. >> tonight we go in depth on the proposition eight case. we start with david stevenson live in washington dc where he witnessed the oral arguments from inside the court. david. >> that's right. i sat in on the historic hearing on same sex marriage and witnessed powerful displays of emotion inside and outside 6 court. what's unclear is what the justices will do next. >> marriage, quality. >> same sex marriage made it it's which through the highest court in a burst of pride and protest outside the court. >> we are men and we are women. >> inside the court the nine justices heard arguments on california's proposition 8 same sex marriage ban. a case a justice called a trip into uncharted waters. the proposition 8 attorney took flack after telling the court marriage traditionally has served as a vehicle for procreation. >> if the states said that because we think that the focus of marriage should be on procreation, we aren't going to give licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. would that be constitutional. >> no

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 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

family groups say proposition 8 protects children through traditional marriage. as we look on even some conversatives say proposition 8 should be overturned, prominent republicans including meg whittman the hp leader, form -- lity todd whittman and clint east wood, they have all joined more than a hundred other republicans who support same sex marriage. though there are 41 states that are also involved in this case, only 20 of them have filed briefs defending the ban. there is a growing list of companies supporting same sex marriage saying it's good for business. the bay area firms on that list include clorax, gag. facebook and hp. >> tomorrow the high court considers the definition of marriage. >> i would like to -- legally get married where i'm recognized through all 50 states. >> the defense of marriage act and why the justices may take a different approach. ñsxóxgñ . >>> tomorrow the court considers a different question. the federal defense of marriage act and if the federal law defining marriage between a man and woman is constitutional. david stevenson from

the proposition takes it away. isn't that exactly what the proposition in colorado did? >> your honor, in romer, the court was dealing with a sweeping law that placed undifferentiated burdens and disqualifications on homosexuals across the board -- >> so if you take away a bunch of rights that's bad, but if you just take away one right, ok? >> your honor, it isn't a question of taking them away. the supreme court -- >> did or did not same-sex couples have the right to marry before the passage of proposition 8 in california? >> your honor, the california supreme court affirmed that they did, yes, and the people of california disagreed with that and the people of california reversed it. >> how is that different from what happened in colorado? a few local communities decided that they wanted to extend preferred status to individuals, homosexuals, gays, lesbians, etc., and the voters of passed a proposition saying you cannot do that, you have no right to do that, stop doing that. >> your honor, amendment 2 rendered homosexuals strangers to the law. it essentially eliminated

believe proposition 8 is constitutional. we believe the place to make the decision is with the people, not with the courts. >> [indiscernible] thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the general counsel for that protect marriage coalition. today we feel we clearly presented the winning case for marriage. lead the council did an outstanding job delivering the arguments with great rate. we would like to thank our supporters and the people that proposition 8 and have stuck with us to this long lengthy battle, and we look forward to a positive decision that will uphold the will of the people. ok. can you address some of the early questions -- [indiscernible] >> we are going to stand on the arguments we made in court today. we're not going to reargued the case on the sidewalk, but we the courtestions from were probing, but very good questions, very thoughtful questions for both sides, and we are going to see a reasoned decision from this court. >> their reaction to the questions inside was that the court was reluctant to issue a sweep

littlet speaker knows a bit about proposition 8. he was the campaign manager for proposition 8. he is also the national organization for marriage because the political director nationally. he has led the california fight and many state after. his name is frank schubert. [applause] >> it is great to be here. thank you so marriage -- so very much. it reminds me of a proposition 8 campaign. it is amazing to see every -- to see people come across every barrier, men and women, young and old, independent and republicans and democrats, people of faith and people of no faith. they came together, over 7 million of them to pass proposition 8. the mall hereon in washington, d.c., organized to oppose same-sex marriage with demonstrations on both sides of the issue rally at our nation's capital. this event continues live at our website c-span.org and all of the morning's events. all are the mall here in available at our website c-span.org. we're going to break away from this live coverage to take you inside the supreme court for this morning's oral arguments, the first of two days on the iss

to get proposition 8 on the ballot. is the head of the said committee on marriage. and the archbishop of san francisco. come on. we can do better than that. >> my brothers and sisters and friends, right now we're at the center of the country. a lot of people are watching us right now. a lot of people are watching us to disagree with us. i want to begin with words to those who are watching you disagree with us. i want to speak on behalf of all of us. i want to say we love you. we are your neighbors. we want to be your friends. we want you to be happy. we do not hate you. we're not motivated by bigotry. it is not our intent to offend anyone and never have i apologize. i would ask that you try to listen to is fairly and tries to understand our position as we will try to do the same for you. to all of you, my brothers and sisters gathered here, thank you for your presence here, you're courageous support in defending this defining issue of our day. it takes courage to stand up for the natural meaning of marriage. why are we

