Comment on Excerpts of Calif. gay marriage case at high court

Excerpts of Calif. gay marriage case at high court Associated Press Copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Updated 3:39 pm, Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Excerpts from the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday about California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, from a transcript released by the Supreme Court: [...] a state can't authorize anyone to proceed in federal court, because that would leave the definition under Article III of the federal Constitution as to who can bring — who has standing to bring claims up to each state. The problem — the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff. On the question of children of same-sex parents (Kennedy and Charles Cooper, lawyer for the defenders of Proposition 8): There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. 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 disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason. ROBERTS (in response): I'm not sure, counsel, that it makes — I'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples. When the California Supreme Court faced the decision, which it had never faced before, is — does excluding gay and lesbian citizens, who are a class based upon their status as homosexuals — is it — is it constitutional. Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision? If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. Even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional — (laughter.) Society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that — [...] I'm not even —