Hollingsworth v. Perry Oral Argument
2013-03-26T13:13:01-04:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvY2JhXC8yMDEzMDMyNjEzMTMyNTAwMV9oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, docket number 12-144, on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 law. Nearly 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California, but same-sex marriages came to a halt in November 2008, when the state’s voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to get married. Questions by several justices focused on whether the central purpose of marriage was procreation, and on whether proponents of the ban had legal standing to bring the case after the state of California declined to do so when the referendum result was overturned by a federal court.
On June 26, 2014, the court ruled that Proposition 8's backers lacked standing to defend the 2008 law because California’s governors and attorney general had declined to defend the ban, thus meaning same-sex marriages could continue in the state.
On June 26, 2014, the court ruled that Proposition 8's backers lacked standing to defend the 2008 law because California’s governors and attorney general had declined to defend the ban, thus meaning same-sex marriages could continue in the state.
The Supreme Court heard argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, docket number 12-144, on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 law… read more
The Supreme Court heard argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, docket number 12-144, on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 law. Nearly 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California, but same-sex marriages came to a halt in November 2008, when the state’s voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to get married. Questions by several justices focused on whether the central purpose of marriage was procreation, and on whether proponents of the ban had legal standing to bring the case after the state of California declined to do so when the referendum result was overturned by a federal court.
On June 26, 2014, the court ruled that Proposition 8's backers lacked standing to defend the 2008 law because California’s governors and attorney general had declined to defend the ban, thus meaning same-sex marriages could continue in the state. close
People in this video
-
-
Charles J. Cooper Assistant Attorney General (Former) Department of Justice->Office of Legal Counsel
-
-
-
-
Theodore "Ted" B. Olson Attorney
-
-
-
-
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
Hollingsworth v. Perry Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $6.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
David Savage on Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Cases
David Savage previewed the March 26 and 27 Supreme Court oral arguments in two same-sex marriage cases, and he responded…
-
United States v. Windsor Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Windsor, docket number 12-307, a case challenging the Defense …
-
McCutcheon v. FEC Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. The case challenges the total amount…
-
Town of Greece v. Galloway Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Town of Greece v Galloway, docket number 12-696, a separation of church-and-sta…
User Created Clips from This Video
-
- 4 minutes
- 674 views
-
- 54 seconds
- 84 views
-
- 50 seconds
- 54 views
-
- 54 seconds
- 42 views