done post oil spill, which was the dispersant issue. right. so, the dispersant, if you remember back last summer when bp started to spray it, the epa actually told bp to stop spraying it, and bp kept spraying hundreds of thousands of gallons of it. and the effect of that dispersant on these kinds of dolphins and marine mammals is unknown. so you know, that s obviously another suspect in this case right now. and i think that, you know, the scientists involved, they re saying that it s going to take a few weeks it may take months to come up with an answer. they re also looking it s important to note, they re also looking for viruses that could be involved in this case. there was a case in 2007 where several a few dozen baby dolphins washed up in texas. and even though it was inconclusive at the time, the researchers involved there thought that it was possibly a virus. and brian, when do we know when we ll have any of these results? do we anticipate when we can have some more hard
on appeal. mr. olson, there s another gay marriage case that is making its way to the supreme court from massachusetts where gay marriage is legal, of course. last month the u.s. district court judge ruled that defense of marriage act, the federal defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. what effect do those cases have on one another? what effect do those cases how do they interact with this case that you ve just won today in terms of what happens ultimately at the federal or supreme court level? well, they re different cases involving different issues. but the common thread in these cases is treating gay and lesbian individuals equally and not discriminating against them, not applying the laws of the united states or the laws of california or any other state in a discriminatory fashion for no purpose against individuals who happen to be gay and lesbian. the judges in the massachusetts case and the judge today in the california proposition 8 case went through all of the evide
there is a lack of trust on this issue. i mean, as you pointed out when this crisis started, first they were told there was no leak, there is a leak. 1,000 to 5,000 barrels a day and several estimates. it started leaking at a rate of 62,000 barrels a day, it finished at 53,000 barrels a day. the question is how do you know? what do you really know? the government said today what this report really gives is a snapshot if you will of where they think the 4.9 million barrels went, but more than a snapshot, it really just raises more questions. because all that oil that is dispersed, where does it go? what do all those tiny drop lets do? those are questions no one can answer yet. are you hearing concerns voiced about the long-term impact of dispersants i know a
one amazing thing about the gay marriage ban overturned in california today was something i had known about the trial while it was happening. but i didn t really appreciate the importance of it until i read the ruling that came out this afternoon. the anti-gay marriage people, the people defending the gay marriage ban in court, only called two experts in their whole case. they only called two witnesses. the first one was this guy, david blankenhorn. he is president of the institute for american values. now judge walker spent the better part of ten pages of his ruling just talking smack about david blankenhorn. think i m kidding? the court now determine that s mr. blankenhorn s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.
certainly i think this tees up a question that the supreme court probably wants to avoid. this is always about one person, anthony kennedy, at the center of the court. it tees it up in a way that is really going to force the court to contend with this issue squarely on the merits and again dealing with the very, very elaborate findings of fact. and that was always the case made by david boyes and ted olson when they faced criticism for pushing forward with this case when other advocates wanted other cases to take the issue forward. they always maintained that they felt like this was their best this was their best vehicle for bringing it to the supreme court. david boyes and ted olson are joining us next. dolly, he really helped us clarify this. thanks a lot. there is it much more to say about today s refutation of prop