he is currently is a supreme court correspondent for the national law journal and his work on the supreme court insider is a must read for anyone that wants to figure out what is going on in the court today. so with that, the program is yours. >> thanks very much. a very kind introduction and thanks also for your work on this panel. it's great for me to be here as a moderator of this event. i've written enthusiastically about every author here and buy a big fan of anybody that sheds more light on the supreme court and we have all done great job of that. and thank you to the audience for attending and also to c-span and book tv for being here as well. this should be tough on our. we are here to serve and explores the category that seems to be growing. books both nonfiction and fiction about the supreme court of the united states. the supreme court doesn't seem to come off much during the presidential debates, but it certainly does generate a lot of books. i can tell that from the pile of books on my desk that comes in unfortunately. the authors we have illustrate the work about the supreme

supreme court. the author examines the recent position of four justices in the past five years and how it has affected the court's decision on numerous cases. including the recent ruling on health care. it is about one hour. >> hello, everyone. thank you so much for being here. in my case this happens to be true. i am not myself from philadelphia, but my dad, he was. [applause] all right, the pandering has just begun. don't worry. curtis institute that is where he went and he went to temple as well. he said the streets were paved with opportunity here, and i have enjoyed my visits ever since. i'm really happy to be talking about "the oath." it only came out two days ago. so far so good. no, it is exciting. we work on these books than you think, wow, people are actually reading them. it is exciting. let me start by asking first question on her mind, which is who is your favorite justice? [laughter] >> is madeleine at canaan. >> it's not elena kagan. for so long, my favorite justice was david souter.

supreme court the debate over same-sex marriage. >>pam: a new job reports is showing a big drop in unemployment. last month, 146-thousand jobs were added in the u-s. right now the unemployment rate is 7-point-7 percent. do note that does not include people who have stopped looking for work. even though -- it's the lowest percentage in 4- years. kron 4's justine waldman has a closer look at employment growth here in the bay area. and shows us where the jobs >> according to the california employment development department. there are jobs in the bay area. you just need to know where nat ruth kavanagh's job is to watch the job numbers. she tells me. the latest figures show the labor >> some growth is recovery from the downturn that we had, some is net job growth higher numbers than we have seen in the past. >> to see where the jobs are. breaking it down by area.and start in the east bay. where jobs were added in private schools and health care. in the south bay, hiring happening in retail, business services and leisure and hospitality.

organizations, and so on, and in the early decades of the 20th century, that began to shift as the supreme court applieded the national constitutional establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment against the states or centralizing debates about religion. >> host: but if the states had the control, it's written into the constitution, freedom of religion. >> guest: we did, indeed, but the first amendment begins congress shall enact no law. it was addressed only to the national government. >> host: were there restrictions by different states on religion? >> guest: oh, yes, there were. several states had religious establishments and most states limited the amount of property a religious organization could own, some taxed religious property. others banned given groups practices. for example, eventually, various states in the southwest banning polygamy, for example. >> host: so when it came to massachusetts, talk about massachusetts or pennsylvania, we're here in pennsylvania, as a case study of states, regulating religion. >> guest: sure. pennsylvania, for example, had an acti

supreme court. i had no woman teacher. that was unheard of. what was law school like? in the not so good old days. well, my class numbered over 500, and of those, nine were women. how did we feel? well, we thought all eyes were on this, so we better be prepared because if we weren't, it would reflect not only on ourselves but on all women. to see the difference, i will tell you about -- a colleague of mine at columbia law school, women are in law school in numbers. this great professor said, i think it's great that we have so many women, but i have a certain long for the way it was. when the class was moving slowly and you needed a crisp, bright answer, you called on the woman your she was always prepared. [laughter] she would give you the right answer and then you could move on. well, nowadays there's no difference. [laughter] and women are as unprepared -- [laughter] as the man. one final note. the law school that i attended had to teaching buildings. only one of them had a women's bathroom, so if

