United States Supreme Court justices - deeply divided - hear oral arguments and engage in debate on California's Proposition 8 law banning gay marriage, including whether the institution is really all about having babies.
OK I've I. And it doesn't go right okay -- I don't -- -- As people throughout the country. He engaged in an earnest debate. Over whether the age old definition of marriage should be changed to include same sex couples. The question before this court. Is whether the constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all -- These states in reading debris seems as though your principal argument is that same sex and opposite camp sex couples are not similarly situated. Because. Opposite sex couples can procreate same sex couples cannot and state principal interest in marriage. Now what happens here argument. About the institution of marriage is tool -- appropriations. The fact. In California to. Couples that aren't gay but can't have children. Get married all the time. Yeah sure the concern is that B defining marriage. As agenda listened completion. Will suffer its abiding connection. To its historic traditional -- -- purposes if you. Redefine marriage to include same sex couples you must. You must permit adoption by same sex couples. And there's there's considerable broad disagreement among among sociologists. As to what what the consequences of raising a child and in it. In in a single sex. Friendly. What whether that is harmful to the children. In -- when you impact. Same sex couples adopting terror that's right here on that is true. Maybe it's true but irrelevant. There you. There arguing for the nationwide. Rule. Which applies to states other than -- point that every state must allow marriage by same sex couples. There's some 40000. Children in California according to the red brief. That lived with same sex parents. And today. Want their -- To have full recognition -- -- Thank you mr. Chief Justice made pleas court I thought that would be important for this court. To have proposition eight put in context what it does. Give walls off. Gays and lesbians from marriage the most important relation in life according to this court thus statement -- A class of California based upon their status. And labeling their most cherished relationships. As second rate. Different. On people and not okay. I'm curious win win to me when did it become unconstitutional. To exclude. Homosexual. Couples from marriage. 79 -- one. 1868. When the fourteenth amendment was adopted. I can answer this in the form of a rhetorical question when did it become unconstitutional. To prohibit interracial marriages but. People -- my sex couples -- every other right it's just about the leave them the label marriage means something even our -- worse if you help. If you tell a child but somebody has to be their friend. Suppose you can force the child to say this is my friend but it changes the definition of what it means to be friend. And that's it seems to me what -- what supporters of proposition eight are saying what are your take all your interest in as the label and you insist on changing. The definition of the legal problem. The problem with the case is that you're really asking particularly because of the sociological evidence -- site. For us to go into uncharted waters. What what is your response of the argument which has already been mentioned. About that they need to be cautious in the light of the newness of the concept. Of same sex marriage. First. California did not proper proposition eight -- what my friend mr. Hu percent which -- it pushed the delete. This is a permanent ban. It's in the constitution is supposed to take this issue out from the legislative process is it position the United States that same sex marriage is not require. Throughout the country. We're not. It we we are not taking the position that is required throughout the country we think that that ought to be left open. For future -- adjudication and and other states that don't have the situation California passed.