Supreme Court

NAIROBI, Kenya - The second-place finisher in Kenya's recent presidential election accepted a unanimous Supreme Court ruling Saturday that his rival, Uhuru Kenyatta, was the rightful winner. The court ruled that the March 4 election was free and fair. Raila Odinga, who was narrowly defeated by Kenyatta, said he still believed that the election was marred by irregularities. But he called on Kenyans to unite around Kenyatta as president for the sake of peace. "The court has now spoken.

Re "Justices seem to side with gay couples," March 28 The time has come for the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Laws designed to limit a person's pursuit of happiness by denying him or her marriage rights are discriminatory. Anti-gay marriage laws stem from the archaic belief that homosexuality is a choice rather than an individual trait. Nobody chooses his skin color, gender or sexual orientation. Thus, to deny gays the right to marry is no different than banning interracial marriages because they make some people uncomfortable.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is a place where tradition often trumps modern practicality, and for the press that is making it difficult to cover the two days of gay marriage arguments in the minute-by-minute style to which its television audience and online readers have become accustomed. Reporters are stripped of any cellphones and other modern electronic devices before they enter the courtroom, with its 24 columns of Italian light sienna marble. The justices sit on a raised, curved mahogany bench, in front of a tableau of the Ten Commandments and two figures depicting “majesty of the law” and “power of government.” FULL COVERAGE: Battle over gay marriage Journalists who cover the court regularly sit lined up in two pew-like rows on the edge of the courtroom, others in chairs in a foyer just outside.

WASHINGTON - Television crews flipped on spotlights and pro-gay marriage activists erected a speaker's podium in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning as the nine justices prepared to hear a second day of arguments about whether same-sex couples have a legal right to marry. A line of lawyers, spectators and activists several hundred long stretched down the block to get into the courtroom. After the festival atmosphere during Tuesday's session on California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, the crowd of a few hundred people was smaller and the mood was more muted on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON - With arguments underway Wednesday in the Supreme Court over whether the federal government should recognize gay marriage, activists on both sides of the debate competed for eardrums outside by cranking up the volume of protest songs coming from boom boxes. As on Tuesday, gay marriage supporters vastly outnumbered opponents. Supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married gay couples, waved signs reading "Kids do best with a mom and dad" and "Appeal to Heaven.

As the U.S. Supreme Court hears a second day of historic arguments on gay marriage, The Times will host a live video chat at 10 a.m. Wednesday with two leading legal experts and legal affairs reporter Maura Dolan. Those experts are John Eastman, a Chapman University constitutional law professor who supports California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at UC Irvine and a constitutional law professor. Eastman told The Times on Tuesday that he was “cautiously optimistic” after listening to the arguments in the courtroom.

In his opinions on abortion and gay rights, Justice Antonin Scalia has taken an offensively narrow view of the Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. But when it comes to the 4th Amendment's more specific protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scalia has been a strong voice for individual rights. That was the case again Tuesday. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Scalia came down hard on police in Florida who, without having obtained a warrant, deployed a drug-sniffing dog at a homeowner's front door.

Experts said that based on Wednesday's arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court appears willing to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Gay rights lawyer Jon W. Davidson said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court was likely to permit married same-sex couples to have federal benefits. Davidson, legal director of Lamba Legal, said there appeared to be five justices willing to strike down the federal prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. FULL COVERAGE: Same-sex marriage ban The high court seemed likely to overturn the law either on grounds that it discriminates against lesbians and gay men without a valid reason or because it usurps the traditional state power to regulate marriage, he said.

WASHINGTON - As lawyers debated gay marriage inside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, activists outside delivered speeches, cranked up boom boxes and hoisted hand-made signs. "Kids do best with a mom and dad," one said; "Jesus had two dads, he turned out OK," another declared. Advocates for same-sex marriage turned out in larger numbers than supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married gay couples and was before the court. But the crowd of hundreds was smaller than the raucous gathering for Tuesday's arguments on California's ban on same-sex marriage.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court deliberated Wednesday on whether the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies legally married same-sex couples federal benefits, meets constitutional standards. The arguments over DOMA mark the second time the court has held a hearing related to same-sex marriage, with justices debating California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday. The court has released the audio recording and the transcript of the oral arguments, featuring persistent skepticism from liberal justices on whether DOMA, which was signed into law in 1996, is inherently prejudiced and thus invalid.