the prop 8 case. california case, and it's very interesting because the california supreme court said gay marriage is legal. they said it's against the california constitution to ban it. and then lawyers came in and voters went out and they adopted prop 8, which amended the california constitution to make it illegal. so they stuck it to the judges and said, we don't care what you say. we say it's illegal. now, enter the lawyers. they file a federal lawsuit in which they say the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was enacted after the civil war to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, says that equal protection of the law won't let you get away with that. you know why? because if you're going to discriminate against a group of people like gay people, you better have a very good reason. and you don't have a good reason to do that. so they threw it out. and that's what's in front of the supreme court now. does the 14th amendment to the constitution require that gay marriage should be allowed to occur in california? >> and all of this is precedent setting, potentially precedent setting. >> it absolutely is. there really are a number of things the suprem

the california supreme court struck down proposition 22 and the family code provision that went with it on the grounds that under california constitutionunder the due process clause and equal protection clause of the constitution that was on are unconstitutional invasion of those rights of california citizens. that was and may of 2008 and then proposition eight was already in the works and was put on the ballot and was enacted by the citizens of california on november 5th of that year which then changed the california constitution to eliminate that california supreme court decision. in the interim, 18,000 same-sex couples got married in california. the first challenge was to whether or not proposition eight was a revision of the california constitution and had to go through the legislature that california supreme courts had said no, no it is an amendment to the constitution. so, challenge -- a challenge to proposition 8 under the california constitution isn't going to work because it is an amendment to the constitution. so, my clients, for individuals, to gay men and a lesbian couple brought suit to challenge proposition 8 under the fe

i katie tang do solemnly affirm that i support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and to the constitution of the state of california. that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i'm about to enter during such time as i hold office as a member of the board of supervisors and transportation authority for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [ applause ] my pleasure to present to you our new carmen chu and supervisor katie tang. [ applause ] thank you very much for all being here. i just want to keep my comments very brief. i think it's absolutely appropriate to thank everybody here who has come in attendance but especially to thank district 4 residents and the merchants who work with me and i see the prips principals, i see them back there. [ applause ] . to my labor partners, to department heads, to my colleague

the voters amended the constitution, the state constitution, to incorporate the measure after the california supreme court rejected it on state constitutional grounds. why? because it demeaned gay people. it treated them as second class citizens. it relegated them to an inferior status. the voters, the campaign didn't say to the voters well, gee, the court got that wrong. the campaign said to the voters, we have to put them in an inferior status because if we don't, everybody won't, we need children and everybody else to recognize that same-sex couples are different. they're not the same as opposite-sex couples and they're not ok. and it portrayed opposite-sex couples as traditional and ideal and it portrayed gay couples as a lifestyle that should be kind of kept in private. and the campaign leaders after the campaign wrote an article in which they said they deliberately tapped into voters' limited tolerance for gay people. the campaign went about portraying gay people -- >> we'll give you another 30 seconds. you're over, you voluntarily gave up some time. >> sure. let me just say, your hono

california supreme like this supreme court, decides what the law is. the california supreme court decided that the equal protection and due process clauses of that california constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married -- >> you -- you've led me right into a question i was going to ask. the california supreme court decides what the law is. that's what we decide, right? we don't prescribe law for the future. we decide what the law is. i'm curious, when -- when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the fourteenth amendment was adopted? sometimes -- some time after baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question? when -- when -- when did the law become this? >> when -- may i answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? when did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools. >> it's an easy question, i think, for that one. at -- at the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. that's absolutely true. but don't give me a question to my que

the road for your group in california or is there another avenue to pursue? >> if the supreme court decides there is a hidden invisible right to same-sex marriage in the constitution, that would spell an end to the same-sex marriage in california. >> scott: andy, thanks so much. >> no trouble. thank you. >> scott: joining me now to discuss the legal issues is uc davis professor vik amar and jane schacter from stanford law school. welcome. finally here. jane, let me begin with you. both of the cases, doma and prop 8 have to do with same-sex marriage. they are different. explain. >> the defense of marriage act called doma was enacted in 1996. proposition 8 is a california measure enacted in 2008. both are part of what we think as a backlash to early efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. those go back further than gavin newsom in 1993 when hawaii looked like it would legalize same-sex marriage. only when hawaii looked like it would do that, congress passed doma. the section of doma that is argued next week before the supreme court says the federal government will not recognize in the many programs a same-sex marriage that is recognized by the state. in terms of esta