we were called the no-hit supremes.ords we had that first number one record which was "where did our love go" and we had a couple more which was a total of 12. i remember when berry said we put you with our top writing team. we were like yes, oh, wow. they were great. smokey robinson produced a lot of them. speaking of berry gordy, he has a new play that will be on broadway. i cannot wait to see it. i am very happy. i know that he worked very hard on that. i am very happy about that. motown got behind us and give us what we needed. they trained as which a lot of times people today, they make all this money, more money than we ever made. they do not have that training before hand as we did. we did a lot of workshops. when we have that first number one record we were already professionals. tavis: i am glad you said that. when the first hit came seven records in, -- >> look who is laughing now? i am sorry. i did not mean that. tavis: when they first hit came, you are ready for it. it also said something about motown. you g

supreme court to take up same-sex marriage.ourt agreed to hear a challenge to the defense of marriage act. a provision limits the range of health, pension and tax benefits. the acts was passed in 1996 and signed into law by former president bill clinton. they were plaintiffs in the 2008 lawsuit that claimed california's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution. >> love knows no difference. and so when a human loves another human being they should have that right and that freedom to marry. >> they have been together for 25 years. more coverage of the decision, including an interview with gavin newsom, go to www.ktvu.com. >>> new at 10:00 p.m., a new way to gauge the economy during the holidays. ktvu's maureen naylor is live where the company christmas party moved out of the lunch room. >> reporter: tonight several venues tell us the holiday party is making a come back. >> reporter: bartenders uncorked the wine where a start up hosted a christmas party for employees. >> everybody is hands on. nice to be able to

texas from the rest of john lawrence and tyron garner, to justice can is reading of the supreme court decision in 2003. the ruling that same-sex sexual activity legal in all u.s. states and territories and paved the way for same-sex marriage laws. >> host: you've written a fine book on the supreme court case of lawrence v. texas, a book that tells the story from the beginning to the end. let me begin with sort of a big picture of question at the end. why is the lawrence case important? >> guest: i would say this is probably one of the most important civil rights decisions or constitutional individual liberty decisions from the supreme court over the past 50 years or so. and it's the most important decision so far for the rights of gay men and lesbians. so this is an opinion that is important a great many people, and i think will be longer but

supreme court agrees to take up the issue of same-sex marriages. (male announcer) live from the kron 4 news station, this is the kron 4 news. >>pam: two people are dead in a head=on collision in eastern contra costa county. the horrific high speed accident near byron seen here in this sky7hd video from abc7news he took his own life after being arrested in a child molesting case. now we are learning more about the serious allegations against a middle bay. >> and backers and opponents of same sex marriages welcoming today's announcement that the u=s supreme court to rule on california's >> this is a case about fundamental fairness. >>pam: tonight at eight. the c-h-p is investigating a deadly crash in a rural part of the east county. two people. including a child. are dead. kron-4's j-r stone is here with the latest details. j.r.? >> this is a tragic this is a video from the bc 7 high- definition the news. this maker of mass, the blue sedan crossed over the center line. and the collision, the 21 year-old female driver was air lifted but idied and the

supreme court.lk to legal peshthss about what that means and a head-on big rig crash has left two people dead including a child. . >> geshgs i'm gasia mikaelian and i'm ken wane. walting the now over, we know

they never really needed to the supreme court of the united states the because the states were still in howard. >> professor gordon, when did the first major religious case come before the supreme court? >> the cases from the federal territory had come in the 19th century and questions of polygamy and that some of the state's and the major cases made it to the court in the late 1930's and early 1940's, really that new deal era and they tended not to be so much the salvation army of the jehovah's witness who also caused a lot of troubles. >> what was one of those cases? walk us through. >> well a very interesting case called cantwell against connecticut's involved a group of what this is that had gone into a catholic neighborhood in new haven on a sunday morning and begin planning anticatholic records on a portable photographs and distributing literature and they were a arrested for disturbing the peace if preaching without a permit and they appealed their case all the way to the supreme court which said the because conn said individual cities administrators will decide what a valid p

