anti-gay marriage group protect marriage.com. but those who support gay marriage say an appeal can only be filed by the state s governor or attorney general. here s attorney david boise of bush vs. gore fame back in 2000 arguing that point. listen. the deputy clerk or even the clerk, if the real clerk was here, would not have any standing to contest that issue or even litigate that issue. it is purely a ministerial function. of course, the other side says the judge that overturned prop 8 also overturned the will of 7 million california voters, shep. shepard: of course, separate from that is the issue of whether prop 8 is even okay under the constitution. and that s where things get heated here because those who are against gay marriage say that it should be defined only as a marriage between a man and a woman because they can have children. but then a judge asked today what about infertile couples, should they not be allowed to get married?
you got it wrong. you don t have the power to do this, and then the state of california politicians abandoned the voters? is there nobody in court representing the california roe voter? reporter: the name of the suit is perry versus schwarzenegger. governor schwarzenegger and the state of california voted no the to intervene in this case which left a group named protect marriage.com, and they are the ones who sponsored the initiative, and they have been defending it in court. the other side is saying, your name is not on the suit, so why are you defending it? you don t have even legal standing. that s what s going to be determined by the ninth circuit to determine if a group like this can be a part of the suit. the second part of the argument is the constitutionality, whether same sex marriage can occur here in california and elsewhere in the united states. thanks a lot.
the name of this case, the suit is perry versus schwarzenegger, which is something i want to touch on. the state of california has decided not to defend this lawsuit, which has left an outside party, a group called protect marriage.com to defend it. while part of the hearing will be to determine whether or not outside parties like protect marriage can even be a party to this suit. do they have legal standing? in any event, it seems that this case is ultimately headed to the united states supreme court. i talked briefly with both of the gay couples who filed suit. i want you to listen to paul catami whose name is attached to the papers. it s an incredibly emotional processes because it is a waiting game and has been a waiting game for lgbt rights for a long time. we have a record based on truth that our fundamental right is to have the right to marry.
allow all the people to come in and apply for marriage licenses. but that s not going to happen now. mayor gavin newsome, obviously a huge backer of same-sex marriage, had this reaction. this was someone saying i can t marry someone i love, and i was about to marry that person at 6:00 this wednesday and now you re saying i can t, when just last week you said i could. think about, honestly, how that hits the heart. so here s what happened. the ninth circuit court of appeals has blocked a lower court s ruling, saying those marriages cannot take place. while proposition 8 continues to make its way through the legal system. this obviously marks a victory for proposition 8 supporters. a statement from protect marriage.com, the defendant in this case, says california voters spoke clearly on prop 8, we re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. and that last statement is the real key here. proposition 8 continues to make i