Twitter.com

@GovMarkDayton posted this photo on Twitter.com, with the caption "It's history"

As thousands cheered outside the state Capitol with rainbow and American flags, Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill on Tuesday that makes it possible for same-sex couples to get married.

Minnesota is the 12^th state to pass a gay marriage bill and the first Midwestern state to do so through a legislative vote.

"What a day for Minnesota!" Dayton, a Democrat, declared moments before putting his signature on a bill. "And what a difference a year and an election can make in our state."

The bill was signed a day after it was approved by the Senate in a 37-30 vote.

"It is an overwhelming joyful day, the culmination of years of work. Two years ago it would have been unimaginable to be here," said Jake Loesch, communications director with Minnesotans United, a LGBT group. "It was incredible, we had 7,000 people cheering as the bill as signed, it was probably the biggest crowd the Capitol has ever seen,"

Gay activists from all over the country cheered this decision.

"The transformative nature of people talking about their love and their lives is clear, as we see in reaching this milestone in Minnesota, and in the fact that a clear and growing majority of Americans supports the freedom to marry," said Rea Carey, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

“The many years of door-knocking, phone calls and poignant conversations about why marriage matters have made a difference.”

And Minnesotans United tweeted: “Freedom prevails. Thank you, Minnesota!”

The push for gay marriage was a quick change from just six months ago, when LGBT supporters had to mobilize to turn back a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex unions. Minnesota already had such a law, but an amendment would have been more difficult to ever undo.

But voters rejected the amendment, and the forces that organized to defeat it soon turned their attention to legalizing gay marriage. Democrats' takeover of the Legislature in the November election aided their cause.

"There is still a lot of work to be done. Now we have to make sure that all the legislators that made this day possible will be reelected," said Loesch.

Tonight, the city of Saint Paul is hosting a party to celebrate this historical moment. The law will go into effect on August 1.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

DOVER, Del. -- A divided Delaware state Senate voted Tuesday to make its state the 11th in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after hearing hours of passionate testimony from supporters and opponents.

The Senate's 12-9 vote sends the bill to Democratic Gov. Jack Markell, who supports the measure and planned to sign it later in the day. It would go into effect July 1.

"I think this is the right thing for Delaware," the governor said after the vote, while posing for pictures with supporters outside his legislative office. "It took an incredible team effort."

Gay rights activists and their supporters in the chamber erupted in cheers and applause following the Senate vote.

Delaware's same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the Democrat-controlled legislature last month, barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions. The bill won passage two weeks ago in the state House on a 23-18 vote.

While it doesn't give same-sex couples any more rights or benefits under Delaware law than those they have in civil unions, supporters argued same-sex couples deserve the dignity and respect of married couples. They also noted that if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, civil unions would not provide protections or tax benefits under federal law to same-sex couples in Delaware.

Opponents, including scores of conservative religious leaders from across the state, argued same-sex marriage redefines and destroys a centuries-old institution that is a building block of society.

Under the bill, no new civil unions will be performed in Delaware after July 1, and existing civil unions will be converted to marriages over the next year. The legislation also states that same-sex unions established in other states will be treated the same as marriages under Delaware law.

The bill does not force clerics to perform same-sex marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs. But under an existing Delaware law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, business owners who refuse to provide marriage-related services to same-sex couples for reasons of conscience could be subject to discrimination claims.

Delaware joins neighboring Maryland and the nearby District of Columbia as jurisdictions that have approved gay marriage. Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, with independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee signing the bill an hour after its final passage.

Minnesota appeared poised to legalize gay marriage after the Democratic speaker of the state House said Tuesday that a gay marriage bill endorsed by the governor and likely to pass in the state Senate also now has enough backing in his chamber. The House will vote on the measure Thursday, and if it passes, the Democratic-led Senate could vote on it as soon as Saturday.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 6:19 PM EDT

Charles Krupa / AP

Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox, right, embraces his partner, Marcus LaFond, after a vote to pass a gay marriage bill at the State House in Providence, R.I., Thursday, May 2, 2013.

Rhode Island became the final state in New England and the 10th in the country to legalize gay marriage after independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee on Thursday signed a bill that will allow same-sex marriage.

"I know that you have been waiting for this day to come," Chafee said to the state's gay and lesbian community at a bill-signing ceremony in front of hundreds. "I know you have loved ones that dreamed this would happen but did not live to see it. But I am proud to say that now at long last, you are free to marry the person you love."

In a New York Times op-ed Wednesday, Chafee outlined his support for gay marriage not only on moral grounds, but also economic.

