Page 44 - Proposition 8 News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

After hearing oral arguments on proposition 8, california's ban on same-sex marriage, the nine justices were forced to confront the very meaning of marriage. the lawyer defending prop 8, charles cooper, says the ban doesn't violate the constitutional rights of same-sex couples, but cooper acknowledged that the country's understanding of marriage is changing rapidly, he says evolution should continue without the supreme court's interference. as mother jones put it, cooper was supposed to argue that california had a legitimate interest other than simple bigotry in banning same-sex couples in get...

Why are we treating anyone as a second class citizen, you know, why do we have second class marriages in some states and no relationship recognition in other states. that time has to stop. that's unamerican. i am so proud of this country right now for recognizing that, paying attention, and saying to their leaders hey, it is time to treat people fairly. >> i think tomorrow will be a better day for proponents of same-sex marriage. in the case of proposition 8, you have a case where justice kennedy doesn't want to apply equal protection to all 50 states. doma is a case where the government is de...

Want the case, why did you take it in the first place? but seriously, what's the chance that they punt on this one? they don't make a decision that is formal? >> there is an argument that would give the opportunity to punt. this is an odd case in one important respect. the plaintiff here says the law sun constitutional. the defendant here which is the obama administration also thinks the law is unconstitutional. so there was a lot of discussion among the justices about why is this a real lawsuit when both sides agree? so they could actually throw the case out on that ground that there is not r...

Supporters of proposition 8 are saying here. all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label. >> so hearing that, what would you take away from that that frames how you think this is going? >> well, i think the confusion and ambiguity of yesterday's arguments really raises the stakes for today. because today is actually a somewhat more simple case. they don't have to worry about defining marriage or anything like that in this case. this is a case about states that have already defined marriage. these are not -- this is a law, the defense of marriage...

Court. justice kagan and others asked questions, and the attorneys on the anti gay side were unable to come up with a good reason and that's exactly what court after court and now state after state have found. >> eric, that's a great point that evan brings up, is that those who are in support of proposition 8 and against marriage equality have found themselves painted into the weird corner where they have to make the case where gay people getting married is somehow harmful to the institution of marriage or heterosexual couples which seems to be a losing prescription, it not? >> i agree with ev...