supreme court to take up same-sex marriage. the court agreed to hear a challenge to the defense of marriage act. a provision limits the range of health, pension and tax benefits. the acts was passed in 1996 and signed into law by former president bill clinton. they were plaintiffs in the 2008 lawsuit that claimed california's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution. >> love knows no difference. and so when a human loves another human being they should have that right and that freedom to marry. >> they have been together for 25 years. more coverage of the decision, including an interview with gavin newsom, go to www.ktvu.com. >>> new at 10:00 p.m., a new way to gauge the economy during the holidays. ktvu's maureen naylor is live where the company christmas party moved out of the lunch room. >> reporter: tonight several venues tell us the holiday party is making a come back. >> reporter: bartenders uncorked the wine where a start up hosted a christmas party for employees. >> everybody is hands on. nice to be ab

richard, the supreme court has choices of cases it could take here. it decided to take these two, doma and proposition 8. why do you think they took these and not others? >> you know, after this election, this issue is so ripe for the supreme court the jurisdictions are so split in their laws, many states recognizing same-sex marriage and performing same-sex marriages. some states not recognizing them. this is the perfect scenario for the supreme court to step in and ultimately make a ruling. there are over 1,000 cases, joe, in which federal laws are impacted by marital status.

we're waiting on news from the supreme court. they could finally decide to take up the issue of gay marriage today. next in the spinning, boehner and obama one on one. watch out, mr. speaker. you know the president knows how to drive to the hoop. "the cycle" rolls on friday, december 7th. two years ago, the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care

supreme court. justices have decided to hear two constitutional challenges to federal and state laws. one case involves the federal defense of marriage act, which denies federal benefits to same sex couples legally married in their own state. the other is a challenge to california's prop 8, which took away the right of same sex marriage that had been previously approved by state courts. >>> florida governor charlie crist completed his political transformation. crist was elected governor as a republican in 2006, then later ran for the senate as an independent. he campaigned for president obama, and spoke at the democratic national convention. he's now officially a democrat and is widely expected to run for governor again in 2014. >>> south africa's beloved nelson mandela is getting tests in a hospital. the country's president says no cause for alarm there. he says the 94-year-old mandela is getting tests consistent with his age. the nobel laureate became his nation's first black president. >>> the fb

when the supreme court alters ed icourse of the nation, names are etched in history. ralessy v. ferguson" endorsed inial segregation; "brown v. board of education" ended it in hat ation. today we learned that the next name to make civil rights history may be "hollingsworth v. willy." her court said it will hear the case which could decide whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. the case centers on a ban on 20me-sex marriage that was passed by california voters in 2008. john blackstone has our lead from san francisco. >> reporter: for five months in 2008, same-sex couples in california could marry legally. then voters passed proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. when gay couples challenged prop 8, both the state supreme court and the federal ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. many supporters of same-sex marriage were hoping the supreme court would not take this case. therese stewart is san francisco's deputy city attorney. in many ways, this is bad news for you. >> it's bad news in the sense that if w

supreme court looks for in the very few cases they have. a very deeply divided south carolina supreme court, a conflict between state and federal law, something the court tries to resolve, and also, varying interpretations around the country of the indian child welfare act. so i really do think even though the odds are always stacked against getting review in the supreme court, they really might get it here. >> what about this very technical aspect of veronica's case? she went from being a newborn baby into the capobiancos' home so she wasn't taken from an indian home, which is the spirit of why this law was enacted. >> that's the spirit of the law, but what the law says refers to the status of children who are indian or native american, and she certainly qualifies under that. so the focus of the law is more on the status of the child than where the child lived. that's why south carolina, the dissenters in south carolina were so upset because south carolina says, no, look at the best interests of the child, look at where she's lived, and th