so the attorney defending proposition 8, his name is charles cooper.argued that the institution of same-sex marriage is so new that the court would be wise to use caution at which point justice kennedy raised another factor. we've got audio from the arguments so let's listen to one section there. >> i think that there's substantial... there's substance to the point that sociological information is knew. 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. that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california according to the 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

that you reject 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 fro

proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people. it hurts case and lesbians in california and the children we are raising, and for no good freezing. it is our hope that we can afford and remove this harm from society so gays and lesbians in california can go back to their lives living equally alongside their neighbors with the same rights and protections as everyone else. >> historic that the supreme court, the justices hear the first of two cases involving same-sex marriage. they appeared divided on whether to overturn california's proposition 8. >> traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. same-sex marriages very new. i think was first adopted in the netherlands in 2000. so there is not a lot of data about it. it may turn out to be a good thing, and may turn out not to be a good thing as the supporters of proposition 8 apparently believe. horrocks we will play recordings of some of the justice questions in speak to a married same-sex couple from california leading the fight for equality and look at today's case

let's begin with proposition 8 before the court.fessor, constitutionally, hat is happening here? guest: well, the supreme court may decide or not to decide -- in california the people decided they were going to overturn the california supreme court's decision. the california supreme court under the state constitution, violated equal protection not to allow gay couples to get married and the people of california have the sovereign authority to overturn that, but there's still a question now whether the federal constitution permits them to do that. if the supreme court decides the case on the merits, they could fail to reach the merits, they could decide broadly or narrowly, but there's a possibility they could decide for the entire country that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected. host: on all those options, run through us constitutionally what's going to be pointed to, argued, on both sides? guest: right. so one possibility is they don't reach the merits. they say the people who don't appeal the case have a vested stake

cooper is making about proposition 8 don't hold water in california. can't argue about adoption or morality because california has already approved civil union so it's made those policy decisions. but he has stressed throughout his argument that marriage means something. he said, for example, the court in loving versus virginia back in 17, cldhave sa to interracial couples, you can't have marriage but you can have interracial unions. that, he said, everybody would know is wrong. marriage is status. it's recognition. it's support. >> woodruff: that was of course the case that said that interracial marriage was legal. marcia, finally, what should we take away from today and what bearing from what we heard today have on tomorrow's case that they're going to hear, the defense of marriage act which is that marriage, the federal law that requires that marriage be between a man and a woman some. >> you know, judy, i don't ever redict on he basi o or guments. it's way too risky. sort of my gut reaction here to the court's argument and questions were that they'

. >> proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people. it's our hope that we can move forward and remove this harm from society so that gays and lesbians in california can go back to their life living equally alongside their neighbors with the same rights and protections as everyone else. >> i look forward to the day where i can be married to the person i love and start a family like chris and sandy have. it's as simple as that. it's our constitutional right and i cannot wait to start my family with jeff. >> we believe that proposition 8 is constitutional and that the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts. >> we have complete coverage of today's proceedings with nbc justice correspondent, pete williams. human rights campaign president, chad griffin, who led the opposition of prop 8 in california. >> we have gone from the district court in northern california over the four years, all the way here to washington today before the united states supreme court. and we are all caut

with the justices listening to the oral arguments on known as proposition 8. we will break down what we can expect from a high court. but first, we will hear from erica on our weather. >> currently we are in the 40's and '50's. we are saying of the 30's. into the afternoon you can inspect partly cloudy conditions and yes, we do hold on to the potential of sprinkles. we do have a chance of showers for the weekend. we do have a lot to talk about in my extended forecast. >> the metering lights have not yet been activated at the bay bridge toll plaza. we do not see a back of filling in. the drive time is still in 11 minutes. the heaviest traffic is still wants to beef, and as a 580. it is a little slow for 101 but overall it is like conditions. >> the time is 6:00 a.m.. despite the frigid temperatures, the line of people waiting outside the u.s. supreme court continues to grow this morning as the court looks to take up the first two cases regarding same-sex marriage. >> the justices are listening toll oral arguments today on proposition 8, calif. california is ban

