As gay-marriage supporters and opponents and media pundits parsed the syntax of Supreme Court justices after two days of hearings, the elderly woman who brought one of the historic cases went with her gut.

"I think it was great," said Edie Windsor, 83, the lesbian widow who challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act after she was made to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes that a heterosexual would not have faced.

"I think it went beautifully. I thought the justices were gentle," she said, speaking off the cuff instead of reading from a speech someone wrote for her.

"They were direct, they asked all the right questions.  I didn't feel any hostility or any sense of inferiority...I felt we were very respected and I think it's gonna be good."

A retired computer programmer who lives in Manhattan, Windsor was engaged to longtime love Thea Spyer in the 1960s but stayed in the closet. Her ring was a brooch that wouldn't give away her secret.

She didn't go public with her sexuality until she and Spyer got hitched in Canada in 2007.

Their announcement in the New York Times brought good wishes from hundreds of friends and acquaintances they had known through the decades and affirmed Windsor's belief that being married was different than just living together with a diamond pin to symbolize their commitment.

"It is magic," she said.

Two years later, Spyer, who had suffered from multiple sclerosis for years, died. Weeks later, Windsor had a heart attack -- a real life "broken heart," she said.

"In the midst of my grief, I realized the federal government was treating us as strangers," refusing to recognize her marriage and socking her with a massive estate tax bill like a single person, she said.

Windsor sued, and lower courts declared DOMA was discriminatory and unconstitutional, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to make a final determination.

"Today is like a spectacular event for me," she said, describing how she wore hearing aids to make sure she would not miss a word of the historic oral arguments.

The justices' questions on Wednesday suggested they are likely to strike down DOMA when they rule in June, and Windsor said she was "thrilled, exalted and humbled."

Crowds outside chanted "Edie! Edie!"-- and Windsor's thoughts went to the "beautiful, sparkling, brilliant" person who couldn't be there.

"I know the spirit of my late spouse Thea Spyer ... is right here watching and listening and would be very proud and happy of where we've come to," she said.

Related: 

11 key moments from the arguments over DOMA

Gay-marriage advocates say they've already won in court of public opinion

The Supreme Court won't rule until June, but gay-marriage advocates said the justices' decision to tackle the issue has already helped them win a victory in the court of public opinion.

"The more and more the country talks about this issue, the more and more people come to our side," Michael Cole-Schwartz of the Human Rights Campaign said Wednesday after the high court heard two days of arguments on same-sex marriage cases.

A wave of senators — from Ohio Republican Rob Portman to Virginia Democrat Mark Warner — publicly backed marriage equality in the days before this week's back-to-back hearings.

Surveys show Americans increasingly support legalizing same-sex marriage. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found 58 percent of people in this country think it should be legal for gays and lesbians to tie the knot.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

Supporters of gay marriage rally in front of the Supreme Court on March 27, 2013. Both sides are cautiously optimistic, but marriage-equality advocates say no matter what happens, they've won in the court of public opinion.

"I'm feeling enormously proud at the who's who of America that came before the court and the public to say it's time for the freedom to marry," said Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry. "We know we have momentum and the winning strategy and we will see whether the court delivers in June."

Wolfson said he is cautiously optimistic the marriage-equality movement will notch gains when the Supreme Court issues its opinions on California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but he said activists aren't taking a wait-and-see approach.

Legislators in four states — Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware — could vote on same-sex marriage measures even before the justices sign off on their opinions, and advocates are turning their attention from Washington to the statehouses.

The other side is also gearing up for the next round of political battles. Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, said gay-marriage proponents may have underestimated their opponents' strength.

"I can't believe all the people who have called me who haven't been engaged before," she said. "I think they [marriage-equality advocates] might be surprised that they’ve awoken the sleeping giants."

The two camps were united in their reluctance to declare a win before the Supreme Court actually rules, even though the justices gave hints about their thinking.

NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reported Wednesday that the court signaled that it might narrowly strike down DOMA, which denies same-sex couples the same federal benefits as married heterosexuals.

The day before, after arguments on the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage, the justices hinted that a sweeping ruling knocking out such state laws isn't in the cards.

"I was in the courtroom both days and I think the court was clearly trying to find a solution that did not require imposing same-sex marriage on all 50 states," said John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage.

He predicted the justices will uphold Prop 8 and "let the issue continue to play out in the political process," with states deciding whether to permit gay marriage.

On the DOMA case, Eastman said he's optimistic the federal law will survive while conceding the argument it impinges on states' right to regulate marriage got some "traction."

