everybody else is or let them pay for it. i m not here to endorse my lovemaking. it s not their business. thank you very much, good luck. one of several passionate protesters and hundreds of them now gathered on the steps of the supreme court. just minutes away from the decisions on the two very, very important cases involving the defensive marriage act and the prop 8 the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. carol? i want you to take us through the cases on tap and mentioned them briefly. the u.s. supreme court must decide whether all couples, no matter if their sexual orientation have the constitutional right to federal benefits. the other case is very much to do with california. california was a unique case because the state supreme court in 2008 ruled that same-sex marriage was legal and valid and then later that same year the voters voted to ban same-sex
there still this live torpedo in the water of a state law issue? is kennedy, who s a big believer in federalism, going to support the right of the court and say, we re going to leave this up to the states? we ve answered what the federal government can t do. but we have not said what the states can or cannot do. i want to go to brian todd right now. we keep hearing the cheers behind us. we re only a block away from the supreme court. we keep hearing cheers from the activists very excited about the ruling, that the federal government no longer has the right to discriminate against same-sex marriages. they have to acknowledge them and accept them and bestow upon them federal benefits if they the couple was married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. brian todd, tell us who you re with right now. this is phil adie. this is catholics for equality, the name of your group, i take it. i m the former executive director. we disbanded the organization last year. all right. wha
and if you go back to 2003, you see that 31% of the american public said, you know what, we don t think it should be recognized. and now, 55%. so in one decade, support for same-sex marriage has almost doubled in this country. and so, the question today we have before the court, is the court effectively going to follow public opinion on this, wolf, which has really shifted dramatically. and we do know a decision has been reached. we re going through the writings of the justices. we want to be precise, obviously, and make sure we fully understand what these justices have decided. at issue in this first case, the defense of marriage act, gloria, the specific question is whether or not it s constitutional to prevent federal benefits going right. couples of the same sex. and if you are legally married in a state, the question is whether the federal government should recognize your
marriage, it will happen in august. what does this mean in the 36 states where same-sex marriage has been banned or is not allowed? what does this ruling mean, jonathan turley? well, we re waiting for that second opinion to determine whether there still remains a prominent state law issue here. you know, the court could have rendered this decision on the equal protections grounds, but still, in the second opinion, recognize state the right of states to make this decision. and that s why this is the important linchpin. the language of this opinion is broad, and it would seem to indicate that there s equal protection rights that extend beyond the narrower question of federal benefits. but remember, right now, what this means is that if you can get through a state that recognizes your marriage, the federal government will recognize it as well. but you still must be married in a state that recognizes a union between two men and two women. and that s a minority. that s only 12 states
nervous. cautiously optimistic. reporter: all right, guys, thank you. anyway, we ve got brian, hold on for a moment, because i want to alert our viewers, the justices have now announced that a critically important case, the defense of marriage act, whether it is constitutional or not constitutional, has been reached. this is the united states versus windsor. john king is at the magic wall for us. john, explain what this case is all about, the defense of marriage act, or doma, as it s called. let s take a look. it s united states versus windsor. it s not a question of whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. it s a question about the practical effects that if a state does recognize the same-sex relationship, what happens when you apply for federal benefits. because the federal government right now, it defines marriage as between a man and woman, so the question is whether it violates protection guarantees. the government says, since the federal government does not recognize