others it is not rational to perpetuate five thousand years of bigotry prejudice and invidious discrimination against homosexual people by using language as a weapon fundamental constitutional rights issue african american leaders often speak of four hundred years of prejudice to rightly justify race as a suspect classification homosexuals people and their children are discriminated no doubt about it either but the union sodium makes something the union of chloride makes something in the union of e and that's what the government's going to tell us that two people can certainly do it they can unite they can do everything but you can't call it marriage because something presumption when before we got to this point in the in opposite sex marriages you know the presumption that the child was born of the union was to make sure the child was not illegitimate that the majority of all children in our society live in single family single parent families so i think we have to look at marriage in real terms in our modern culture we shouldn't it's not  and harriet argonne and we need to be realistic about how how we view these children and it is important and it is the issue it's part of the issue that children should not be stigmatized in this bias against homosexual you can do everything else you want to do like you know you can call it marriage cannot search for example the right not to testify against one's spouse the right to file joint tax returns a little in the legislative every right you've got now when it's beyond me why the issues are even related i don't know a lot i think it's because if they have terminated their domestic partnership and you're claiming that it means something more then you've lost your standing because the standing was  california must issue marriage licenses and treat same sex couples the same way as he treats mary if the california supreme court but that's not filing a joint tax return with the federal government and i agree with in california you would have certain civil rights to a heterosexual couple that's right any of those questions right now i mean you talk about the right not to testify and that you've lost all the federal programs but the record doesn't indicate that those that your clients apply for any of those benefits and then tonight my clients apply for a marriage license and in  based on the application of the surface mining activations or the immigration provisions or a whole host of the sayings that you've listened to every cultural you've looked at all these thousands of things but your clients have not alleged one that they've been the i know you're making a broad argument but it's when you talk about standing in particular lysine particular rights injury i think it's difficult for me to see that in the record of this case as to your federal claims tonight please the court i'm gregory cassis for the federal government speaking in defense of the constitutionality of the federal defense of marriage act every core to have considered the issue has held that the traditional definition of marriage as a union one man and one woman does not violate the united states constitution  that this court should do the same here that unanimity of precedent is not surprising because the first case that we now offer to consider the question whether the traditional definition of marriage violates the united states constitution which baker versus nelson and baker versus nelson the supreme court of the united states issued a finding merits disposition rejecting both you processed and equal protection challenges to the traditional definition as reflected in minnesota wall the only arguable differences between wasn't a substantial federal question and it's clear from the mandela case when he extend the other cases in our brief that that judge thomas as a merits disposition well i mean i'm not i'm not saying it doesn't count as we have a holding from the supreme court that it does not violate the fourteenth amendment for the stake to apply a traditional definition both with respect to the licensing function under state law who  can marry and with respect to the benefits question under state law who can get the state law benefits that flow from being married then the question is is there any constitutionally significant say that well the state's case does involve the fourteenth amendment due process and equal protection principles and federal cases of course involve fifth amendment due process and equal protection principles that's not a distinction that makes a difference because as this court in the supreme court has held the fifth amendment and the fourteenth amendment are co extensive in the extent to which they do or do not restrict federal and state to deny benefits and to prohibit entirely same sex couples from marrying of course the federal defense of marriage act doesn't do that at all the federal government doesn't undertake to marry people it's simply under allocate certain benefits based on whether or not people are married if it is constitutional for state both to deny all benefits that flow from being married and to affirmatively prohibit a same sex couple from marrying then we think the federal case which involves the benefits function but not a licensing function is off or she or i so for all of those reasons we think baker plus the further reasoning that i've set out for those foreclosures the due process and equal protection claims asserted here by the plaintiffs if you go beyond baker  the next case you come to we're not in our hierarchy of president he's adams versus howard and the decision from this court which is relevant in two distinct respect one is that in footnote to this court specifically said that baker was a decision on the merits entitled to binding a fact on the issues necessarily resolved and secondly adams went on to apply rational basis review with respect to marital benefits under federal law in the immigration context and the court specifically held that there was a rational basis for the federal government to allocate benefits based on it for additional marital status one man one woman precisely because it is only the unions of one process clause of the fifth amendment or the equal protection principles in the fifth amendment prohibits the federal government from using a millenia old definition of marriage in allocating federal benefits through the tax code or various other contexts which was this man standing as the federal claims although we're not usually in the business of advocating for broad standing rules i think we i think candor to the court compels us to conclude that we think there is standing for these plaintiffs to challenge section three of doma the defense of marriage provision we don't think they're standing to challenge section two the reason we think they're standing with respect to section three is the gift assuming you're no longer domestic partners these plaintiffs would be similarly situated to plaintiffs in any other state which has no domestic partner arrangements they se federal marital benefits they can obtain those benefits if they succeed on two claims number one that the state licensing function with respect to marriage is unconstitutional given extended exclude same sex couples if they win on that claim they can marry under state law and then number two with respect to federal law the federal law limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional if they succeed on both claims then they can marry under state law and then get federal benefits under federal law they have the plaintiffs in this case have asserted an intention to marry a man to seek at least the tax benefit i think you're right about a lot of the other benefits if they succeed all of those claims they could get at least the tax benefits  want your honors mr krueger of the california attorney general's office the california department of health services in the state registrar from washington state's new jersey state courts are dealing with the issue of same sex marriage the trial court the district court in this case properly abstained because all three requirements for pulling the station were met this is a sensitive issue of state social policy a definitive ruling on  stuff that's going on if they just if they really cared about being true registered domestic partners they can just file again as i write yes that's what it looked like on and the statue that i just didn't know where there was something statutes don't need to be construed the state law is uncertain as the lockyer versus the county of san francisco california supreme court decision or a few thousand for made clear that they were leaving this issue open so all three requirements for not required by the legislature to be required to say and when we're considering same sex couples in opposite sex couples for congress as well as state covered governments can look at the composition of that relationship and the differences and treat them differently under the law so it is with marriage congress as well as state governments recognize that there is a potential for procreation with opposite sex couples that procreation that is responsible procreation to put forward incentives and encourage biological parents to raise their children and that is the mechanism that the state uses t unplanned pregnancy which obviously opposite sex couples routinely experience and the state has an interest in encouraging them into the marriage relationship where they are legally bound to their children  interest and well the state the state's interest in marriage it takes the place if you well of that deliberate planning that might occur with respect to a third party intervention and childbirth and that encourages people to marriage so that now they are legally balland to their children whether they plan for them or not and worsened versa saddler they recognize that as as an important state interest every state in the union recognizes that to parents that are married there's a presumption of paternity and and i think at that states have a compelling interest in that presumption so that is the difference one same sex couples don't interest in having people marry and then to get married you're right and that's a real problem and when children i had outside of marriage that incest becoming a real problem for the state i mean there are all sorts of social implications of that many of which are negative and that's why the state needs more marriage and to encourage marriage between opposite sex couples playing way the interest that the state has in marriage is not implicated by same sex couples and it's not invidious discrimination if that was invidious discrimination it would be a conspiracy from the beginning of time because every major civilization as far as we know historically has always recognized marriage as between a man and a woman and that is because all of their civilizations