Ban On Same Sex Marriage

Linda Stay, a fifth-generation Mormon who has since left the church, loves her son. He's gay and married his husband two years ago in San Francisco during the brief period when same-sex marriage was legal. So when an e-mail popped up in Stay's inbox last year from a filmmaker looking to interview those who had been affected by Proposition 8 — the same-sex marriage ban voted into California law in fall 2008 — she raised her hand. She supported her son and wanted to share the story of how her family had been torn apart over his sexual orientation.

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court kept in place Wednesday its order blocking video coverage of the trial of California's Proposition 8, with a conservative majority ruling that defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage would likely face "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were broadcast to the public. "It would be difficult -- if not impossible -- to reverse the harm of those broadcasts," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer "harassment," and they "might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings."

Targeting districts that voted heavily in favor banning same-sex marriage, gay-rights activists took to the streets throughout Los Angeles County on Saturday and made personal appeals for legalization. Organizers said they hoped to humanize their cause by having gay and lesbian couples share their struggles with residents. "We become human when we tell our stories, that is why across the state we're going out and talking to people who aren't with us," said Marc Solomon, marriage director of Equality California, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization.

Five months after the landmark federal trial over banning same-sex marriage began, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker presided over closing arguments Wednesday, prodding attorneys for five hours about subjects sexual, fundamental, legal and historical. "Do people get married to benefit the community?" he asked Charles Cooper, who is representing the backers of Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. Would overturning Proposition 8 mean that he was ruling that voters had "discriminatory motives" when they passed the controversial measure, Walker asked Theodore Olson, an attorney for the gay and lesbian couples who sued to overturn the marriage ban. The measure passed 52.3% to 47.7% in November 2008.

The federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 Wednesday said the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage was based on moral disapproval of gay marriage and ordered the state to stop enforcing the ban. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions." "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Octogenarian Phyllis Lyon and her lifelong partner Del Martin were the first same-sex couple to be married in San Franciso City Hall in February 2004 in a private ceremony that opened the floodgates to thousands more weddings and multiple court battles. Although Martin died four years later, Lyon was able to witness the landmark federal court ruling Wednesday striking down Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages. She had three words for U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker: "Bless his heart."

WASHINGTON - During last week's Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that "there's considerable disagreement" among experts over whether "raising a child in a single-sex family is harmful or not. " Two other justices agreed that gay parenting was a new and uncertain development. Those comments startled child development experts as well as advocates of gay marriage, because there is considerable research showing children of gay parents do not have more problems than others.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court began hearing arguments Tuesday on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in a California case that could transform the law nationwide. The argument was scheduled to last only one hour, but it may give clues as to how the justices are leaning. It began shortly after 10 a.m. EDT.  About 1 p.m. the court will release audio of the arguments on its website . About an hour later, it will post written transcripts. Two former Reagan administration lawyers, Charles J. Cooper and Theodore B. Olson, were lined up on opposite sides, with Olson contending an equal right to marry is basic to American liberty and Cooper saying the decision on changing state marriage laws should be left to the voters in each state.

WASHINGTON - Speaking before a bank of microphones on the Supreme Court steps moments after the argument over gay marriage in California ended, lawyers for both sides said the justices asked probing questions and did not reveal much about how they would decide the case. Proponents in favor of legalizing gay marriage in California erupted in cheers and whistles as David Boies and Ted Olson emerged from the central door to the court. Both high-profile lawyers were part of the legal team arguing that the court should overturn the state ban. Boies told reporters it was "amazing" that the proponents of Proposition 8, the initiative that prohibited gay marriage, made "no effort to defend the ban on gay marriage.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court heard two powerful arguments last week about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, and the path the justices choose could determine not only whether gay marriage will become the law nationwide, but how soon. One argument spoke to the principle of equal rights. Denying federal benefits to legally married gay couples "cannot be reconciled with our fundamental commitment to equal treatment under law," the Obama administration's top courtroom lawyer told the justices, as he urged the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. The other argument spoke to the traditions of states' rights and letting people, rather than the courts, decide the great social issues of the day. Debate over same-sex marriage is "roiling throughout this country," said a lawyer defending the California ballot measure that barred gays from marrying.