the supreme court decides to tackle two big cases on it. we'll examine all the possible outcomes that could be landmark rulings. twenty days and counting. even if president obama and the gop reach a deal, could it all get done before the first of the year? >>> a royal hoax and a tragic death. the radio station behind a tragic call to the hospital where kate middleton stayed is behind a tragic suicide. >>> remarkable story of journalist's recent travels. how did iranian people act towards an american. >>> this is alex witt. the countdown is on until the nation falls over the fiscal cliff. some sharp new words from president obama this morning in his weekly address. >> if we're serious about reducing our deficit, while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy, and if we're serious about protecting middle class families, we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one wrins pal i won't compromise on. >> good saturday morning to you, mike. >> hi,

we know that's not the case because the supreme court has said they will hear arguments. >> today at city hall t confidence level of all of us is high. >> city attorney who joinsed the battle against prop eight said he's excited about the challenge. >> come summertime we're l we'll be on the right side of history. >> supporters say the court order gives them a chance at a fair hearing. >> these bad judges in california, they have to be overruled and corrected and i'm very pleased what the supreme court has said that they'll take the face the high court's announcement comes at a time when the public opinion appears to be changing. after the election, nine states have authorized same sex marriage. still at issue are benefits but the supreme court says they will also determine whether the government can deny benefits they took a federal case and a state case, it's going to be the big constitutional question. >> this law professor says if there's a swing vote o on the court, it's justice roberts. >> he's from a different generation. he's in a cultural sense, he's working with talented ga

supreme court. for more on today's announcement and reaction, go to cbssf.com. >>> a mother and her young son were killed on a head-on collision on the byron highway, which had just reopened. the chp says the truck driver had slowed for stopped traffic when a car coming in the opposite direction lost control and slammed in to it. the truck driver was not hurt. >>> police in the east bay are on the hunt for a kidnapper and rapist. investigators say these two sketches are of the same suspect from two separate crimes. one in you know, one last month. both attacks have happened in richmond's gavin corridor area. >> i was really shocked to find that out because i'm a parent and a single mom as well. and i had no idea we were having that issue in richmond. >> investigators believe the same man tried to attack a third woman as well. >>> divine intervention may have helped save members of an oakland church youth group stranded in florida. the 24-member group was on a mission to help people when they were ro

the supreme court's never going to amount to anything.s secretary of state brings that letter in to him, adams looks at the letter or, looks up at his secretary of state, john marshall, and says i guess i have to nominate you. [laughter] now, i'm not saying he wouldn't have been nominated if somebody else had brought in the letter, but it's certainly a possibility. [laughter] morrison, the list goes on and on. morrison waite, the most obscure chief justice, nominated by grant, the grant administration. corruption was rife. the first five nominees that grant, that tbrapt -- grant puts forward all seem to have been involved in some corrupt activity or another. finally grant says, who was that lawyer that introduced me when i was taking the train across ohio? [laughter] they go back and check, and it's somebody named morrison waite, and grant said i liked him, let's nominate him. [laughter] he was, he was described as being in the top tier of the third tier of lawyers in ohio. [laughter] and, frankly, he served quite well as a chief justice.

it's a supreme court rope a dope. because they will duck out on procedural issues and that may happen here. >> talking about the standing for the bipartisan legal advisory group, group of members of congress who decided to take this on and defend the defense of marriage act. another question is whether either of these cases being decided will settle it or whether other same-sex cases are coming down the pike and still need the court's attention. >> this is the definitive determination on whether or not the federal government recognizes a marital union between a man and another man or a woman and another woman. this is going to be the determination on federal law to set it straight. >> richard, do you think there is a possibility the court can decide at least the defense of marriage case without reaching the constitutional question and just talk about the benefits that people get or don't get depending on whether they are same-sex or not? >> no. i think they have to make this -- i'm sorry. go ahead, avery. >> go ahead,

an offense as the supreme court said, these were laws of ancient origin you could call it but the supreme court in 1986 did not have a very deep or sophisticated understanding of the history of these laws. they were not laws that were targeted only at gay sex. they targeted both heterosexual and homosexual non procreative sexual acts like oral sex and in every state until late 1960s and >> host: 70s that is precisely the way they were written. in the mid-1950ss, very influential legal authority, scholar, in the united states and england suggested a number of archaic sex was be removed and sodomy laws were among those. that began a process by which the states began repealing sodomy laws. that process proceeded through state courts for a period of four decades. at the same time some states held on to their sodomy laws and others like texas got rid of all the rest of their archaic sex laws just about, but kept the sodomy law and narrowed it and specified it so that it applied only to deviate sexual intercourse as texas call that, only applied to same-sex sexual acts, homosexual sex. at the s

