Maggie Gallagher: Pro-Gay Ruling from SCOTUS Would 'Take Away Something Very Precious' from Americans - VIDEO

NOM's Maggie Gallagher, who was also seen wandering through the pro-equality rally today, appeared on FOX News today to give her take on the Supreme Court and Proposition 8, facing off against former Clinton aide Richard Socarides, Equality Matters reports.

Said Gallagher:

"For the Supreme Court to brand this view as irrational bigotry akin to racial discrimination would not end the culture wars, it would entrench them, and it would take away something very precious, which is the right of seven million Californians to use the democratic process to make our case to the American people. And so, I certainly think trying that to persuade the American people that the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers in 1789 has always required gay marriage is a long stretch and I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

NBC's Pete Williams Says SCOTUS Not Ready to Issue 'Any Kind of Sweeping Ruling' on Gay Rights: VIDEO

NBC's Pete Williams, who was in the courtroom, tells Thomas Roberts that the Supreme Court is "not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling about gay rights" and that it's likely they'll limit their ruling to California. He also notes that it's "risky" to make any kind of an assessment simply based on oral arguments.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Our legal expert Ari Ezra Waldman has posted his analysis of today's arguments. Read his take on their questioning of Prop 8 proponents HERE, and opponents (Ted Olson's argument) HERE.

And listen to the audio and read the transcripts of today's arguments HERE.

(via the new civil rights movement)

NOM Marchers Asked How Gays Have Damaged Their Marriage: VIDEO

Since one of the core arguments of conservatives is that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional marriage", Think Progress surveyed a few attendees of today's anti-equality rally, asking them how their marriage has been impacted by gay people being allowed to marry.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court: Analysis of Today's Argument, Part 2

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

In Part II of Towleroad's summary and analysis of the Prop 8 oral argument, we pick up with Ted Olson's argument against Prop 8. Read Part One HERE.

And listen to audio and read the full transcript HERE.

Here's what we have discussed so far:

• The justices are definitely interested in the standing question. The Chief Justice, though playing a gate-keeper role to make sure standing gets addressed, expressed skepticism. The key will be to see if he is playing the devil's advocate or expresses skepticism with Mr. Olson, too. But, in addition to the Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg is highly skeptical. If we see more evidence of this below, look for lack of standing to be the odds-on favorite of many pundits. But, remember, there were lots of other questions on the merits from all the justices. That does not mean that they are going to pass by standing. Nor does it preclude a 9-0 opinion saying the Proponents had no standing.

• Mr. Cooper was forced to admit that the only injury caused by allowing gays to marry would be redefining marriage, which is clearly not an injury whatsoever. He also admitted that gays simply do not advance the government's interest in encouraging natural procreation within wedlock (even though he's wrong about that), which proves that a ban on gays marrying cannot actually advance that interest, either. If it weren't for some help from Justice Scalia, this case would be over on this point alone.

• Justice Kennedy showed that he, like many, are struggling with this issue. The addition of this relatively emotional admission (emotional, at least, by Supreme Court argument standards) is telling of his honesty and the reality that many people are going through right now. This may suggest that Justice Kennedy is going through his process, perhaps with a little help from everyone else along the way.

We pick up with Ted Olson's argument and see what lessons we can draw,
AFTER THE JUMP...

Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court: Analysis of Today's Argument, Part 1

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

As the plaintiffs, attorneys, and assorted celebrities filed into the grandiose Supreme Court building at One First Street, you could get the feeling -- even from afar -- that something special was happening today. Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo walked in holding hands, as did Kris Perry and Sandy Stier. Ted Olson looked prepared and at ease, exactly what you would expect from a man who has argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than he probably cares to count. In short, the day was momentous. Would the argument be, as well?

In a word, yes. I will let the prognosticators prognosticate, but what I would like to offer you is a legal perspective. The argument exceeded my expectations in terms of the questions the justices posed to counsel on both sides and what those questions might say about the justices' concerns. But, let's be clear: While the media have already taken to Twitter and their own websites to predict that this or that question from Justice Kennedy means that he will make this or that decision, those predictions often fall far south of meaningful. Any lawyer who has argued before a "hot bench" -- namely, active questioners -- knows that sometimes, especially in politically charged environments, judges of all stripes challenge both sides. In fact, a study of decades of Supreme Court arguments based on the number of hostile questions a given justice asked a given party showed no statistically significant correlation with that justice's ultimate decision in the case (notably, there was a statistically significant relationship found between softball questions and a favorable decision).

The actual hearing can tell us a few things, like what is on the justices' minds. Was Justice Kennedy mostly concerned about standing, or was he asking a lot of questions about equal protection? If a justice only asks about one issue, that's the one he or she is focused on. Did the Chief Justice ignore the scrutiny question and focus on how the case is really only about the word "marriage"? If so, that might only mean that he has no questions on standing, that he already made up his mind, and not necessarily that he thinks the Prop 8 proponents actually had standing. 

With that in mind, follow me AFTER THE JUMP for the first of two posts offering a chronological summary and analysis of some of the more important highlights of the argument. When we all have had time to sit back and reflect, we will post a thematic analysis around the substantive questions in this case: standing, scrutiny, and equal protection.

CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP...

Attys Ted Olson, David Boies, and Prop. 8 Plaintiffs Speak After Today's Supreme Court Arguments: VIDEO

Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies and the Prop. 8 plaintiffs Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami spoke at a press conference following arguments before the Supreme Court.

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...