This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21932682

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Hollingsworth v Perry: Supreme Court weighs gay marriage Hollingsworth v Perry: Supreme Court weighs gay marriage
(35 minutes later)
The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether the state of California can ban same-sex marriage. The justices of the US Supreme Court have questioned the meaning of marriage and the government's role in defining it, as they weigh whether the state of California can ban same-sex nuptials.
The justices are weighing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex nuptials, passed after gay marriage became legal there. The court could uphold the 2008 ban, narrowly overturn it, or invalidate all state same-sex marriage bans in the US.
They could uphold the ban, narrowly overturn it, or invalidate all state same-sex marriage bans in America. But analysts said after Tuesday's arguments the court could also find it has no standing to hear a challenge.
The hearing comes as opinion polls show a rapid rise in public support for same-sex marriage. Recent opinion polls have shown a rise in support for same-sex marriage.
As arguments began on Tuesday, justices questioned both the merits of the arguments and the parties' legal standing to bring the case to the high court. As arguments began on Tuesday, justices discussed whether the ability to procreate was crucial to the legal definition of marriage.
"There are lots of people who get married who can't have children," Justice Stephen Breyer said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote between the four conservative and four liberal justices, suggested that children of same-sex couples would suffer an "immediate legal injury" from the ban.Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote between the four conservative and four liberal justices, suggested that children of same-sex couples would suffer an "immediate legal injury" from the ban.
And Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the ban's supporters had the right to bring the suit defending it to the US high court.
California caseCalifornia case
Analysts say the justices could rule that the ban's supporters have no standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court, a decision that would invalidate only the California law while leaving other state bans standing. Analysts say the justices could rule that the ban's supporters have no such standing, a decision that would invalidate only the California law while leaving bans in dozens of other states standing.
Among the spectators in the court on Tuesday is a lesbian cousin of conservative-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Tuesday's case concerns California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, which was approved by that state's voters in a referendum in November 2008.Tuesday's case concerns California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, which was approved by that state's voters in a referendum in November 2008.
Its passage came only after some 18,000 gay marriages had already taken place in the state, following California's legalisation of such unions earlier the same year.Its passage came only after some 18,000 gay marriages had already taken place in the state, following California's legalisation of such unions earlier the same year.
Two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit, known as Hollingsworth v Perry, against Proposition 8.Two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit, known as Hollingsworth v Perry, against Proposition 8.
As the state of California refused to defend it, the organisation that had sponsored Proposition 8 stepped in as defendants.As the state of California refused to defend it, the organisation that had sponsored Proposition 8 stepped in as defendants.
In 2010, a federal court ruled against Proposition 8, saying the state had not demonstrated a good reason for infringing on what the judge saw as the fundamental right of all couples to marry.In 2010, a federal court ruled against Proposition 8, saying the state had not demonstrated a good reason for infringing on what the judge saw as the fundamental right of all couples to marry.
Supporters of the ban appealed against that ruling, but the court of appeals also ruled the amendment unconstitutional.Supporters of the ban appealed against that ruling, but the court of appeals also ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
Anti-gay marriage activists then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. They want the question of whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to be left up to individual US states.Anti-gay marriage activists then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. They want the question of whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to be left up to individual US states.
The Obama administration is not taking part in the case but has filed what is called a "friend of the court" brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay marriage amendment.The Obama administration is not taking part in the case but has filed what is called a "friend of the court" brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay marriage amendment.
In the Hollingsworth v Perry case, the court could uphold the ban, strike it down and invalidate similar bans in other states, or rule narrowly that California's law was unconstitutional.
Rise in supportRise in support
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear another case on same-sex marriage: a challenge to a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denies federal tax and other benefits to same-sex married couples.On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear another case on same-sex marriage: a challenge to a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denies federal tax and other benefits to same-sex married couples.
Both cases are expected to be decided by June.Both cases are expected to be decided by June.
Currently, nine US states and Washington DC permit same-sex marriage. Eight other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships with virtually all state marriage benefits, but do not allow couples to marry.Currently, nine US states and Washington DC permit same-sex marriage. Eight other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships with virtually all state marriage benefits, but do not allow couples to marry.
Recent opinion polls have shown a rapid growth in public support for the issue, with most Americans now believing it should be legal.Recent opinion polls have shown a rapid growth in public support for the issue, with most Americans now believing it should be legal.
The Supreme Court cases follow a flurry of declarations in support of gay marriage by high-profile figures, including last week by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.The Supreme Court cases follow a flurry of declarations in support of gay marriage by high-profile figures, including last week by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Days earlier, Ohio's Rob Portman became the first Republican senator to back gay marriage.Days earlier, Ohio's Rob Portman became the first Republican senator to back gay marriage.
And now three Democratic senators - Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - have adopted the same stance.And now three Democratic senators - Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - have adopted the same stance.