http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/supreme-court-proposition-8_n_2950615.html

WASHINGTON -- All eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy at the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning as his eight colleagues appeared about evenly divided on the fate of Proposition 8, the California ballot referendum passed in November 2008 that banned same-sex marriage, reversing by popular vote the state supreme court's decision just months earlier to recognize marriage equality.

Kennedy acknowledged that while the social science on gay marriage is relatively new, there is an “immediate” legal harm to those same-sex couples who cannot be married. He said the voice of the thousands of children of same-sex couples was an important aspect of the case.

“They want their parents to have full recognition and legal status,” Kennedy told Charles Cooper, who was representing supporters of Proposition 8’s ban on gay marriage. “The voice of those children is considerable in this case, don’t you think?”

Kennedy also said he was “trying to wrestle with” whether a same-sex marriage ban should be viewed as a gender-based classification, calling it a “difficult question.”

The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, presents the simple question of whether Proposition 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. But that simple question is so politically loaded that the justices spent much of the hour-long oral argument exploring how, exactly, the California constitutional amendment should fall.

On one end of the spectrum is the maximalist approach put forward by the two same-sex California couples, represented by conservative legal icon Ted Olson and liberal superlawyer David Boies. The unlikely lawyer duo -- they faced off against each other at the Supreme Court a dozen years ago in Bush v. Gore -- argue that any attempt to define marriage as between one man and one woman deprives gays and lesbians of equal protection and the fundamental right to marry.

The justices spent a good deal of time in the first half of the hour examining whether the parties defending Prop. 8 had legal standing, and seemed to cast doubt on whether they did. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that the case may not reach the central issue of whether gay couples are entitled to marriage, and might fall on issues of standing.

Cooper argued that it was an “accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived” that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said knocking down Prop. 8 “puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate” over same-sex marriage, conceding that the political consensus on same-sex marriage was “changing rapidly.”

Justice Scalia argued there was “considerable disagreement” over the “consequences” of same-sex couples raising children. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it’s certainly true there is no consensus to that scientific question at this point,” he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that one of the decisions Cooper was relying on in the case was written in 1971, when “same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal.”

good... the people there already voted no once, and they still try to cram it down their throats... stupid libs

Well, hopefully Justice Kennedy will do what's right and vote in favor of gay people.

You can sugar coat it with reasons like religion and the like but in the end, it is discrimination pure and simple.

Many use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no...

it's system we have... go vote for it if you want it, religion has nothing to do with this, the people said no, not the churches...

If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it?

whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should

Churches notoriously vote one way, they also have amassed numbers into the millions...Pretty much, if the church wants something, all they have to do is vote on it and they will get it.

The voting system is no longer fair, failure to recognize this is really just turning a blind eye to a very real problem.

your right, but laws are still laws... until something changes in how laws are made, we still have to follow them... plus they are people who's vote counts, no matter what anyones personal opinion is... but i agree with you, churches still have way to much power in our voting process...

Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed?

Tell it to the Muslims like the NOI.
Homosexers are executed.

This thread isn't about Muslims. I know you're obsessed with them, but let's try to stay on topic today. Homosexuals aren't executed in the US.

Religion was introduced into the topic.
The only religion that will and does kill them is Islam.

So you're saying that Islam allows for gays to be killed in the US?

If they had a majority, I would venture to say they would.

No other Religion speaks of killing them, right?

We're not talking about ifs here. Show me the law that allows Islam to kill gay people in the US, since we're clearly talking about the US.

agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these...

Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it.