But Wolfson read the tea leaves differently: "I think we are going to see rulings that one way or another will continue moving the country in the direction of the freedom to marry.'

The Rev. Rob Schenck of the Evangelical Church Alliance said after Wednesday's hearing that he believes DOMA and the federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is "at great risk."

"If that should happen, we have urged in our brief that this court take into consideration and explicitly guarantee the religious freedom of military chaplains, civilian chaplains, as well as other clergy who are required by law to swear an oath to serve the Constitution," he said.

Related:

First Read: America's culture wars return

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared highly skeptical of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that blocks federal recognition of gay marriages, according to courtroom observers.

Here are 11 key moments from the arguments, which followed Tuesday's session on California's ban on same-sex marriage. The two cases could reshape the legal status of hundreds of thousands of gay couples.

----

1. Early in the proceedings, Vicki Jackson, a law professor appointed by the court to argue that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of DOMA, makes the heart of her case:

Jackson: "While it is natural to want to reach the merits of such a significant issue, as in Raines v. Byrd, this natural urge must be put aside because, however important the constitutional question, Article III prevents its decision here and requires this Court to await another case, another day, to decide the question."

----

2. Chief Justice John Roberts strongly takes issue with the Obama administration’s decision to continue enforcing DOMA while believing that it is unconstitutional -- and appears to question the courage of the president:

Roberts: "And if he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice."

----

3. Justice Elena Kagan speaks of $300,000, an apparent reference to the $363,000 that Edith Windsor claims she had to pay in federal taxes on her late wife’s estate because of DOMA. She's addressing the issue of whether Windsor meets the legal standard of injury.

Kagan: "But, Ms. Jackson, I mean, to go back to Justice Kennedy's point, we have injury here in the most classic, most concrete sense. There's $300,000 that's going to come out of the government's treasury if this decision is upheld, and it won't if it isn't. Now, the Government is willing to pay that $300,000, would be happy to pay that $300,000, but whether the Government is happy or sad to pay that $300,000, the government is still paying the $300,000, which in the usual set of circumstances is the classic Article III injury."

----

4. Roberts again takes issue with the administration’s decision to enforce DOMA while opposing it on constitutional grounds. He is addressing Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing for the administration:

Roberts: "So this is totally unprecedented. You're asking us to do something we have never done before to reach the issue in this case."

Srinivasan: "Let me say two things about that if I might, Your Honor. First is that it's -- it's unusual, but that's not at all surprising, because the -- "

Roberts: "No, it's not just -- it's not unusual. It's totally unprecedented."

----

5. Later, as Roberts and Srinivasan continue to argue about the administration's enforcement of DOMA, Justice Antonin Scalia joins the fray:

Srinivasan: "But -- but my point is simply that when the president makes a determination that a statute is unconstitutional, it can follow that the Department of Justice won't defend it in litigation."

Roberts: "Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. What is the test for when you think your obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed means you'll follow your view about whether it's constitutional or not or you won't follow your view?"

Srinivasan: "Mr. Chief Justice, I'd hesitate to give you a black-and-white algorithm. There are -- there are several considerations that would factor into it. One of the considerations --"

Scalia: "Excuse me. It's not your view. It's the president's. It's only when the president thinks it's unconstitutional that you can decline to defend it? Or what if the attorney general thinks it's unconstitutional?"

Srinivasan: "No, no. Of course -- "

Scalia: "Or the solicitor general, is that enough?"

Srinivasan: "28 U.S.C. 530(d) presupposes -- Congress presupposes that there are going to be occasions in which a statute is -- is not defended because of a conclusion by the attorney general that it's unconstitutional."

Scalia: "Oh, it can be either the attorney general or the solicitor ceneral?"

Srinivasan: "It could be, but this is a situation in which the president made the determination."

----

6. Paul Clement, defending the law on behalf of House Republicans, returns to the point about the administration’s enforcement of the law, and suggests that the move is undermining Congress:

Clement: "But what I would say is I just -- I would continue to resist the premise, which is that the House's prerogatives aren't at stake here. The House's single most important prerogative, which is to pass legislation and have that legislation, if it's going to be repealed, only be repealed through a process where the House gets to fully participate."

----

7. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cites some of the federal benefits denied to gay couples under DOMA:

Ginsburg: "Mr. Clement, the problem is if we are totally for the states' decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can't get leave; people -- if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?"