as the supreme court ponders whether to let proposition 8 stand. proponents of same sex marriage say acceptance has start today reach the suburbs. -- started to reach the suburbs. it was in those areas where it had the most support but some say that's changing. >> i hope so. i mean all the surveys and things that i've read. people are becoming more accepting. you know, i'm no different than you or me. i own a home. i have a pet. and i work. you know. so when people you know, there's a family member or a friend or a co-worker, i think people are more accepting. >> reporter: brenda lynn goodall got married during the brief period when gay marriage was legal. she said when president obama changed his stance on gay marriage it went a long way in winning people over. >> i think when he changed his mind, i think he was saying that you know i know friends and family members that are lbgt and there's no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as i do. >> reporter: but that argument hasn't convinced everyone. we spoke to people here in walnut creek w

they will be hearing for proposition for and against proposition 8. the people against a say the ban on gay marriage in california which was an active in 2008 says it violates their equal protection under the 14th amendment. they say that their equal rights have been violated because marriage is being defined as only between a man and a woman. that is what is happening inside of the courts as we speak. i tell you very lively outside the court as well. >> that is what i was wondering. we see something that is highly charged emotional like this a lot of times we will see police barricades to keep the two sides apart. what you see up there as far as that goes? >> i can tell you there is a police presence. every once in awhile you do hear sirens. so far, things have been peaceful. no incident that i know of at this point. people are out there and they are voicing their opinions. it seems that everyone is being respectful of each other which is good, it is what we want. >> hi we find out what is happening in the court our the next hour. i it >> we have to

they're not getting rid of proposition 13, but reforming proposition 13. >> let's lighten it up little bit and talk about a few more -- >> union proposition 13 isn't funny? [laughter] >> you make it funny. a couple questions from the audience. ist me start with this -- humor and her liberal? >> no, i do not think it is inherently liberal, but you find more liberal people funnier -- look at south park. those guys, they are equal opportunity satirists. this to the right and the left. -- they skew the right and left. i generally find liberals are funnier because liberal means open. conservative means to conserve, you keep things as they are. liberals means opening up yourself to all the different possibilities. when you do that, there is more of an opportunity to find what is funny about the world. >> somebody in the audience -- we talked about this backstage, one of my favorite movies, "the princess bride," which is such a charming movie -- you're proud of that because it indoors. >> last year, we had its 21st -- 25th anniversary. we had a celebration at the lincoln center. what a thrill

constitution. >> austin nimocks is defending proposition 8. part of the legal team. >> to say proposition 8 discriminates, you would have to say that marriage laws and marriage from the very beginning of civilization only existed to discriminate against gays and lesbians and we know that's not the case. >> he says it's not a matter of discrimination but rather of definition and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman for one main reason. >> we have marriage laws because we have children. and marriage laws attach men and women to each other and legally to the children that they bring forth. >> so do you think the olson boies case is pure overreach? >> ultimately the sovereignty in this country belongs in the hands of their people and their democratically elected representatives and that's where we need to keep this debate. >> that debate in the states has resulted in a seismic shift in support of same-sex marriage and some argue the court needs to just stay out of the way. >> my real worry is that we, gay people, gay americans, lose th

first, the backers of proposition 8.l get 30 minutes to argue for the ban on same- sex marriage. then the opponents of prop 8, which will be the attorneys for the couples that filed the original challenge, will get 20 - minutes to argue that the ban is unconstitutional. the final 10 minutes are reserved for the u-s solicitor general. who will argue against prop 8. on the behalf of the obama administration. a final ruling will be handed down in june. stay with kron four as we continue to follow the same sex marriage hearings in washington today. we will be providing updates on kron4.com. as well as our 24-seven channel comcast 193. you can also check our facebook and twitter pages as well. watching the weather this morning as we take a look from our mount tam cam. erica is standing by with a look at our forecast, good morning erica. >> good morning, anny we do have unsettled conditions. it is a bit breezy temperatures and 50's. as i mentioned the temperatures are not that bad. although we're off to a cooler start. in an w