"The talented workers who are driving the new economy — young, educated and forward-looking — want to live in a place that reflects their values. They want diversity, not simply out of a sense of justice, but because diversity makes life more fun," he wrote. "Why would any state turn away the people who are most likely to create the economies of the 21st century?"

As a Republican U.S. senator in 2004, Chafee voiced his support for gay marriage when most members of his party were staunchly opposed to it. He was ousted from his Senate seat in 2006 but won the governor's race in the Ocean State in 2010 as an independent.

Chafee is now calling on fellow governors to push for similar legislation to what passed in Rhode Island on Thursday, and calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Though public opinion continues to turn in favor of same-sex marriage, legalizing it is still a heavy lift for many states. 

Even in Rhode Island, which sits in the country's friendliest territory for gay-marriage supporters, opposition from the state's heavy Catholic population put the prospects of passage in jeopardy for years. The legislation has been introduced in the House every session since 1997.

But last fall, more gay-marriage supporters were elected to the state legislature, and the bill's passage was the result of a highly energized and coordinated campaigning from those equal rights groups, business leaders, community organizers and politicians.

The bill overcame its biggest hurdle last week when it passed the Senate by a comfortable 26-12 vote after Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, allowed a vote despite her opposition to gay marriage. The House easily passed the legislation in January but needed to approve the final language in a procedural vote Thursday that passed 56-15. The session was largely a celebration in which legislators reflected on the significance of the bill and thanked those who fought for its passage.

"We are truly social creatures, and that is the essence of this legislation," House Speaker Gordon Fox, D-Providence, said before the bill was signed. "You are free to love and commit to the person of your choice no matter what your gender may be.... And the foundation of that is a very simple, yet probably the most powerful word in the English language: Love," said Fox, who is gay.

Along with the five other New England states, Rhode Island joins Iowa, Maryland, Washington, New York and Washington, D.C., in recognizing same-sex marriage. Minnesota, Illinois and Delaware are also expected to come to decisions about the issue soon.

Charles Krupa / AP

Lise Iwon, right, and Julie Smith celebrate after a gay marriage bill passed in the Rhode Island House at the State House in Providence, R.I., Thursday, May 2, 2013.

Opponents to gay marriage argued passing the legislation would lessen religious liberty for churches and certain faith-based organizations

A day before the bill passed, the National Organization for Marriage called on the House to reject the legislation, which they say contains "a shocking lack of religious liberty protections, potentially ghettoizing people of faith unless they compromise and remain silent in the public square."

"When marriage is redefined into a genderless institution, it presents a range of legal conflicts for people of faith and the small businesses and charitable organizations they operate to serve the public," Christopher Plante, regional director for the organization, said in a statement.

The first same-sex marriages could take place Aug. 1, when the new law takes effect. Civil unions, which the state approved two years ago, will no longer be available to gay couples, though existing civil unions will still be recognized.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Brennan Linsley / AP

Just after midnight, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock performs a civil union vows ceremony for Sonja Semion, center, and her partner Courtney Law at the Webb Municipal Building.

The first gay couple granted a civil union in Colorado said their vows before hundreds of people early Wednesday morning at a downtown Denver municipal building, where eager couples and members of the public gathered to celebrate the first legal unions.

The new law legalizing civil unions took effect at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday and both Denver and Boulder began issuing licenses immediately. 

Fran and Anna Simon were the first to receive a civil union certificate. Wearing the white wedding dresses they wore at their commitment ceremony seven years ago and joined by their five-year-old son Jeremy, Fran and Anna received their license from a clerk at 12:02 a.m., following an expectant countdown to midnight led by other couples. Minutes later they were joined in a ceremony officiated by Denver Mayor Michael Hancock.

"Our commitment doesn't change, but we will have a burden lifted off our shoulders," Anna Simon said. "Loving and committed couples need legal protections."

The statewide advocacy group One Colorado hosted the festivities, and the Denver clerk's office remained open until 3 a.m. to issue civil union licenses to couples eager to take advantage of their rights under the new law.

Couples were ushered into the clerk's office in small groups, where they filled out paperwork and received their certificate, a moment that for many came with a quick kiss, a squeeze of hands or a few tears.

Signed certificates in hand, couples were then joined in official ceremonies performed before supporters and other couples in the atrium of the Wellington E. Webb Municipal Office Building.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette joined Hancock and local judges and magistrates in officiating civil union ceremonies. DeGette, a long-time supporter of gay rights, said she earned her clergy status online specifically to participate in Wednesday morning's festivities.

"Members of the GLBT community are the same as everyone else — they want loving, permanent relationships," she said.