Clement: "And I think the answer to that, Justice Ginsburg, would be to say that that is a marriage under state law, and I think this court's cases when it talks about the fundamental right to marriage, I take it to be talking about the state law status of marriage; and the question of what does that mean for purposes of federal law has always been understood to be a different matter."

----

8. Justice Samuel Alito questions the intent of certain benefits provided by the federal government -- challenging the pro-DOMA side:

Alito: "Suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that's at issue in this case, which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. What was the purpose of that? Was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage, or was Congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit?"

Clement: "Well, I think for these purposes actually, Justice Alito, if you go back to the beginning of the estate tax deduction, what Congress was trying to do was trying to provide uniform treatment of taxpayers across jurisdictions, and if you look at the brief that Senator Hatch and some other senators filed, they discussed this history, because what was happening in 1948 when this provision was initially put into federal law was you had community property states and common law states, and actually there was much more favorable tax treatment if you were in a community law state than a common law state."

----

9. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggests that the federal government should leave questions of marriage to the states. Ginsburg says the benefits at the heart of the argument over DOMA have a wide scope -- with an analogy to a dairy product. And Kagan questions the motives of Congress when it passed DOMA:

Kennedy: "We're helping the states do -- if they do what we want them to, which is -- which is not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage and -- and of questions of -- of the rights of children to the state."

Clement: "With respect, Justice Kennedy, that's not right. No state loses any benefits by recognizing same-sex marriage. Things stay the same. What they don't do is they don't sort of open up an additional class of beneficiaries under their state law for -- that get additional Federal benefits. But things stay the same. And that's why in this sense -- "

Ginsburg: "They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question. It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

(Laughter.)

Clement: "With respect, Justice Ginsburg, that's not what the federal government is saying. The federal government is saying that within its own realm in federal policies, where we assume that the federal government has the authority to define the terms that appear in their own statute, that in those areas, they are going to have their own definition. And that's -- "

Kagan: "Mr. Clement, for the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it's uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state. So, this was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing. And it suggests that maybe something -- maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity. So we have a whole series of cases which suggest the following: Which suggest that when Congress targets a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world, that we look at those cases with some -- even if they're not suspect -- with some rigor to say, do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress's judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth? I guess the question that this statute raises, this statute that does something that's really never been done before, is whether that sends up a pretty good red flag that that's what was going on."

----

10. Later, Kagan presses Clement directly on the intent of Congress.

Clement: "Up until 1996, it essentially has it both ways: Every state has the traditional definition. Congress knows that's the definition that's embedded in every federal law. So that's fine. We can defer. OK. 1996 -- "

Kagan: "Well, is what happened in 1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House report here -- is that "Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." Is that what happened in 1996?"

Clement: "Does the House report say that? Of course, the House Report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. But that has never been your approach, especially under rational basis or even rational basis-plus, if that is what you are suggesting."

----

11. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, also representing the administration, lays out his case against DOMA, and the chief justice poses a hypothetical. Section 3 is a reference to part of the law that says that marriage shall be considered a legal union between one man and one woman:

Verrilli: "The equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points: First, what does Section 3 do; and second, to whom does Section 3 do it? What Section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. That means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notification of next of kin."

Roberts: "Suppose your -- you agree that Congress could go the other way, right? Congress could pass a new law today that says, We will give federal benefits. When we say 'marriage' in federal law, we mean committed same-sex couples as well, and that could apply across the board. Or do you think that they couldn't do that?"

Verrilli: "We think that wouldn't raise an equal protection problem like this statute does, Mr. Chief Justice."

Fred W. McDarrah / Getty Images

One month after the demonstrations at the Stonewall Inn, activist Marty Robinson speaks to a crowd before the first mass march in support of gay rights in New York on July 27, 1969.

From its beginning with riots against police oppression of gays in New York City more than 40 years ago, the fight for gay rights continues today on new fronts: over marriage, therapies to “cure” homosexuals and one of the country's most popular institutions, the Boy Scouts of America.

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two landmark, same-sex-marriage cases.

“The swift road to marriage equality has produced millions of conversations around the dinner table and water cooler on the freedom of every American to marry the person they love. It is these conversations that have changed minds. But while we've reached the tipping point on marriage, there's still a ways to go for full LGBT equality, like ending bullying in schools and workplace discrimination,” Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the LGBT advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.

Here is a look at some of the key moments in American LGBT history:

June 28, 1969: Start of the gay rights movement
The Stonewall Riots begin after police raid a popular unlicensed gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, in New York City's Greenwich Village. The riots, which lasted for days, were triggered by police harassment of gays, according to media reports. This is considered by many to herald the start of the gay rights movement in the U.S.