(laughter) now this is very crafty case for gay marriage proponents to bring to the supreme court. as the case sets it is a bit of a trap for conservatives. >> the domo case considers whether someone lived with a domestic party for 35 years should have to pay estate taxes whereas had they been parried as husband and wife she would not have to pay estate taxes. >> jon: there's the question, conservatives, you can eliminate the estate tax for a whole lot of people but only if you let them get gay married. (laughter) it's a veritable reagan's choice. (laughter) what are we going to do? (applause) gay marriage or double taxation. gay marriage or double taxation. obviously the positions on this issue have been well staked out. proponents of gay paerj say their unions are deserving of the same dignity, respect and rights as those of straight couples and are asking for nothing more than equal protection under the law. to which their opponents smartly argue -- >> i've been waiting to ask you this question. >> go on. >> if the space don't love, can three people love each other. is it possib

or would, if the supreme court rules against doma. >> if the supreme court rules against doma, nothing rule for california? >> uh-huh. >> how about all of those other state constitdeletions? automatically invalid dated. >> the 9th circuit, when they decided the case they ruled very narrowly. they said because california had the right, california same-sex couples had the right to marry. then it was taken away from them, that this was similar to the 1996 supreme court case when the colorado voters had amended their constitution and it was a case rommer versus evans in which the voters had taken away ability for any city in colorado to have a non-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation. the court there had said you can't take away people's rights to enter the system. >> bill: the court could say it's up to the states? >> the court could say you can't take away rights. >> bill: uh-huh. >> you have already granted. that would only impact the state of california. but they could also say that the 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees fundamental rights like marriage and th

the supreme court is going to take up same-sex marriage. history is on the docket twice, coming up. >>> in 1967 supreme court ruled unanimously that race cannot be used as a basis to restrict >>> in 1967 supreme court ruled unanimously that race cannot be used as a basis to restrict >>> in 1967 supreme court ruled unanimously that race cannot be used as a basis to restrict marriage. this was a famous case. loving versus virginia. the amazingly named lovings were richard and mildred. in 1958 they travelled to washington, d.c. so they could get married. when they returned to virginia where interracial marriage was against the law, they were sentenced to a year in prison for getting married. when the judge in virginia sentenced them to prison he said "god created the races and placed them on separate continents. he did not intend for the races to mix." the lovings appealed that decision and won at the supreme court. but why did it take until 1967 for the supreme court to weigh in on interracial marriage? by 1954, the court had already ruled in

maybe the supreme court has talked about this? in 2009, the supreme court eliminated the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide cases. for the first time, the supreme court sided adolescents -- cited adolescent neuroscience. a 12-year-old brain develops. you will watch its start to mature until you hit about 24 or 25. for those of you who are parents, you do not need a scan. for those of us who went to adolescence, we know it was a time of poor decision making. the supreme court used the picture of the brain in order to make the decision. there is this nice development over time that is associated with changes in composition and changes in how you process the world and make decisions. ok. now you have another client named george. he is a 55-year-old white male offender. he has a history of being in and out of jail. his iq is very low. george has a very low iq, they might have to refer to him as being retarded. he has arrested for murder and the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. the supreme cour

is the supreme court influenced by american public opinion? nine people who could completely ignore the will of the people. they are appointed for life. no election. no culpability. they can totally ignore us if they choose. many legal experts say that's not how it works. supreme court justices are, in fact, swayed by what people in this country think about issues. today the supreme court announced it would hear two cases involving same-sex marriage next year. that's huge. they would hear the prop 8 case out of california. prop 8 is the california ballot proposition which amended the california constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. the court will some time this year, probably in june, decide whether that amendment is unconstitutional. but the court also said it would hear a challenge to the defense of marriage act, a 1996 law passed under president clinton that defined marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law. the question is why now? why did the supreme court choose this moment? nine states and w

