In November 2008, the citizens of California voted to pass Proposition 8, which amended that state's constitution to include a provision stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Prop 8 won by a margin of more than 500,000 votes and does not affect domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages that were performed before Nov. 5, 2008.
Prop 8 — also known as the "same-sex marriage ban" — has since come under fire for being unconstitutional for its alleged violations of both Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It's yet another case of State's Rights vs. Federal Authority (comparable to what we've seen in the past with, for example, marijuana laws in Colorado, Washington and also California).
On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides of the case in Hollingsworth v. Perry — the first same-sex marriage case to ever reach the Supreme Court — whose results may not only determine the constitutionality of Prop 8's ban on same-sex marriages, but could also feasibly be used as a precedent for allowing same-sex marriages throughout the country.
"The Prop. 8 case has the potential to be the Brown v. Board of Education for gay rights," UCLA School of Law Prof. Adam Winkler told CBSNews.com.
Theodore Olson — erstwhile Solicitor General under George W. Bush — and Democratic lawyer David Boies are the attorneys fighting to overturn Prop 8. Their opponent defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 is Charles Cooper, who under President Ronald Reagan was a Justice Department official.
Here are five of the key quotes, truncated from those culled by ABC News, made during the oral hearings from both sides on Tuesday:
Five:
"I simply make the observation that it seems implausible in the extreme, frankly, for nine justices to ... have seen no substantial Federal question if it is true, as the respondents maintain, that the traditional definition of marriage ... insofar as it does not include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and ... can only be explained, as a result of anti-gay malice and a bare desire to harm." - Cooper
Four:
"In reading the briefs, it seems as though your [Cooper's] principal argument is that same-sex and ... opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?" -- Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
"Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of ... our position, yes." - Cooper
Three:
"It [Prop 8] walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this Court, thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal, and not okay." - Olson
Two:
"The problem with the case is that you're really asking ... for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff." - Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
One:
"Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a ... good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.
"But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean ... we do not have the ability to see the future." - Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
Like what you're reading? Follow @profklickberg.