June 27-28, 1970: First gay pride parades
On the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, the nation's first gay pride parades are held in four cities – New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Fred Sergeant, who attended the NYC parade, reflected in the Village Voice: “Back then, it took a new sense of audacity and courage to take that giant step into the streets of Midtown Manhattan. ... I stayed at the head of the march the entire way, and at one point, I climbed onto the base of a light pole and looked back. I was astonished; we stretched out as far as I could see, thousands of us.” Pride events now are held worldwide every year.

AP

San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, left, and Mayor George Moscone in April 1977.

Nov. 27, 1978: Assassination of Harvey Milk
Milk became the first openly gay man elected to office in a major U.S. city when he won a seat on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in early 1978. An outspoken advocate for gay rights, he urged gays to come out and fight for their rights. Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by former supervisor Dan White. But Milk's legacy has lived on and California has designated May 22 as a day of “special significance” in his honor.

1981: The AIDS crisis
Gay advocacy groups form to deal with the crisis gripping the community amid a slow government response to AIDS and the linking of the disease with gay men. Over the years, the AIDS Quilt will form, and some well-known figures will succumb to AIDS, including actor Rock Hudson, or be diagnosed with it, like basketball star Magic Johnson.

Wilfredo Lee / AP

President Bill Clinton answers questions during a news conference in Taylor, Mich., in 1996.

1993: 'Don't ask, don't tell'
President Bill Clinton enacts "don't ask, don't tell," a policy preventing gays from openly serving in the military. Under it, an estimated 13,000 people were expelled from the U.S. Armed Forces. President Barack Obama repealed the policy in 2011. 

1996: Congress bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage (DOMA)
Congress passes the Defense of Marriage Act. Section 3 of the statute bars recognition of same-sex marriage, affecting more than 1,100 provisions of federal laws. It denies gay couples the right to file joint taxes and the protections of the Family Medical and Leave Act, and it blocks surviving spouses from accessing veterans’ benefits, among other things. The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to DOMA on March 27, 2013. Bill Clinton, who signed the legislation, recently came out against the law and asked the Supreme Court to repeal it.

April 30, 1997: 'Yep, I'm gay' -- Degeneres comes out 
Ellen Degeneres comes out on her television show, "Ellen," in an episode that drew in 42 million viewers. Her ratings plunged, which she said was due to a lack of promotion, and the show was pulled the next season, according to The Hollywood Reporter. But she bounced back and she now hosts a popular afternoon talk show, "The Ellen Degeneres Show." Her “coming out” heralded an era of other gay celebrities following suit, and LGBT leading ladies and men have in the last year said they felt it was unnecessary to reveal their sexual preference.

Evan Agostini / Getty Images

Candlelight vigil for slain gay Wyoming student Matthew Shepard.

Oct. 12, 1998: Matthew Shepard's beating death
Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson rob and beat Shepherd, a 21-year-old college student, and tie him to a split-rail fence outside of Laramie, Wyo. He dies on Oct. 12, less than a week after the attack. The murder, for which the pair are each serving two consecutive life sentences, inspired "The Laramie Project," a play and later film about Laramie in the year after the murder, and federal hate crimes legislation approved in 2009 that bears Shepard's name.

2000: Boy Scouts can ban gays
The Supreme Court rules that the Boy Scouts of America can bar gay Scouts and leaders from membership, saying that as a private youth organization it has the right to do so. Under increasing pressure in recent years to change the policy, the BSA has said it will hold a vote on the controversial membership guidelines in May.

Toby Talbot / AP

Lawyers Susan Murray, left, and Beth Robinson brought a lawsuit before the Vermont Supreme Court that led to the court's decision on same-sex marriage in 2000.

2000: First state to allow same-sex civil unions
Vermont becomes the first state to allow same-sex couples to join their lives via civil unions. The state approved same-sex marriage in 2009.

2003: Anti-sodomy law struck down
The Supreme Court strikes down a Texas anti-sodomy law, reversing an earlier decision made in another case 17 years earlier that Justice Anthony Kennedy said “demeans the lives of homosexual persons.” Gays are ''entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy said for the court, according to The New York Times. ''The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.'' 

2004: State same-sex marriage bans
A dozen states pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The amendments become a popular method to attempt to block legislative acts and judicial decisions on the issue.