. >> today the united states supreme court -- >> the supreme court used this afternoon -- >> said they would take up the issue of same-sex marriage. >> it really is an incredible day today. >> important social issues. >> the defense of marriage act. >> on the table for the supreme court. >> will the court be ahead of where the public is? >> what a question. what a story. >> good evening. i'm alex wagner in for lawrence o'donnell. will the republicans be able to face reality before we go over the fiscal curb? with just 24 days to go, it fell to chris wallace to try to get through to the fox news crowd. >> one side is going to have to give, you know. any bet on which side it's likely to be? >> on that issue, i think that the republicans are going to have to give. i mean, it was key issue in the election. it's unsustainable for boehner and the republicans to be in a position where they are blocking a tax cut for 98% of americans because they want to protect the tax rates of the top 2%. that may be right or wrong on its merits. but politically, it seems pretty clear. and you see more and m

that's something the supreme court didn't the 1986. it didn't be 2003 and lambda legal frame the case that way. they wanted to show the lord in striking down the texas sodomy law they would not lead the nation. must have looked upon behind. they were only 13 states who still had them and those were almost entirely unenforced against private activity. they did not want to share the court with the possibility was leading the nation into new uncharted territory. it could be safe in strike down the texas homosexual conduct law. it is throughout justice kennedy's opinion and references to the importance of sex in defeat and adults i've been so far as it helps to build relationships. >> i can't think of another area for the public mind has changed so much in 20 years. the court was different in 2003 that i was in 1986. but the whole country was different. i remember it the 196 decision, even than people thought it was a little bit extreme but the court would've upheld laws in 1986. by 2003, it seemed like something that could still exist, th

as we know cannot lobby the members of the supreme court but what do you think about sort of the legal aspect of this. the book interesting thing i learned about writing that book is this that there's the n.r.a. on one side and the brady campaign on the other side a certain subset of americans for a very one way or the other about this i found that for most intents and purposes the data about gun control as the league has been pretty much over in america since the ninety after the brady bill with after the assault weapon ban which was then later when it went out not even the democrats who were reputed to be very anti-gun have done much if anything at all to restrict the right gun owners got very mad about the obama administration if they thought obama folder a gun i think it's probably true that obama and holder do hate guns but they're politically savvy enough to understand that when controlled not a winning issue for democrats there are many democrats who actually blame both for a loss of congress in ninety four and al gore's loss in two thousand that democrats . pretty much i don't

the supreme court said that's all right. at first glance you then might think the court in its first apartment jurisprudence has adopted, embraced the philosophy of relativism, of moral relativism. all ideas are equal. who are we to say one idea is better than the other? now, if we were going to have a philosophical argument you could make a very strong case that the philosophy of moral relativism, that all ideas, all art, all speech is equally good, you would find it a very strong argument against that. relativism leads to skepticism and skepticism leads to cynicism and cynicism is corrosive of basic human values. so it's a philosophic decision of the first order to embrace the philosophy of relativism. how do you explain the supreme court cases? it's very simple. the supreme court is saying it is not for the government to decide this. the government does not take a position on which philosophy is correct, which philosophy is incorrect. this is for the people. but it doesn't mean the people can and shouldn't and should not.

