act overturned. and as you know, ashleigh, that s very interesting simply because justice scalia, of all the nine on the bench, is the one who has the way with words and the sharp language he uses in his opinions. so just a fascinating day here at the united states supreme court, ashleigh. and yet another dissent from the bench. we re getting that all week long. this is a big, big week, and a lot of heat and energy. a great job reporting from out there, joe johns. a lot of information coming down the pike. we re not finished our coverage on this. i m going to let joe go, and we ll check in with jeffrey toobin later on in the hour. more analysis to this decision, the reaction, and the future implications of the decision. that s coming up. we have other breaking news. a dramatic turn of events playing out in the boston area. new england patriots tight end aaron hernandez led out of his own home in handcuffs by plainclothes police officers, and not just a few. you see two in your scre
a gasp, a squeal, however you want to call it. it came from the back of the room, one of those many people who had been here for so long to try to get in. i think otherwise, on the bench itself, very little reaction or emotion from any of the justices. obviously, they re very familiar with this decision that was read today. with the notable exception of justice clarence thomas, who curiously chewed gum almost throughout the entire proceedings today. the other thing that was very interesting, ashleigh, and you haven t heard much about it, was justice antonin scalia s dissent, which was absolutely scathing from the bench. he really went after the proponents of gay marriage, and, in part, attacking the majority for the type of language it used and the proponents of gay marriage have used in this fight to get the defense of marriage
those federal benefits, too. the federal law the defense of marriage act which said that the federal government will not recognize any same-sex marriages, that law is out the window. that law s declared unconstitutional, as demeaning the rights of gay people. that was one decision. today. the other decision is related to proposition 8 in california. and that one is legally a little more complex, but the bottom line seems seems pretty simple, which is that the appeal of the proposition 8 case was improperly brought. so the district court ruling is intact. proposition 8 is gone in california, and same-sex marriages should resume in california basically immediately. and so, that s california. but we only have, i think, at last count and i could be off by one or two about 12 states
fiancee. i m looking forward to marrying my partner of three years. we ve been together. and i m going to get married in the state of california. i woke them up this morning telling them that the supreme court ruling on doma, and i m so proud of my daughter bailey, my son beckett, johnny rose, miller, i love you all. i love everybody out there. it s great day. thank you so much. best wishes to you and your fiancee and your children, as you move through yes, thank you. today s decision. thanks, melissa. this decision will have a big, big impact on not only melissa, but a lot of people. especially the benefits that same-sex couples have not been receiving so far, like income tax benefits, health benefits, estate tax benefits. literally millions and millions of dollars that have been denied to gay people up until now, had they been married. our justice correspondent joe johns is live with us outside the courthouse right now with all of the energy in action behind you. just take
redefine marriage. i don t think anyone thinks the whole issue of same-sex marriage throughout the united states is over. but, tony, as far as california is concerned, the largest state in the united states, gay couples will now be allowed to get married in california, based on what the justices of the supreme court decided today, right? well, it s unclear what has to happen from this point. but i would note that in 2000 and 2008, voters in california voted twice. so i think this certainly is a rejection of the voters of california who have twice gone to the polls to uphold the natural definition of marriage. so they ve completely ignored them as we can tell from the decision at present. but again, in this case, the court could have gone much further and struck down the these marriage amendments, which are in 30 states. they did not do that. this only applies to california and how it s going to be implemented we don t yet know as we are still combing through the opinion. tony p