Rich Pedroncelli / AP

Jeff Barr, left, places a wedding ring on Wes Wilkinson at the Yolo County clerk's office in Woodland, Calif. on June 16, 2008. They were among the first gay couples to wed in Yolo County after the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages.

2008: California's Prop. 8 nixes gay marriage
California’s Supreme Court rules that gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed. For a short time that year, some 18,000 same-sex couples tie the knot in the Golden State. But in November, voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (Proposition 8) after a hard-fought, multimillion-dollar campaign – one of the most expensive on this issue. The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Prop. 8 on March 26, 2013.

Pete Souza / White House via EPA

In an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC's "Good Morning America," on May 9, 2012, President Barack Obama spoke in support of gay marriage for the first time as president.

May 9, 2012: First sitting president to support same-sex marriage
Barack Obama becomes the first sitting U.S. president to back marriage for gay and lesbian couples. It marked a reversal from his 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative. His announcement came one day after voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as well as civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

Nov. 4, 2012: In a first, gay marriage wins at the ballot box
Voters in Maine approve same-sex marriage in the first vote brought by supporters, while voters in Maryland and Washington uphold state legislation allowing gays and lesbians to wed. And in Minnesota, voters reject – for just the second time nationwide – a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Related:

Same-sex marriage's big day in court: What's at stake?

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief

Even before Supreme Court rules, gay marriage battles rage in the states

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - DECEMBER 06: (L-R) Same sex couples and plaintiffs Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo look on at a news conference following a hearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6, 2010 in San Francisco, California.

Two gay California couples who are leading the legal fight to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage said Thursday on the eve of their landmark Supreme Court hearing that they were relieved to have "the end in sight" and believe the justices will step in "to right these wrongs."

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, are the faces to the challenge to Proposition 8, a citizen's initiative denying gays and lesbians the right to wed that voters approved in a pitched multi-million dollar ballot battle in 2008. The court will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday.

“The right thing for the justices to do is to lead the country on including all of us in this institution and finding a way to equity and fairness that brings the country together rather than dividing us based on a characteristic that we cannot change,” Perry said on a call to reporters. 

Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Plaintiffs Kris Perry (L) kisses her partner Sandy Stier during a rally to celebrate the ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in West Hollywood, California.

“There is an opportunity here for the court to send a message that who we love is important and we should be treated equally under the law," she added.

The couples will be in Washington, DC, for the historic hearing, which comes one day before the justices hear arguments contesting the constitutionality of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that bars recognition of same-sex marriage and thereby denies more than 1,100 benefits to gay and lesbian couples. 

"We both are very relieved and excited by the prospect of the final chapter in this case happening in the next few months,” Perry said, adding that they have "been waiting a very long time to be married and to celebrate that with our children and our parents. … I know that we are both very excited to have the end in sight."

The couples' journey began years earlier, when they decided to join the legal effort and testified before lower courts about the impact the ban has had on their lives. They further entered the public realm as advocates, doing interviews and television/online spots about their campaign.

Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Lawyer Theodore Olson (L) and his clients Paul Katami (C) and his partner Jeff Zarrillo attend a rally to celebrate the ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in West Hollywood, California. A federal judge overturned California's Proposition 8, a same-sex marriage ban, finding it unconstitutional.

“All four of us have regular lives and we have jobs that we need to pay our bills and so we have to be able to plug in and unplug when that happens,” said Zarrillo, of Burbank. “But being a part of this case, and being so closely associated with it, it reminds us of the daily harm and that discrimination even more every day.”

The legal struggle, he added, also “made us closer as a couple and has made us want access to that language even more, because the word 'marriage' and the word 'husband' and the word 'wife,' they have meaning” to society, family and children. 

“It affirms the commitment that we have built and shared,” he said. “While some people say it's just a word, that word is so important. And if it wasn't so important, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

Stier, of Alameda, said being a part of the case has impacted their lives in a “dramatic way.” Two of the couple's four boys were headed to college when they joined the fight, but another two were just starting high school, and so that “experience has been happening in parallel with this case.”

“For Kris and I, the focus of our lives has always has been and continues to be our family,” said Stier. “And that will continue to be the driving focus of our lives and it's really what helps us be inspired by the case – is that we want other families to have the greatest potential for success.”

When the couples first joined the legal fight, the objective was to repeal Prop. 8, and lower courts sided with them. The latest court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, said that since same-sex marriage was allowed in California for a few months in 2008 before the vote, it could not be taken away.

The Supreme Court justices could agree with that lower court decision — in a move that would limit their ruling to couples in California — or they could side with the backers of Prop. 8. Efforts to reach the backers, ProtectMarriage.com, for comment on Thursday were not immediately successful.

