Supreme Court hears marriage equality cases

>>> on friday, president barack obama 's administration weighed in big time on the issue of marriage i quality. they were asked to strike down section three of the marriage act . the act defined marriage as between one man and one woman. section three denies the benefits to sake-excouples. the significance is huge. it's the first time a u.s. president weighed in in support of same-sex marriage in a supreme court . in this case, the united states versus windsor is heard thursday, march, 27. hol lynns worth v. perry, a link that california 's prop 8 which created a state amendment prohibiting marriage was unconstitutional because it takes away rights for same-sex couples. we don't know how to court will rule, one thing is certain, march will be an important month on the road to marriage equality . this is your road house . let's start with the prop 8 case . what are the arguments here?

>> basically, it's a right to marry argument and equal protection argument. the court will likely go with the equal protection argument. it gives it more options. essentially, i don't want to see it as either zero states or 50 states . a one state proceed ural says you are not the right people to bring it to court. kicks it back to california . sake sex marriage comes back to california . you can't give a right then take away the right. that third part gets left out. it should remain. it would be a ruling. it would affect all 50 states but california is the only state that has given the right and took away the right. i should say entitlement. the eight state solution is the most interesting and underreported one. there are eight states currently that give same-sex couples the benefits and rights of marriage. the court could say why would you with hold only the word unless trying to make second class citizens. the corporation is saying you are tarnishing the brand and you cannot unless you are less than. that would be an incremental solution between the one state solution.

>> before -- what's interesting to me here is having just talked voting rights and the angst we have with the state 's rights around voting rights , here in the case of marriage equality , all of a sudden being able to bring forward state 's rights is the progressive position.

>> absolutely. this is what makes me tear my hair out a bit.

>> sure.

>> all of these conservative justices have been saying to us in case after case beginning with 1995 case of lopez and morrison in 2000 . family law is state law . congress should stay out of traditional state domains because they are traditional. for them to turned around and say doma is constitutional is bizarre.

>> right. is this what will hinge on or turn on ultimately?

>> just to remind the audience, there are two cases. doma is federal and the california case. stepping way back, regardless of what happens this month and this year, we are going to have gay marriage in america in all 50 states in our lifetime, indeed within the next five to ten years because the demographics are so dramatically shifting as evidence by president obama 's issue on this in one direction, an arc of history bending toward justice. once enough states do this on their own, which they will, the supreme court will nationalize it, even if it doesn't do it this year. once enough states do it on their own and other states have to recognize marriages solemnized in places where it's legal just as people today can get fast divorces in nevada. people today , regardless of where they live can go to massachusetts and we will very quickly move to a 50- state solution even if we don't do it this year.

>> i guess the very thing that makes me nervous is the idea of justice delayed, justice denied . before mrs. perry comes and has to pay an estate tax. i think, you know, we are going to watch this closely. there is a question on the one hand, i want to be careful it's coming. there's the question of justice now. all right. when we come back, more on the question of justice now. we are going to talk about affirmative action and the ruling that could change it forever. watch