. >> we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of california. >> it is impossible to know with any certainty the changes that would be worked on society by redefining a fundamental institution like marriage. >> the debate over california's ban on same-sex marriage finally makes it to the highest court. good morning, everyone, i am eric thomas. >> supreme court justices heard oral arguments this morning on the constitutionality of prop 8, some say it was san francisco's move to marry same-sex couples in 2004 that gave birth to the voter approved ban. abc7 news reporter is live at the supreme court in washington, dc. >> it is a remarkable scene here at the supreme court, a sea of people lined up to witness history. inside the court, the nine justices weighing in on the explosive issue of same-sex marriage. >> today, the supreme court is examining the definition of marriage. the justices heard oral arguments in a case challenging california's proposition 8 that amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marr

have 30 minutes to argue for proposition 8. they're hoping for seats - so they can hear arguments on prop 8 tuesday. and on wednesday - the arguments over the defense of marriage act. >> the general is now involved making a decision on the white house. >> the professor royal little things that this is significant. >> this is a level of seriousness this is not just a state case it is raised to the level of national significance. >> reporter: the justices will not rule until the month of june but they will not present this as this could likely lead to the legalization of proposition 8 only in the state of california or make this just in california. or they could rule that proposition 8 would be unconstitutional. or, they could make it proposition 8 would be national or it could be upheld as a band of same-sex marriage. >> i would say that they would say that proposition 8 is not valid. anthony kennedy will be the deciding vote. little has been argued for some time. chief justice, john roberts could be the deciding voter. >> he ha

supreme court on california's proposition 8 should be wrapping up just about now. marsh joining us live in front of the supreme court building. are you hearing anything? what are you hearing? >> reporter: yes, actually, we are -- we're getting word from our producer inside the courthouse that just minutes ago, the oral arguments wrapped up. they are done for today as it relates to this case for and against proposition 8. of course, they will be back here again tomorrow for another case involving same-sex marriage. but again, at this hour, we can tell you the oral arguments are wrapped up. a lot of people out here, a lot of chanting, a lot of dialogue between those for and against same-sex marriage. frigid temperatures and snow didn't matter. the line of people waiting outside of the u.s. supreme court continues to grow all for a seat to witness supreme court justices take up same-sex marriage. tuesday, same-sex marriage couples from california are challenging the state's proposition 8 passed in 2008, it bans same-sex marriage. california voters approved the ban but

it reminds me of a proposition 8 campaign. it is amazing to see every -- to see people come across every barrier, men and women, young and old, independent and republicans and democrats, people of faith and people of no faith. they came together, over 7 million of them to pass proposition 8. the mall hereon in washington, d.c., organized

bus loads of proposition 8 supporters rallied in the capitol. there are no reports of injuries or arrests. one group travel from north carolina to be there. >> the fate of proposition 8 now rests with the supreme court. david stevenson was inside. >> reporter: it was nine years in the making. the hearing today was at times very fast moving, 80 minutes in all and also very pointed. take a look at the sketches of what the courtroom looked like. justices took up if prosecutors had the standing to even bring the case to court but one said they had questions about if such bans were constitutional and the role of procreation in marriage. >> there is considerable disagreement among some as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single sex family, whether that is harmful to the child. >> my gut says we will have to come back again because this is not good enough just to make a case for california. we have to make the case for all human being that live in this country. >> reporter: california lieutenant governor the man who was responsible for

the court hearing arguments over california's proposition 8 which band same sex marriage. it is the first of two days of hearings on the subject. fox news supreme court correspondent shannon bream with our report. >> reporter: following argument today, the supreme court must now decide whether or not to uphold the wishes of california voters who, in 2008, ratified an initiative known as prop 8. it amended the california constitution to limit valid an legally recognized marriages to only those between 1 man and one woman. a number of the justices today asked why individual states shouldn't be able to make their own decisions about the relatively new concept including samuel alito who said the idea of same sex marriage is newer than cell phones and the internet. >> on the question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people? either asking through initiatives and refer recommends or through their elected public officials. >> reporter: after california's attorney general and governor opted not to defend prop 8 in court, supporters of the

proposition 8, california's ban on gay marriage and doma.t. the court's decision expected later this year. >>> prosecutors say a senior terror leader captured at sea nearly two years ago has turned out to be an intelligence watershed. in papers unsealed in court monday it was revealed that 25-year-old ahmed warsami pleaded guilty to being a commander in a somali terror group with ties to al qaeda in yep be. intelligence officials say he provided enormously valuable information about terror training, operatives and potential plots. >>> this will go down as the lost week of spring. the powerful snowstorm has moved out but another cold day is shaping up in many parts of the country. people from the midwest eastward are dealing with snow, slush and that ice storm from yesterday in parts of the south are under a freeze warning as well. lottery officials waiting for the winner of a $338 million powerball jackpot. >> here he is. >> pedro p-e-y-d-r-o. the fourth largest lottery jackpot there. that man pedro quezada caused a frenzy where the winning