everybody is wondering what the supreme court is going to do. the u.s.eduled to discuss whether or not it will review the constitutionality of prop 8. that is california's ban on same sex marriage approved by voters. pro prop 8 side is appealing a decision by the 9th u.s. circuit court of appeals which found the ban unconstitutional. it's one of several cases across the country concerning the federal defensive marriage act. >> the court has been waiting to gather the cases together and they're going o to make a decision, roux in some of them of all of them or none of them. they could do anything. >> reporter: if the premium court decides not -- supreme court decides not to review, the same sex could resume, but they have no deadline for acting. this is their final conference of the year. live in san francisco, anne makovec cbs 5. >>> a friend of a missing woman's family called about a vision he had that she was alive and near a lake. paula lane's brother a went into the high sierra and found her crawling in the snow in alpine county. she and her boyfrien

nbc's pete williams joins us live at the supreme court.is not a historic moment in the process of recognition for same-sex marriage? >> an important step in the process, whether it will lead toward recognition or not, we don't know, of course. that's the big question that one of these cases raises. the surprising thing here, martin, is that the court took both these cases. tft widely expected they would hear the appeal to the federal defense of marriage act because the supreme court feels its duty to step in whenever the lower court has said an act of congress is unconstitutional. the defense of marriage act passed in 1996 signed by president clinton says that in those states where people are legally married, same-sex couples are legally married, the federal government won't recognize their benefits. the challengers argue that that is unconstitutional discrimination. we assume the court would take up that case. the surprise here today is that the justices really went the whole way and took up the other big question here, which is a challen

that's because.if the supreme court had denied the case. the ban on same sex marriage would have been lifted. andy pugno from 'protect marriage dot com' spoke with kron4 on the phone earlier today. finally, we are going to have a shot at a fair hearing in front of the supreme court. ultimately, we could prevail. twice, the people of san francisco have sided with traditional marriage. and they say that today that the polling is with the traditionait is a sidig with-same-sex marriage was also a siding with that in 2018. >> new at eight. a modesto father could face legal trouble. for giving his young son medical marijuana. however. he argues. it is the only thing that has helped get the boy's rare form of epilepsy, under control. jason david says, his son consumes a type of marijuana which he says does *not contain t-h-c. t-h-c is the chemical that produces a high. david's 6-year-old son suffered violent seizures. and was taking so many medications that he was suffering withdrawals from trying to quit them. the father says, a doctor suggested

supreme court seeking custody of a little girl that they plan to adopt.l the lower courts ruled her biological father could have her back. it is one of the strangest adoption cases i've ever seen, and as you'll see in my report, it all comes down to a little known law designed to protect native american children. >> this is video from the last time matt and melanie saw their little girl veronica, new year's eve 2011. they had raised her for two years and were in the process of adopting her when a south carolina family court ordered them to hand her over to the girl's biological father. >> do you think this is in her best interest? >> i think so. >> a man veronica had never even met. >> for a little girl to be put in the car with strangers and driven to oklahoma and having no recourse or control over it, i mean, you know, we're her parents. i'm her father, you know. i'm supposed there to protect her. >> you want to be an engineer when you grow up? >> yes. >> now 3 veronica is caught in the middle of one of the strangest adopgs adoption cases we've ever hea

i got word in the last 30 seconds and a ruling from the supreme court, a decision from the supreme court, actually, on whether it will hear a same-sex marriage case and the constitutionality of that. the answer is "yes" the court has notified us. all energy development comes with some risk, but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. >>shepard: there is breaking news on fox news channel, the supreme court has notify the us it will take us gay marriage cases including california's ban on same-sex marriage unions. we got the word and our correspondent is with us on the phone now. shannon, what is the story? >>shannon: they decided to take up to different

. >> but the protect marriage coalition is confident the supreme court will uphold the right of the people of california. >> well, i think it's important to remember that still in the vast majority of four out of five states the people have chosen to either vote themselves or their elected representatives to stick with traditional marriage. >> we definitely look guard to having a real actual legal marriage. definitely. >> chris and sandy say they have been through this twice now. they married in 2004 when the city and county of san francisco began issuing marriage licenses. but after they exchanged their vows they were notified their marriage had been voided. in 2008 they didn't remarry for fear it would be revoked. they were right. now they wait again. this time with hope. >> today is a great day because we can see the potential for a good outcome, but there is also the possibility of something different happening. we have to congress to temper our hopes and dream a lit -- continue to temper our hopes a little longer. >> reporter: the supreme court justices will likely have a decision by