The court also could broaden out their ruling to recognize same-sex marriage in all states, as the couples' attorneys have argued, saying that the more than 30 statewide bans on gays and lesbians getting married violate the U.S. Constitution. Nine state, plus the District of Columbia, allow same-sex marriage.

“If we've learned anything through this journey, it's that when the minority rights are being oppressed by a majority the court is supposed to step in, and some times it's not always popular for them to do so,” Zarrillo said. “We would expect the court to step in and right these wrongs."

As their legal battle seemingly winds down, Stier said the couples know that the journey they embarked upon is not their's alone but will affect many others, noting she felt they – and thousands more couples – were “on the cusp” of being able to finally legally wed.
 
“We are ... struck by the importance not only of being married but of a shift happening in the country that will affect generations to come,” she said. “When we imagine the day, we're standing somewhere and taking our vows and deciding to be married, we will not only be committing to each other but will be overwhelmed, I'm sure, by the power of this decision, not only for ourselves but for the whole country.”

Meanwhile, the opposition is gearing up for the fight — and is expecting a win. As Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage said in a statement:

"We, too, are looking forward to the court hearing. It represents the opportunity to right the wrong that was imposed by federal judges in stripping over 7 million California voters of their right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the same definition that has guided civilization for thousands of years. We are confident of our position."

Related:

GOP sea change on gay rights?
Clint Eastwood to Supreme Court: Drop California's ban on same-sex marriage
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples

Ed Andrieski / AP

Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, left, and Rep. Tony Exum, D-Colorado Springs, confer as the civil unions bill is debated in the House Chamber at the Capitol on Monday, March 11, 2013.

Colorado lawmakers on Tuesday approved legislation allowing same-sex couples to enter civil unions, two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether gays and lesbians can wed.

The state House of Representatives voted 39-26 to pass the “Colorado Civil Union Act,” about one month after the Senate approved the bill. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who said he will sign the legislation, tweeted: “#CivilUnions passes! Today, every Coloradan has equal rights.”

Some House Republicans said that the bill, which goes into effect May 1, will be challenged because it doesn’t offer religious exemptions. "We won't get to debate this again here, but we will debate this in a court of law," Republican Rep. Lori Saine told The Denver Post.

Five other states allow civil unions, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples, while nine other states, plus the District of Columbia, grant same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Colorado, where voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2006 defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The civil-unions legislation passed on its third try, according to Lambda Legal.

Though lawmakers and others applauded Tuesday’s vote, some said it did not go far enough.

"Of course civil unions and domestic partnerships, no matter how complete the package of protections, are not marriage,” Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal's law and policy project director, said in a statement. “True equality is the freedom to marry the one you love and be included under the same laws as your neighbors. It is time to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, and Lambda Legal and many others will continue to fight for that goal."

The Supreme Court will hear two cases related to same-sex marriage at the end of March: The justices will hear arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, federal legislation barring recognition of same-sex marriage.

Beck Diefenbach / Reuters file

Gay marriage supporters cheer during a rally moments before hearing that Proposition 8 had been overturned outside the Ninth Circuit Courthouse in San Francisco, Calif., on Feb. 7, 2012. A federal court later declined an appeal to revisit California's gay marriage ban in June, clearing the way for the Supreme Court to consider whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

Gay rights groups cheered the Obama administration’s weighing in on a landmark Supreme Court case to allow same-sex marriage, while opponents decried the move as “war.”

But ultimately, constitutional and Supreme Court scholars say the government’s action of filing a legal brief on Thursday in support of repealing California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, will have little impact on the outcome of the case though it would carry some symbolic meaning.

Previous administrations have weighed in on cases brought to the nation’s highest court in which they were not directly involved -- such as the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies over the desegregation of schools, and the Reagan administration urging the justices to overrule the legalization of abortion, said Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor and author of “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.”

“I don’t think that the government’s brief (on Prop. 8) would be that influential and I don’t say that because I think in general that’s the case, but I think everybody already knew what the administration’s position was,” he told NBC News.

“The president has made this such a salient issue and has been so clear about his position that I don’t think the brief really adds anything that we didn’t know,” he added, referring to Obama’s calls since last May for same-sex couples to have the right to marry, including his reference to the issue in his 2013 inaugural address.

Obama administration steps into gay marriage battle

The justices will hear oral arguments on Prop. 8 on March 26, with a decision expected in June.