he is part of the legal team defending proposition 8. andy pugno, welcome. >> good evening. >> scott: it's been nine years since gavin newsom issued marriage licenses at city hall. a lot has changed. the shift is to the support for gay marriage. we have seen prominent republicans come out in support of it. how does that change your job next week before the supreme court? >> really, it doesn't and shouldn't effect what is a legal case that we are looking at interpretation of the u.s. constitution. things like public opinion polls and the political pressure that could be brought to bear really are not -- that's just not for a legal case like this. >> scott: you think the justices are more or less immune to that? >> i think the justices are used to being sucked into a political debate. their limited role as judges to interpret law. >> scott: what is the thing you and your team have to make sure the justices hear on tuesday? >> one of the most important things is the justices realize this is not just an issue of marriage, but states' rights

supreme court on california's proposition 8 should be wrapping up just about now.s live in front of the supreme court building. are you hearing anything? what are you hearing? >> reporter: yes, actually, we are -- we're getting word from our producer inside the courthouse that just minutes ago, the oral arguments wrapped up. they are done for today as it relates to this case for and against proposition 8. of course, they will be back here again tomorrow for another case involving same-sex marriage. but again, at this hour, we can tell you the oral arguments are wrapped up. a lot of people out here, a lot of chanting, a lot of dialogue between those for and against same-sex marriage. frigid temperatures and snow didn't matter. the line of people waiting outside of the u.s. supreme court continues to grow all for a seat to witness supreme court justices take up same-sex marriage. tuesday, same-sex marriage couples from california are challenging the state's proposition 8 passed in 2008, it bans same-sex marriage. california voters approved the ban but challengers arg

so that is one of the issues in the proposition 8 case that we will be arguing on march 26th. ..or whether they won't. if they do, what kind of an argument will they make. we'll find out on thursday. in the meantime, there were 40 some amicus briefs filed on the side of the opponent in the perry case and at least that many filed this thursday sporting our -- supporting our position in the case including there was a new york "new york times" story a former republican party office holders who signed up in supporting our position in the case, which is a bit of a man bytes dog kind of a thing. [laughter] at least some people think that. we have a brief that so far has over sixty major corporations. saying that proposition 8 should be struck down as unconstitutional as damage together employees, damaging to the workplace and that sort of thing. there are a lot of interesting amucus briefs filed. that's a short summary. i hope it's short enough on the standing and merit of proposition 8 case. >> at this event three years ago, i had something unfortunately rare for me, that is my mind w

proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people.esbians in california, and it hurts the children we're raising, and it does so for no good reason. it is our hope that we can move forward and remove this harm from society so that gays and lesbians in california can go back to their lives living equally alongside their neighbors with the same rights and protections as everyone else. thank you all very much. >> hi. my name is paul katami, and for me, from the beginning, this case has been about securing the right to marry the person that i love and also having the equal access to the most important relationship that i know in life, and that's marriage. so i simply look forward to the day where i can be married to the person i love and start a family like chris and sandy have. it's as simple as that. it's our constitutional right, and i cannot wait to start my family with jeff. >> hello. i'm jeff cerilzarrillo. we're so pleased to present our case to the united states supreme court today. it's been the dull minutaticulm long journey, an

the other one to thing about is that the proposition eight case came out of california. it was passed just four years ago. by 52% of the vote. if it had been on the ballot last november, it is very likely it would not have passed. it's a very blue state. so public opinion is just moving at such a clip. that the politicians are scrambling to catch up with it. >> the southern states, because what we've seen in polls is that there's still a division between the north and south on this issue. and that people who live in the north are much more likely to support same-sex marriage than in the south. but several of the people who you're referring to -- >> isn't that what the civil war was about? [laughter] >> several of the people you have referred to are in southern states now. >> one of the things you're see something that there is a difference between democratic politicians and republican politicians. the people who doyle mentioned are all democrats, two of them just got through elections. during the election campaigns they were not in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

a look at the proposition 8 case. you will hear from some of the key players and a look at the future of same sex marriage. >>> you will find a special section on the proposition 8 case on the website. ktvu.com. we are also posting the audio tapes the session and you can read the transcripts as well. those are also in the special section. >> the court listened to arguments today it also issued a ruling on a different case. the court decided police cannot bring drug sniffing dogs onto someone's property without a search warrant. the decision upheld a ruling by the florida court which threw out a case in which a police dog went ono alert while sitting on the front porch of a home. >>> lawmakers, business owners and faith based os gaithered to speak out in favor of immigration reform. they met to detail the plan. the event is part of a nationwide lea boar backed campaign. they said it supports legislation that provides a clear path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the united states illegally. >> people in san

