. >> 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

. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 12-144, hollingsworth v. perry. mr. cooper?k 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

hears oraleme court arguments tuesday in the hollingsworth v. perryase, the case challenging the constitutionality of california's same-sex marriage ban. two legal experts will debate their views on that issue. this is 90 minutes. >> you have a program that describes our panelists. both of them have filed briefs in the cases pending before the court. to my immediate left is paul smith, a partner of general and the block in washington, d.c.. among his notable achievements, he was the victorious council in lawrence versus texas. to his right is edward whelan with the public policy center. he was with the reagan administration -- >> i was in the bush administration. >> excuse me. not that old. the first case i will talk about is the one that will be argued tomorrow. it is called hollingsworth against perry. it began with the california supreme court ruling that as a matter of california state lot of laws banning same-sex marriages were unconstitutional with the california constitution. immediate become a process was begun in november, 2008, and the voter

today the plaintiffs in hollingsworth, perry v. y, more commonly known as the prop 8 case, showed what a family rooted in same-sex marriage actually looks like. it was impossible to miss the love there those two kids had for their parents, their mothers. political movements in reaction to them. for example, three key supreme court rulings in the 1950s, '60s and '70s had significant influence in building today's republican coalition. take brown versus board of education back in 1954. the civil rights decision helped shift the south to republican party. the 1962 supreme court decision banning organized prayer in public schools sparked the creation of the moral majority. and roev. wade, of course, in 1973 helped push cultural conservatives to the republican side. given that history, what the supreme court decides on prop 8 and the defense of marriage act as well which will be considered tomorrow, could have political implications stretching far beyond gays and lesbians who want to marry. brian silva. suppose court comes out with a narr

. >> 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 th

wade, now gay rights advocates are hoping hollingsworth v. perry becomes their landmark case.ase that the u.s. supreme court heard today on whether same-sex marriage should in fact be legal. and we're now getting this audio from inside the nation's highest court. let me play this for you. let me set this up, this exchange is between justice alina kagan and the attorney against same-sex marriage, charles cooper. >> mr. cooper, suppose a state said, because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses any more 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're over the age of 55. you don't help us serve the government's interests and regulate and 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 tra

hollingsworth v. perryfornia was constitutional. 212 is how many members of congress signed a brief asking the court to strike down doma or the defense of marriage act which narrowly defines marriage between a man and a woman. 131. that is the number of conservative leaders, yes, conservative leaders, that signed a brief asking the court to overturn california's prop 8. 61 is the percentage of california voters that now approve of same-sex marriage according to a recent field poll, and that is more than double the rate of california voters who supported same-sex marriage in 1977 when the question was first asked. 51 is the national percentage of american voters that support marriage equality in the latest national poll by nbc and the "wall street journal." that my friends, is a majority. 2 is the number of briefs that the obama administration has filed. one each, for the prop 8 and doma cases, and it's the first time that a u.s. president has come out in support for the rights of same-sex couples to the sup

the proposition 8 case which we're calling hollingsworth v. perry which is the case that david boies and i brought -- and you're right, it was almost four years ago. it was may of 2009 -- um, the attorney general, um, the then-attorney general and the governor of california agreed with us that the challenge to proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment which added to the california constitution a provision that said only marriage between a map and a woman -- a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in california. that was to overturn a california supreme court decision that had stricken down something called proposition 22 before that which was a statute that basically said the same thing. the california supreme court struck down proposition 22, and the family code provision that went with it, on the grounds that under california constitution under the due process clause and equal protection clause of the california constitution, that was an unconstitutional invasion of those rights of california citizens. that was in may of 2008, and

. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 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. officialr, the proponents of proposition, 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

a couple of legal experts at georgetown university law center to talk about those cases, hollingsworth v. perry and united states v. windsor. this event schedule to get underway shortly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [silence] [no audio] >> well, we wanted to bring you this event live. we are unable to. a government official in charge of health care innovation says he is the king of lower health spending as a result of changes in the way we pay for health services. he was one of the speakers at a forum hosted by an organization called catalyst for payment reform who have set a goal of having 20% of payments for health services being tied to value by the year 2020. by now the vast majority of payments are simply tied to individual services provided as opposed to patient outcomes. this is just over one hour. >> welcome, everyone. they fuel so much for coming today to hear about our nationals or card on payment reforms. well, everyone is dialing in to join. i will briefly showed the agenda on screen. of you have folders in front of you or those of yo