U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on Prop 8 & DOMA

The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether the state of California can ban same-sex marriage.

The justices are weighing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex nuptials, passed after gay marriage became legal there.

They could uphold the ban, narrowly overturn it, or invalidate all state same-sex marriage bans in America.

The hearing comes as opinion polls show a rapid rise in public support for same-sex marriage.

As arguments began on Tuesday, justices questioned both the merits of the arguments and the parties' legal standing to bring the case to the high court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote between the four conservative and four liberal justices, suggested that children of same-sex couples would suffer an "immediate legal injury" from the ban.

Defenders of Proposition 8 marched to the court in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, accompanied by a band of kilted pipers. As the numbers swelled, the police presence thickened.

At times, the antagonists faced off. I watched a shouting match between two young men with duelling signs: one drawing attention to suicides that followed homophobic bullying, the other stating that homosexuality was against God's will.

Will the sound and fury make any mark on the nine justices inside? Of course not. But on an issue that defines our times, it signals the depth of feeling on both sides.

Among the spectators in the court on Tuesday is a lesbian cousin of conservative-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Tuesday's case concerns California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, which was approved by that state's voters in a referendum in November 2008.

Its passage came only after some 18,000 gay marriages had already taken place in the state, following California's legalisation of such unions earlier the same year.

Two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit, known as Hollingsworth v Perry, against Proposition 8.

As the state of California refused to defend it, the organisation that had sponsored Proposition 8 stepped in as defendants.

In 2010, a federal court ruled against Proposition 8, saying the state had not demonstrated a good reason for infringing on what the judge saw as the fundamental right of all couples to marry.

Supporters of the ban appealed against that ruling, but the court of appeals also ruled the amendment unconstitutional.

Anti-gay marriage activists then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. They want the question of whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to be left up to individual US states.

The Obama administration is not taking part in the case but has filed what is called a "friend of the court" brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay marriage amendment.

In the Hollingsworth v Perry case, the court could uphold the ban, strike it down and invalidate similar bans in other states, or rule narrowly that California's law was unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear another case on same-sex marriage: a challenge to a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denies federal tax and other benefits to same-sex married couples.

Both cases are expected to be decided by June.

Currently, nine US states and Washington DC permit same-sex marriage. Eight other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships with virtually all state marriage benefits, but do not allow couples to marry.

Recent opinion polls have shown a rapid growth in public support for the issue, with most Americans now believing it should be legal.

The Supreme Court cases follow a flurry of declarations in support of gay marriage by high-profile figures, including last week by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Days earlier, Ohio's Rob Portman became the first Republican senator to back gay marriage.

And now three Democratic senators - Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - have adopted the same stance.

Click to expand...

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) stood before conservatives gathered at a Faith and Family Rally in Austin on Tuesday and spoke about what he perceives as a sustained attack on their values by gay rights activists.

"This is a very unsettling time in our nation's history," Perry said, according to the Associated Press. "These are the days when a person is vilified when they state that they believe fundamentally that marriage is between one man and one woman."

Perry spoke just hours after the Supreme Court heard arguments on Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban. On Wednesday, the justices will consider a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Perry went on to suggest that the decision by LGBT rights advocates to fight for equal treatment was proof that they were themselves intolerant.

"The underlying problem is that there is this very vocal, very litigious minority of Americans willing to legally attack anybody who dares utter a phrase or even a name that they don't agree with," he said. "In a twisting of logic, they insist on silencing the religious in the cause of tolerance. Now I ask you, where is the tolerance in that?"

The Austin American-Statesman reports that a heckler in the back of the crowd disagreed with Perry's remarks, yelling that the governor was finished politically.

Perry has been a consistent opponent of gay rights throughout his tenure as governor. He's supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and helped usher through a 2005 state ballot amendment that officially defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. During his 2012 GOP presidential campaign, Perry put his fight against gay rights front and center with a campaign ad that quickly became one of the most disliked videos on YouTube.

On Tuesday, Perry told reporters that Texas was "fairly clear about where" it stands on gay marriage.

"The people of the state of Texas, myself included, believe marriage is between one man and one woman," Perry said, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Click to expand...

Twilight Sky said:

Wouldn't overturning Prop 8 have a similar effect on pretty much every single law banning gay marriage, since technically they're also rendered unconstitutional as well?

Click to expand...

Mr. X said:

Thats more in line with what I'd want to see anyway.

Splitting the system apart - Leaving the traditional 'marriages' as a religious only construct, while having Civil Unions being used for more official stuff - Tax benefits, and whatever other special benefits that marriage currently gives.

Ideally, a Church deciding to allow gay marriages would be decided church by church - Each church's stance being based on the majority of it's members.

Civil Unions would apply for every person, no matter their race, gender, or orientation.

This would solve both problems at once - Giving gays and lesbians their rights, and letting the church feel good about keeping marriage 'sacred'.

Essentially split the system, seperating the religious and economic constructs.

Click to expand...

Mr. X said:

As far as I know, hospitals can't turn a person away based on their origntation, or if they are or are not married.

As for religious schools, they would be allowed to set their own standards for who they accept as students. They aren't public schools, so they are already allowed to pick and choose as is.

Click to expand...

Scarf said:

I used to think that we should have marriages be totally religious and that everyone who wants government recognition of their partnership should get a civil union, whether they're married or not. There's a simple sense in that and it seems fair.

But what about, say, if you find yourself injured and you've been taken to a Catholic hospital because it's the only one nearby? Or what if you want your kids to go to the best school in the area and it's a private religious school?

Click to expand...