at the same time, proposition eight was decided by referendum.his is as about as direct as democracy can be in a constitutional republic. shouldn't these justices be wary of messing with it? >> look, not only is it the law in california but in 29 other states. it has only failed to or three times. depending upon how you define failure across the country. this is states, even many democratic states are several democratic states have these kinds of laws. the question, they may be reticent to overturn in sweeping fashion which is what the folks against the law want, sweeping fashion to put something out. if they do that it would be rather chaotic. lou: then how chicken would it be of this court test send it back. i know these are terms that are little elegant, but nonetheless. to send this thing back to the ninth circuit and let stand their reversal of proposition eight. again, a democratic results from a democratic process. your thoughts. >> in fact, that was, i think, the news out of the court today, several of the justices questioned whether or n

supreme court on proposition eight. >> an 11 month old baby, in the back of her mother's car. stolen from the family home. tonight the baby is safe and the search continues for the suspect. >> thousands of people rally in san francisco. supporting same-sex marriage. on the night before proposition 8. take the spotlight in front of the u.s. supreme court. this is video from our helicopter partnership with a-b-c 7 news. kron 4's dan kerman shows us the optimism here in the bay area. that has some people believing the supreme court's ultimate decision on california's ban on same sex marriage. will be historic and in their favor. >> reporter: supporters of very cheap quality took to the street >> things are changing in this country. >> my partner and i want to get married in october of. >> some of those are already married before proposition . however, we were not recognized from the government. they are optimistic that the ultimate ruling would be in their favor. the majority of the favors support same-sex marriage. >> it every day i get more and more optimistic things have been

as the supreme court ponders whether to let proposition 8 stand. proponents of same sex marriage say acceptance has start today reach the suburbs. -- started to reach the suburbs. it was in those areas where it had the most support but some say that's changing. >> i hope so. i mean all the surveys and things that i've read. people are becoming more accepting. you know, i'm no different than you or me. i own a home. i have a pet. and i work. you know. so when people you know, there's a family member or a friend or a co-worker, i think people are more accepting. >> reporter: brenda lynn goodall got married during the brief period when gay marriage was legal. she said when president obama changed his stance on gay marriage it went a long way in winning people over. >> i think when he changed his mind, i think he was saying that you know i know friends and family members that are lbgt and there's no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as i do. >> reporter: but that argument hasn't convinced everyone. we spoke to people here in walnut creek w

we believe proposition 8 is constitutional. i think the most remarkable thing that happened in there, was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. two of the plaintiffs challenging the law are a couple from berkeley raising their four boys together. we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of california. it hurts gays and lesbians in california, it hurts the children we are raising and it does so for no good reason on behalf of myself and twin brother, say how incredibly proud we are of our parents. we love them, we love our family, look forward to the day when treated equally, families >> catherine: many of the same partisans will be back outside the court tomorrow: that's when the justices will hear arguments for and against the defense of marriage act. doma, as it's known - is the federal law defining marriage as a legal condition available only to >> pam: right now -- a rally is

. >> the court heard from both sides of the proposition 8 debate. it is a california law that bans a marriage. the states have legalized gay marriage and 18,000 couples to compliance. this couple helped to bring the case before the court in the hope of ending proposition 8. >> this case has been about securing the right to marry the person that i love. and also having the equal access to the most important relationship i know in life and that is marriage. >> inside the court, there was a sense that the justices might not be in the mood for sweeping changes. >> i is what -- i was wondering if the case was properly granted. the proposition 8 is constitutional and a place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriages with the people. >> the court has a number of ways it could decide. one includes dismissing the case altogether. >> this is the line for the next big day. the justices take on the defense of marriage act. it is a federal law that defines marriage is only between a man and woman for tax and benefits purposes. the two cases befo

after hearing oral arguments on proposition 8, california's ban on same-sex marriage, the nine justices were forced to confront the very meaning of marriage. the lawyer defending prop 8, charles cooper, says the ban doesn't violate the constitutional rights of same-sex couples, but cooper acknowledged that the country's understanding of marriage is changing rapidly, he says evolution should continue without the supreme court's interference. as mother jones put it, cooper was supposed to argue that california had a legitimate interest other than simple bigotry in banning same-sex couples in getting married. he difficult finding one. cooper found that marriage is about pro creation, but justice elena kagan challenged this argument. >> if you arory the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating pro creation, 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 relationship are infer tile. >> i can assure you if both the women and man are over 55, th