treatment, the person maybe subject to a conservatorship under the act of the conservator in the california constitution code and representation continues and after an initial established conservatorship such as objection to the conservatorship and also propose medical and psychiatric treatment. one of the things that in san francisco that is up to 2012 we are one of the three counties that consistently offers judicial review when there is a recommendation to take away someone's right to refuse medications. the law requires that anyone even in involuntary commit a person the right to refuse psychiatric medication in a non-emergency situation unless there is a judicial find that go this person lacks the capacity or ability to make rational decisions regarding his or her medical treatment. in further response to the need for make sure that treatment is provided and people with psychiatric disability have access to trees and maintain stability in the community, san francisco in 2011, we started a pilot project and that pilot project is called independence in the community, pilot project. it's cipp. this is

the delete button. it is a permanent ban. it is in the constitution. --ond >> of course the constitution could be amended. i read that the california constitution has been amended 500 times. the aim of this is to take it out of the normal legislative process. with respect to the concerns that your honor has raised, california has been anything but cautious. it has given equal parenting rights, equal adoption rights. those are on the books in california now appeared the interest of california is that -- now is in the interest of california that it has to be represented. >> the whole country has been cautious. >> you are asking us to impose this on the whole country. >> we are not. our position is narrower than that. states that have granted these rights short of marriage. >> i want you to get back. is it the position of united states that same-sex marriage is not required throughout the country? >> we are not taking the position that it is required. we think that ought to be left --n for future of education education. only if state allows civil unions as it become constitutional to forbid same- sex marriage. you can go on. >> thank

the california supreme court, like this supreme court, decides what the law is. the california supreme court decided that the equal protection and due process clauses of that california constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married -- >> you -- you've led me right into a question i was going to ask. the california supreme court decides what the law is. that's what we decide, right? we don't prescribe law for the future. we -- we decide what the law is. i'm curious, when -- when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the fourteenth amendment was adopted? sometimes -- some time after baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question? when -- when -- when did the law become this? >> when -- may i answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? when did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools. >> it's an easy question, i think, for that one. at -- at the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. that's absolutely true. but don't give me a question to

the brown act. california constitution or the constitution of the united states. she simply doesn't give a damn. the ethics commission, the library commission, the police commission and the arts commission have all changed their policy and placed the 450 words summary in the body of the minutes with multiple rulings of the task force and miss akkad is stubborn back to the task force for the hearing. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> president chiu, board of supervisors, i come every once in a while. i represent the tenderloin walking tours. i want to invite new members of the board who i haven't met yet to come out and walk the tenderloin with me. i do about 4 tours a week. so far this year i have done about 450 people. they are doing a documented travel in germany next month and a section in the sacramento bee. i'm trying to demystify the tenderloin. i would like to invite you all when you get a chance to come out. you can get the information from supervisor kim or president chiu. they both know me. i would like to see you come out and get a different side of the area. thank you. >> thank

the california citizenry in general? >> they're distinguishable, your honor, because the constitution of the state of california and its electionovide, 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 pro

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 constitutionimmediate become a process was begun in november, 2008, and the voters in california passed an initiative, an amendment to the constitution that says marriage shall only be between persons of the opposite sex, one man and one woman from outlying same-sex marriage. at the same time, california high already in place well before the first decision statutes that created domestic partnerships that provide all of the legal rights to same-sex partners as marriage did, but they could not call themselves married. the reaction was fairly prompt. the case was filed in federal court after an unsuccessful case in state court, challenging constitutionality this time under the federal constitution of the ban on same-sex marriages. the governor of california, and the attorney general, who were the main defendants, declined to enact a statute. proponentssult, the of proposition 8 came in and defend the case and the merits, including a trial, before judge walker in the northern district of california. a

california gay marriage was legal. voters went to the polls overwhelmingly passed proposition 8 which amends the california constitution that a marriage was to one man and one woman. they will be here for the arguments today. here is robin tyler. >> i would argue on the merits, if they can vote to take rights away from us when we were in the california constitution, considered a suspect class which means a recognized minority, then they could say okay we'll take, vote to take rights away from anybody. and so i think the ability to vote and take rights away from people is terrible. >> reporter: of course a lot of focus will be on justice kennedy. they have to get five out of the nine to strike down proposition 8. bill: how are advocates for traditional marriage hoping to sba the justices in this argument? >> reporter: they also feel very confident. they say marriage traditionally is very unique relationship. it is the foundation of civilized society. they think there are a lot of koppelling arguments to save the justices worth saving that and not redefining it. they think the confident that the justice will think twice

