News » Local

Audio and Transcript of SCOTUS Prop. 8 Hearing Released

Tuesday Mar 26, 2013

From EDGE:
Take a look at the hearing's transcript here and listen to the audio here.

From AP:
Some excerpts from the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday about California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, according to an early transcript released by the Supreme Court:

On whether the case should be before them:

-CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But 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. And I don't think we've ever allowed anything like that.

-JUSTICE KENNEDY: 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. Whatever that was. ... But you're - you're doing so in a - in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on - on standing. I just wonder if - if the case was properly granted.

On the question of children of same-sex parents:

-JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think there's - there's substantial - that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal - what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. 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. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

-MR. COOPER (representing the people who helped get Proposition 8 on the ballot, in response to Justice Kennedy): I certainly would not dispute the importance of that consideration. That consideration especially in the political process, where this issue is being debated and will continue to be debated, certainly, in California. It’s being debated elsewhere. But on that - on that specific question, Your Honor, there simply is no data.

On the question of redefining marriage:

-JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me - let me give you one - one concrete thing. I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. 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.

On the rights of same-sex couples:

-MR. OLSON (representing two same-sex couples): This is a measure that walls off the institution of marriage, which is not society’s right. It’s an individual right that this Court again and again and again has said the right to get married, the right to have the relationship of marriage is a personal right. It’s a part of the right of privacy, association, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


  • BlondieSL, 2013-03-26 14:42:47

    Anyone else as nervous as I? So can not tell how it’s going to go. If it goes negative, I’ll feel devistated. :(

  • WayGay, 2013-03-26 16:35:43

    If the Supreme Court fails to recognize me and my partner then I will be ashamed to be an American and will look into moving to Canada and say fuck you to the US

  • Wayne M., 2013-03-26 16:42:21

    I wish I could be optimistic about the outcome, but frankly, with dinosaurs like Injustice Scalia involved in this decision, I cannot. I notice that Scalia still insists on referring to outdated and disproven arguments about possible harm to children adopted by same-sex couples, for example. However, this is not a surprise since he made it clear long ago what his decision would be - well before hearing any evidence. For this reason, Scalia should actually recuse himself from this case.

  • BlondieSL, 2013-03-27 08:02:43

    Anonymous. I know how you feel. My husband and I (together 20 years, legally married in Candada 5 years), want to retire back to Cali. But we are in the same boat as you. If we are not going to be recognized for our loving marriage, then the desire to return to a discriminatory state (or country for that matter), is something we don’t think that we can do. Yet, I so miss Cali. and my friends from back there. Let’s see what happens. It really CAN go either way. >:/

Add New Comment

Comments on Facebook