform package? >> i think that once people look at the whole system and how it works, relying on one thing as the so-called trigger, is not the way to go. there needs to be certainty in the bill so that people know and when can legalize the pathway to citizenship would open up. there's also talk about getting in the back of the line. that is easier said than done, captivating with the line is at any given time, it moves. will have toments be made. i think the key thing is to have border security in the bill, to open up legal

migration, to deal with employers, and then to have certainty with how you deal 11 million who are illegal or undocumented depending on what your temporary is, come out of the shadows. >> today, the second of two same-sex marriage cases, the u.s. supreme court is considering this week. the court will look at whether the 1996 federal defense of marriage act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples should be struck down. andas passed by congress signed into law by president clinton. we bring you the oral argument here on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org at two eastern. >> the u.s. supreme court heard oral arguments in the first of two same-sex marriage cases this week. the first considers the prostitution out the of california's same-sex marriage

ban. proposition eight passed by voters in the 2008 election amended the state constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman in the state. charles cooper is arguing in favor of the ban. the court is it started to hand down its decision by the end of the term in june. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 12-144, hollingsworth v. perry. mr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- new york's highest court, in a case similar to this one, remarked that until quite recently, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived in any society in which marriage existed -- >> mr. cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue. >> i'd be happy to, mr. chief

justice. your honor, the official proponents of proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this court as representatives of the people and the state of california to defend the validity of a 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 a unanimous state's high court that -- >> well, this is -- this is -- the concern is certainly, the proponents are interested in getting it on the ballot and seeing that all of the proper procedures are followed, but once it's passed, they have no proprietary interest in it.

it's law for them just as it is for everyone else. so how are they distinguishable from the california citizenry in general? >> they're distinguishable, your honor, because the constitution of the state of california and its election code provide, according to the unanimous interpretation of the california supreme court, 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 the responsibility to defend the validity of that initiative -- >> i guess the attorney general of this state doesn't have any proprietary interest either, does he? >> no, your honor, nor did -- >> but he can defend it, can't he -- >> nor did -- >> because the law says he can defend it. >> that's right, your honor. nor did the legislative leaders in the karcher case have -- >> could the state -- >> any particular enforcement --

>> could -- could the state assign to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind? >> justice kagan, that would be a -- a very tough question. it's by no means the question before the court, because -- because it isn't any citizen, it's -- it is the -- it is the official proponents that have a specific and carefully detailed >> well, i just -- if you would on the hypothetical -- could a state just assign to anybody the ability to do this? >> your honor, i think it very well might. it very well might be able to decide that any citizen could step forward and represent the interests of the state and the people in that state -- >> well, that would be -- i'm sorry, are you finished? >> yes, your honor. >> ok. that may be true in terms of who they want to represent, but a state can't authorize anyone to proceed in federal court, because that would leave the definition under article iii of

the federal constitution as to who can bring -- who has standing to bring claims up to each state. and i don't think we've ever allowed anything like that. >> but, your honor, i guess the point i want to make is that there is no question the state has standing, the state itself has standing to represent its own interests in the validity of its own enactments. and if the state's public officials decline to do that, it is within the state's authority surely, i would submit, to identify, if not all -- any citizen or at least supporter of the measure, certainly those, that that very clear and identifiable group of citizens >> well, the chief -- the chief justice and justice kagan have given a proper hypothetical to test your theory. but in this case the proponents, number one, must give their official address, they must pay money, and they must all act in

unison under california law. so these five proponents were required at all times to act in unison, so that distinguishes -- and to register and to pay money for the -- so in that sense it's different from simply saying any citizen. >> but of course it is, and i think the key -- >> but can you tell me -- that's a factual background with respect to their right to put the ballot initiative on the ballot, but how does it create an injury to them separate from that of every other taxpayer to have laws enforced? >> your honor, the question before the court, i would submit, is not the injury to the individual proponents, it's the injury to the state. the legislators in the karcher case had no individual particularized injury, and yet this court recognized they were proper representatives of the

state's interests, the state's injury -- >> at least one of the amici have suggested that it seems counterintuitive to think that the state is going to delegate to people who don't have a fiduciary duty to them, that it's going to delegate the responsibility of representing the state to individuals who have their own views. they proposed the ballot initiative because it was their individual views, not necessarily that of the state. so -- >> well -- >> justice scalia proffered the question of the attorney general. the attorney general has no personal interest. >> true. >> he has a fiduciary obligation. >> the attorney general, whether it's a fiduciary obligation or not, is in normal circumstances the representative of the state to defend the validity of the state's enactments when they are challenged in federal court. but when that officer doesn't do so, the state surely has every

authority and i would submit the responsibility to identify particularly in an initiative -- an initiative context. >> why isn't the fiduciary duty requirement before the state can designate a representative important? >> your honor, i would submit to you that i don't think there's anything in article iii or in any of this court's decisions that suggest that a representative of a state must be -- have a fiduciary duty, but i would also suggest -- >> well, generally you don't need to specify it because generally the people who get to enforce the legislation of the government are people who are in government positions elected by the people. >> and, your honor -- >> here these individuals are not elected by the people or appointed by the people. >> and the california supreme court specifically addressed and rejected that specific argument.