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 initiative took up the legal fight,ing aing marriage is a unique relationship that must be protected. today justice kagan asked how allowing same sex marriage would undermine that? >> what do you see happening, and when and how, and what harm to the institution of merriman, or to opposite sex couples, how does this cause and effect work? >> rep

the california supreme court? >> the california supreme court decided that equal protection and due process clause of that california constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married. >> you led me right into a question i was going to ask. california's supreme court does not decide what the law is. that is what we decide, right? we decide -- we do not prescribe for the future. we decide what the law is. when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868 when the 14th amendment was adopted? sometime after baker where we said it did not even raise a substantial federal question? when did the law become this? >> i would like to enter the form of a rhetorical question. when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? >> the question for that one, at the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. that is absolutely true. but don't give me a question to my question. [laughter] when do you think it became unconstitutional? has it always been? >> when the california supreme court face the decision it had never faced before of, doe

court must now decide whether or not to uphold the wishs of california voters in 2008 ratified an initiative known as prop 8. it amended the california constitutionlimit valid and legally recognized marriages to only those between one man and one woman. today, a number of justices asked why individual states shouldn't be able to make their own decisions about the relatively new concept. including justice alito who said the idea of same-sex is nurer than cell phones and internet. >> on a question like, that why should it not be left for the people, either acting in true initiative or referendum or through electing public officials? >> after california attorney general and governor opted not to defend prop 8 in court, supporters of the initiative took up the legal fight. arguing that marriage is a unique relationship that must be protected. today, justice elena kagan asked how allowing same-sex marriage would undermine? >> what part do you see happening and when a how? what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples? how does this cause and effect work? >> charles cooper representing the prop 8 supporters argued it's impossible

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 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 pr

the battle over same-sex marriage in california. late yesterday, the administration filed a brief with the supreme court saying that california's ban on gays and lesbians marrying violates their constitutional rights. >> the supreme court asked me or my attorney general or a solicitor general do we think that meets constitutional muster i felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly and the answer is no. >> pelley: jan crawford is our chief legal correspondent and long-time reporter at the supreme court. jan, the court will hear arguments later this month that will impact all of this and i wonder what the president's comments today have to do with the case. >> scott, as president obama said today "i'm not a judge, i'm the president." his views carry no binding authority on the supreme court. just because the administration is making this argument doesn't mean the court has to go along with it. i mean, the federal government is not directly involved in this case. it's a challenge by same-sex couples in california to a california constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. the administration chose to get involved to make a strong statement on gay rights. that, of course,

the california proposition 8. it would amend the state constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. on wednesday, a case on the constitutionality of the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. you can listen to those arguments on tuesday and wednesday evening at 8 p.m. on c-span. >> we could take pictures of the brain with mri scans and see the whole thing. there is an enormous gap in between of how the circus in the brain functions in order to be able to move my hands or look at you and process that information or to lay down in memory. we do not know how that works. with technologies yet to be invented, a lot of this of the technology developed. a lot of this will be nanotechnology. we will be able to record from a be hed

the u.s. supreme court which has begun to hear arguments about demerits. whether california's ban on the unions is constitutional. -- hear arguments about a gay marriage. first up is whether california's ban on gay unions is it constitutional. >> many of those thousands of people here on the steps of the supreme court on tuesday have waited for decades and decades to have their day in court. two cases have come along at once and they wanted to be here to witness history in the making. a kiss to mark the start of today's of -- today is the argument on marriage at the supreme court. hunter says he has been campaigning in favor of gay marriage since the age of 14. >> there are no good arguments that stand up to a logical debate against same-sex marriage that do not have religious origins. >> she came all the way from boston with a picture out for family. >> they all deserve the right to marry in make a family. >> opinion polls show more americans are in favor of gay marriage, but those against were on hand, too. showed no signs of backing down. >> one man, one-woman. >> the court heard from both sides of the propos