In the legal filing, the Justice Department went further than the California case and suggested it was unconstitutional to block gay couples from getting married in at least seven other states where civil unions are offered instead. Those states, the department said, violate the Constitution if they offer civil unions to gay couples but deny them the right to marry.

While the administration takes no position in its brief beyond those states, its reasoning would have even broader implications. If the administration's legal theory were ultimately accepted, no state could, under constitutional guarantees against discrimination, deny same sex couples the right to marry.

But the administration is technically not a litigant to the Prop. 8 case, like it is in the other case that the justices will hear in late March over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law barring recognition of same-sex couples.

G. Edward White, author of "The American Judicial Tradition: Profiles of Leading American Judges” and a Supreme Court scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, said he thought the legal impact of the administration’s move in Prop. 8 would be “virtually zero.”

“I really don’t think one should attach any legal significance to this particular intervention,” he said before the brief was released.

Noting that Obama “been quite late to alter his view on same-sex marriage” -- he did so last May, announcing he supported it -- White thought this was a way to remind everybody that the administration “has now officially changed its mind on the issue.”

“My takeaway is really that this is a symbolic act on the part of the administration,” he said. “They’re doing it for political currency purposes. The justices are going to understand that’s what it is.”

William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School and a constitutional law expert who has authored many works on legal issues facing same-sex couples, said he didn’t think the brief would “necessarily change any minds” or be “as important for the outcome of the case” as the separate filings this week by about 130 notable Republicans as well as large businesses in support of same-sex marriage.

Clint Eastwood to Supreme Court: Drop California's ban on same-sex marriage

Klarman, of Harvard, agreed, saying he thought the brief by the Republicans could influence Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he considers the swing vote on gay marriage.

“I think someone like Justice Kennedy … is interested among other things in how much political backlash there would be to a ruling in favor of gay marriage. The fact that there's so many Republicans now committing to support it is highly relevant,” he said.

“I think it matters that Obama was re-elected," he also noted. "If there were a President Romney who would be committed to opposing the decision then I think, you know, a swing justice might be more hesitant. I think it matters that Obama is president and I think it matters that Obama already came out in favor of this, but I don’t think the brief really adds much information.”

Though the experts don’t expect the legal briefs to carry much weight among the justices, parties on both sides of the issue were roused by the move.

ProtectMarriage.com, which brought the legal challenge to keep Prop. 8 on the books after the state of California decided not to defend it, decried the effort, calling it a “frontal assault” on the law by the Solicitor General in an email to supporters.

The group also said the bid was “a stunning declaration of war against the longstanding meaning of marriage and its obvious ties to society’s interesting in both mothers and fathers raising the next generation.”

Meanwhile, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sole sponsor of the challenge to Prop. 8 that also organized the brief by moderate and conservative Republicans as well as Libertarians, welcomed the government to its side.

“The brief filed by the Solicitor General is a powerful statement that Proposition 8 cannot be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded,” the group said in a statement. “AFER looks forward to having Solicitor General (Donald) Verrilli and the federal government by our side as we make the case for marriage equality for all before the Supreme Court.”

Related:

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief
Widow to Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples

/

Actor and producer Clint Eastwood is seen in September 2012 in Westwood, Calif.

Clint Eastwood has joined about 130 self-described moderate and conservative Republicans in signing a brief to the Supreme Court arguing against California’s Proposition 8, which bans marriage for same-sex couples.

Former Bush administration officials, including Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of Defense, and Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security, also were among those who signed the brief, which argued that the Constitution prohibits denying same-sex couples access to the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, according to a copy of the brief released Thursday by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Breitbart.com, which first reported that Eastwood had signed the brief, said he was a "long-time Republican with strong libertarian leanings," who had "become increasingly vocal politically." Eastwood's conversation with an empty chair representing President Barack Obama on the final day of the Republican convention briefly became a major topic on the campaign last fall.

The nation’s high court will hear arguments in the case on March 26. Thursday is the last day for briefs to be filed in the case, and officials told NBC's Pete Williams that the Justice Department will urge the court to approve gay marriage in California.

Six other former governors, including Jon Huntsman of Utah and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and ten former and two current members of Congress signed the brief, which was organized by AFER. Members of the George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain presidential campaigns also signed.

In the brief, the group said it was better for children to grow up with married parents, and that legalizing same-sex marriage would ease couples’ access to benefits and rights afforded to heterosexual couples but would pose “no credible threat to religious freedom or to the institution of religious marriage.”