they said it is in the context when the public officials, the elected officials, the appointed officials, have declined, have declined to defend a statute. a statute that, by the way, excuse me, in this case a constitutional amendment, was brought forward by the initiative process. the court said it is essential to the integrity, integrity of the initiative process in that state, which is a precious right of every citizen, the initiative process in that state, to ensure that when public officials -- and 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, then the initiative process would be invalidated. >> that's -- historically, i

think, 40 states, many states have what was called a public action. a public action is an action by any citizen primarily to vindicate the interest in seeing that the law is enforced. now, that's the kind of action i think that this court has interpreted the constitution of the united states, case in controversy, to say that it does not lie in the federal system. and of course, if that kind of action is the very kind that does not lie, well, then to say, but they really feel it's important that the law be enforced, they really want to vindicate the process, and these are people of special interests, we found the five citizens who most strongly want to vindicate the interest in the law being enforced and the process for making the law be enforced, well, that won't distinguish it from a public action. but then you say, but also they are representing the state. at this point, the dellinger brief which takes the other side

of it is making a strong argument, well, they are really no more than a group of five people who feel really strongly that we should vindicate this public interest, and have good reason for thinking it. so you have read all these arguments that it's not really the agent and so forth. what do you want to say about it? >> what i want to say, your honor, is according to the california supreme court, the california constitution says in terms that among the responsibilities of official proponents, in addition to the many other responsibilities that they step forward and they assume in the initiative process, among those responsibilities and authorities is to defend that initiative if the public officials which the initiative process is designed to control have refused to do it. it might as well say it in those terms, your honor. >> counsel, if you want to proceed to the merits, you should feel free to do so. >> thank you very much, your honor.

excuse me. as i was saying, the accepted truth -- excuse me. the accepted truth that the new york high court observed is one that is changing and changing rapidly in this country as people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. the question before this court is whether the constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all 50 states. and it does so only if the respondents are correct that no rational, thoughtful person of goodwill could possibly disagree with them in good faith on this agonizingly difficult issue. the issues, the constitutional issues that have been presented

to the court, are not of first impression here. in baker v. nelson, this court unanimously dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. >> mr. cooper, baker v. nelson was 1971. the supreme court hadn't even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. >> that is -- >> and the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so i don't think we can extract much in baker v. nelson. >> well, your honor, certainly i acknowledge the precedential limitations of a summary dismissal. but baker v. nelson also came fairly fast on the heels of the loving decision. and, your honor, i simply make the observation that it seems implausible in the extreme, frankly, for nine justices to have -- to have seen no

substantial federal question if it is true, as the respondents maintain, that the traditional definition of marriage insofar as -- insofar as it does not include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained, can only be explained, as a result of anti- gay malice and a bare desire to harm. >> do you believe this can be treated as a gender-based classification? >> your honor, i -- >> it's a difficult question that i've been trying to wrestle with it. >> yes, your honor. and we do not. we do not think it is properly viewed as a gender-based classification.

virtually every appellate court, state and federal, with one exception, hawaii, in a superseded opinion, has agreed that it is not a gender-based classification, but i guess it is gender-based in the sense that marriage itself is a gendered institution, a gendered term, and so in the same way that fatherhood is gendered more motherhood is gendered, it's gendered in that sense. but we agree that to the extent that the classification impacts, as it clearly does, same-sex couples, that classification can be viewed as being one of sexual orientation rather than -- >> outside of the -- 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? denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision? >> your honor, i cannot. i do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard. i think marriage is -- >> all right. if that is true, then why aren't they a class? if they're a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren't 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 as they could have? >> no, your honor, we certainly are not. we are saying the interest in marriage and the -- and the state 's interest and society's interest in what we have framed as responsible pro -- procreation is vital, but at bottom, with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated. but to come back to your precise question, i think, justice sotomayor, you're probing into whether or not sexual orientation ought to be viewed as a quasi-suspect or suspect class, and our position is that it does not qualify under this court's standard and traditional tests for identifying suspectedness. the class itself is quite amorphous.

it defies consistent definition as -- as the plaintiffs' own experts were -- were quite vivid on. it does not -- it does not qualify as an accident of birth, immutability in that -- in that sense. again, the plaintiffs -- >> so you -- so what -- i don't quite understand it. if you're not dealing with this as a class question, then why would you say that the government is not free to discriminate against them? >> well, your honor, i would think that -- i think it's a -- it's 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 test for suspectedness. and the hypothetical i

understood you to be offering, i would submit would create -- it would -- unless there's something that is not occurring to me immediately, an arbitrary and capricious distinction among similarly situated individuals, that is not what we think is at the -- at the root of the traditional definition of marriage. >> mr. cooper, could i just understand your argument. in reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite -- opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the state's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. is that basically correct? >> i -- your honor, that's the essential thrust of our -- our position, yes. >> is there -- so you have sort of a reason for not including same-sex couples.

is there any reason that you have for excluding them? in other words, you're saying, well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn't serve the state's interest. but do you go further and say that it harms any state interest? >> your honor, we go further in the sense that it is reasonable to be very concerned that redefining marriage to -- as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harms to that institution and to the interests that society has always used that institution to address. but, your honor, i -- >> well, could you explain that a little bit to me, just because i did not pick this up in your briefs. what harm you see happening and when and how and -- what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and effect work?

>> once again, i would reiterate that we don't believe that's 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 as a >> well, then are you conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? so you're conceding that. >> no, your honor, no. i'm not conceding that. >> well, but, then it -- then it seems to me that you should have to address justice kagan's question. >> thank you, justice kennedy. have two points to make on them. the first one is this -- the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences, and that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future

accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. and among those real-world consequences, your honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences. but consider the california voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. that is reason enough, your honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, i believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in massachusetts, the oldest state that is conducting it, to say, i think it bettefo