the state. california's constitution has a strong guarantee of privacy and freedom. >>> the woman behind the controversial ads posted is condemning city leaders for their public stand against the ads. the ads feature quotes from osama bin laden and others associating the words jihad with violent extremism. city leaders say it is unfair to characterize an entire religion as violent. where was the city when the propalestinian group ran its own hateful ads. >> i think the san francisco official reaction to our ads is obscene and absurd. they wouldn't condemn the hateful statements on the air even when specifically asked to do so. they are only condemning me for drawing attention to those statements as if this problem will go away if we ignore it. >> because of previous first amendment court rulings they must roll the ad. >>> an early morning blaze is still under investigation tonight. this stubborn fire took hours to contain. the flames destroyed two homes. falling power lines made it hard for firefighters to bring the fire under control. >>> from berlin to mountain view a piece of world history is about to

the country. let me say also to this point about where california is, you know, four years prior to prop 8, there was an initiative on the california ballot that didn't change the constitution changed the statute and made a definition of marriage. the vote in california was i think in the 60% -- over 60% of californians voted in that initiative to define marriage in a man and a woman and four years later that margin whittled down to a little over two percentage points. i believe a similar transformation has happened in my own congressional district. that's strong evidence that not only is there a curve that we're -- it's an acceleration curve we're on. >> i support and endorse the acceleration curve. david sirota and mark takano, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> dreams really do come true. america's newest multimillionaire and his name is not mitt romney, but he is at the center of a big debate. >>> by most standards, pedro quezada was already living the american dream. in the 1980s, he left the dominican republic and came to the united states to find work. he eventually settled in new jersey where he and his wife inez raised their five children. he opened his own

the product, psa. [laughter] >> california founders understood the importance of citizen oversight of local government. our writing into the state constitution requirement that each county will convene a civil grand jury with the express purpose of investigating local government activity. each year your county court, it's citizens just like you that serve as watchdogs over the government the jury has powers and local government is required to provide information the jury needs to conduct this investigation. the result of investigative reports can improve how local government does its job. reports also form the public about the performance of their government. serving on a civil grand jury is not only an experience you'll never forget, but you'll also learn extraordinary amount about how your local government carries out its responsibilities. * i encourage you, encourage you to do your civic duty and hold your local government accountable by contacting the california grand jurors association to learn more about your county's civil grad jury and how you can apply to serve. (applause) >> i believe there are some presentations to be made. paul h

the california grand jurors association, i cannot emphasize strongly enough how this effort and the resulting product advanced preservation and the promotion of the grand jury institution which our constitutional forefather's thought so important to democracy in california. from william e. trout man, california grand jurors association, president. (applause) >> well, finally, i want to thank all of you for being here for this event and for helping to shine light on what i've begun to call california's best kept secret. so, from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of the california grand jurors association, thank you for all your help. and please, on your way out, take advantage of some of the literature, the san francisco gazette from your past jury is available. and other brochures and information about the california grand jurors association and the works we do. our support doesn't stop with just the preliminary training for grand juries, but provide resource he throughout the year on the website. the information is there in the packets. thanks again for being here. >> thank you, too. (applause) >> i do want to just acknowledge ken malley. you mentd,

if the people of california want to change their constitution, they can do it at the ballot box.on't think the supreme court should intervene. but if it were to happen, it would not have any effect in any of the other states. let's be clear. 86% of the american people live in states today that define marriage as between a man and a woman. this is the majority position for the american people. >> well, what you really do understand as well as i do is the way that there's repercussions. the old story was the supreme court follows the election results. the election results often follow the supreme court. people react. most voters vote negatively. that's how they vote. they don't like things, they get out there and vote against them. do you think there'll be -- will you be leading it, perhaps? to try to rectify what you see as a wrong decision? >> well, i think as you pointed out in the earlier segment, chris, it's not so much i want to do it, but the reality is when the supreme court gets over its skis and when it tries to be the one that is the progenator of significant social chan