it s now in the hands of the supreme court. it s been a long journey here for the last 3 1/2 years. now it s up to the nine justices to make a decision. the court has several ways to decide this case from a very broad-sweeping conclusion with respect to the rights of our citizens in this country, to a narrower ruling that would be limited basically to california. opposing attorney austin nimocks agreed the court was conflicted and the outcome uncertain. can you tell at all from the questions you were getting about the way in which the justices were thinking about this case? you can tell a lot about how they re thinking about it. what you can t tell is how they may decide the case. it will be months until the court announces a decision. this could be a step along the way or it could be the end of the line in terms of vindicating the rights of gay and lesbian citizens in this country.
13 years after sandy and kris wanted to get married. olson and boies are finally at the steps of the supreme court. just walking into the supreme court and standing before the justices, for a lawyer there s nothing like it. you ll hear arguments this morning in case 1244, holingsworth versus perry. mr. olson? thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court at first, the justices seem cautious, questioning whether now is the right time and if the supreme court is the right place to make a decision on same-sex marriage. starting with justice alito. same-sex marriage is very new. 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? then came the zinger from
is it a constitutional right? there are certain rights that are so fundamental to everybody that we say no majority can take it away. or a right reserved for a man and a woman? there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the u.s. constitution. former political adversaries, once on opposite sides of history now joining forces. to get the two guys that oppose each other on bush v. gore to team up and say this is a nonpartisan issue. literally you are preparing for the case in here. now the supreme court will decide the case. marriage is a fundamental right that could change a nation. it s a script that could have been written in hollywood.
justice scalia. i m curious, when it did become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? don t give me a question to my question. and justice kagan challenges the opposing argument that marriage is about having children. suppose a state said, because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we re not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. would that be be constitutional? thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. in just 90 minutes, it was all over.
proposition 8. part of the legal team. to say proposition 8 discriminates, you would have to say that marriage laws and marriage from the very beginning of civilization only existed to discriminate against gays and lesbians and we know that s not the case. he says it s not a matter of discrimination but rather of definition and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman for one main reason. we have marriage laws because we have children. and marriage laws attach men and women to each other and legally to the children that they bring forth. so do you think the olson boies case is pure overreach? ultimately the sovereignty in this country belongs in the hands of their people and their democratically elected representatives and that s where we need to keep this debate. that debate in the states has resulted in a seismic shift in support of same-sex marriage and some argue the court needs to just stay out of the way.