They noted that many of those adding their names did not previously support same-sex marriage. But since a number of states have allowed gays and lesbians to wed, they, "like many Americans, have reexamined the evidence and their own positions and have concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples."

Rather, they “concluded that marriage is strengthened, not undermined, and its benefits and importance to society as well as the support and stability it gives to children and families promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples,” the brief continued.

Some on the list included who have had a change of heart on the issue include Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for California governor in 2010, and David Frum, a special assistant to Bush from 2001 to 2002.

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief

Numerous briefs have been filed in support of Prop. 8 by 20 states, religious groups, academics and legal scholars, as well as many against by businesses, labor unions, veterans, California plus thirteen states as well as the District of Columbia, and gay rights and religious groups.

National Football League players, Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and Bredon Ayanbadejo, a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, also filed a separate brief in the case that was released Thursday afternoon. The pair has been outspoken supporters of gay rights.

The California Supreme Court said in 2008 that the state had to allow same-sex marriage, and for a short period, some 18,000 same-sex couples wed in the Golden State. But with the passage of Prop. 8 later that same year, gays and lesbians were later prohibited from marrying. Various lower courts said the law was unconstitutional, with the most recent one determining such a fundamental right like marriage, that gays and lesbians had once enjoyed, could not be taken away.

The Supreme Court will also hear arguments in late March on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The Obama administration has encouraged the justices to strike down Section 3. In its argument, the administration noted that Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states were evidence that anti-gay discrimination remained a major problem.

Related:

Widow to Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples
Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

WASHINGTON -- More than 200 businesses on Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a federal law that restricts the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions, in one of corporate America's most prominent efforts to support same-sex marriage.

The companies signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in Windsor v. United States, a high-profile case challenging the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). They ranged from technology giants Microsoft Corp and Google Inc to Wall Street financiers such as Citigroup Inc and Goldman Sachs Group Inc to vineyards and yogurt makers in California.

Thomson Reuters Corp, which owns the Reuters news agency, also supported the submission.

The companies want the Supreme Court to void a key provision in the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They largely stayed away from constitutional arguments attacking the law and instead focused on the business nuisance the law created.

DOMA forces employers to treat employees with same-sex spouses differently from those with opposite-sex partners, the companies said, depriving gay employees of certain healthcare and retirement benefits that may be on offer. The law also creates headaches for human resources officials, they said.

"HR departments would tell you it is a disaster trying to deal with DOMA when you are a large employer, because you have these employees who are legally married, but now you've got to put them in a different box for W-2s, for ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), for retirement benefits, and it's really vexing," said Sabin Willett in an interview. Willett wrote the brief for his law firm, Bingham McCutchen, which handled the matter pro bono.

Separately, lawyers representing another group of employers, including some of the same companies, said they planned to file a brief on Thursday in a related case that questions a California law, known as Proposition 8, banning gay marriage.

The two cases are to be argued before the Supreme Court on March 26 and 27. A decision is expected by the end of June.

While corporate America has long offered domestic partnership benefits and made efforts to attract gay employees, the filing seemed to represent a new step in an effort to promote the issue.

"It is old news that big business is friendly to lesbian and gay unions," said Yale law professor William Eskridge, who has argued on behalf of gay rights. "But there has never been a business brief quite like this one with so many signatories on such a landmark issue," he said.

A group of prominent Republicans, including former advisers to President George W. Bush, are also expected to file a brief challenging the California law, adding heft to backers of gay rights.

The arguments appeared directed at Justice Anthony Kennedy, as a moderate and potential swing vote, to show the kind of wide support that exists, Eskridge said.

'HURTING BUSINESS'

The brief grew out of a previous effort to represent business interests in another case challenging the DOMA law, according to Willett.

That case brought together some 70 companies that felt courts may not have understood the full business impact of the law.

"When people talk about DOMA, they usually, and rightly so, focus on its impact upon human beings ... but people may not realize, and courts may not realize, this thing is hurting business, too," Willett said.

In the brief filed on Wednesday, the companies argued that DOMA "requires that employers treat one employee differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful."

DOMA does not create any uniformity nationwide, they said, because 12 states either authorize same-sex marriage or recognize marriages that have been performed in other states.

That creates a burden for employers, particularly those who do business nationally, they added.

The law also forces companies to discriminate, sometimes in contravention of their own internal policies and local laws, when dealing with healthcare plans and other benefits, the companies said.

In briefs already filed in support of restricting marriage to heterosexual unions, business interests have not been represented. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a stand on the issue.