Hancock said he was honored to be part of the landmark event.

"I've been a part of the effort to legalize civil unions in Colorado now for several years. I feel a tremendous amount of pride for the people of Denver to work with their legislators to finally pass this piece of legislation to allow people to love and live as they so choose," he said. 

Elsewhere in Colorado, the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder remained open until 2 a.m. to offer licenses, while other counties waited until after daybreak to start issuing civil union licenses. El Paso County will begin issuing them at 8 a.m. without any fanfare while some Pueblo County officials and advocates plan an 11 a.m. rally on the steps of the county courthouse followed by a mass civil union ceremony.

Colorado is the eighth state to have civil unions or similar laws. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the bill in March, marking the culmination of a dramatic shift in Colorado, where in 1992 voters approved a ban on discrimination protection for gays and in 2006 made gay marriage illegal under the state constitution.

But for many gay couples and gay rights advocates, the fight is not over.

Anna and Fran Simon, for example, who testified numerous times in favor of the civil union legislation, say they hope to get the chance to wear their wedding dresses one more time.

"Like most people growing up, you have a dream of falling in love and getting married, not getting a civil union," Anna Simon said.

Colorado's civil unions law allows unmarried couples, both gay and heterosexual, the ability to form civil unions and get rights similar to those of married couples. They include transferring property, making medical decisions, adopting children and qualifying for health insurance and survivor benefits. 

Related:

13 key moments in the Supreme Court argument over gay marriage

Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of sweeping ruling

Steven Senne / AP

Rhode Island state Sen. Donna Nesselbush, D-Pawtucket (center) shakes hands with R.I. state Sen. Paul Fogarty, D-Glocester, moments after the state Senate passed a same-sex marriage bill Wednesday.

Rhode Island took a major step to becoming the 10th state to approve gay marriage Wednesday after the state Senate voted to approve a measure that would allow same-sex couples to wed.

Once believed to be a close call, the legislation passed comfortably by a 26-12 vote. It heads to the House, where it easily passed in January, next week for final approval. Gov. Lincoln Chafee has pledged to sign the bill, and the first same-sex marriages could take place Aug. 1.

Heavily Catholic Rhode Island is the last of New England's six states to legalize gay marriage. The legislation has been introduced in the House every year since 1997.

"Rhode Island will no longer be an outlier in our region. We will have the welcome mat out," Chafee said in a statement. "We will be open for business, and we will once again affirm our legacy as a place that is tolerant and appreciative of diversity."

Iowa, Maryland, New York and Washington also legally recognize same-sex marriages, as does Washington, D.C.

Supporters of same sex-marriage erupted into cheers outside the Senate chambers after the result was clear. The vote was a result of a highly energized and coordinated campaigning from those equal rights groups, business leaders, community organizers and politicians. 

“New England is now complete. Through court rulings, legislative action, and wins at the ballot, loving and committed couples from Bangor to Burlington, Providence to Portland, and Cambridge to Concord will soon be able to join in the freedom to marry," Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, said in a statement.

Since President Obama announced his support of gay marriage in May 2012, state legislatures throughout the country have slowly begun to follow his lead. Minnesota, Illinois and Delaware are also expected to come to decisions about the issue soon.

Opponents to gay marriage argued passing the legislation will create less religious liberty for churches and certain faith-based organizations. “Lawmakers have allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking they have protected people of faith when in fact they have put those who believe in true marriage in the crosshairs of the law and gay ‘marriage’ activists. It won’t be long before the repercussions begin to be felt,” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement.

NBC's Miranda Leitsinger contributed to this report. 

Underneath all the arcane legal fencing in this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage lies a basic question: Why should the justices take on the job of redefining marriage laws for the nation?

Is it the best venue for making decisions that could fundamentally change social institutions such as marriage? Is it the courts, in the person of unelected life-tenured justices? Or is it the democratic process in the states and in Congress?

At least some elected officials, including President Barack Obama and many Democratic members of Congress are saying to the high court: “You decide this.”

Even some Democratic members of Congress, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” told the high court in their amicus brief that they’d made a big mistake in 1996 -- and now they want the justices to fix it.

But at least some of the justices are pushing back and saying to the politicians: “Why don’t you decide this?”

Justice Samuel Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Tuesday as Verrilli was urging the court to strike down California's traditional marriage definition: “You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?”

Alito said that he and his fellow justices “do not have the ability to see the future,” implying that they shouldn’t be the lawmakers for American society.

The court does have experience in overriding decisions made by the people and their elected representatives and spurring fundamental social change – for example, the Brown v. Board of Education decision that ordered an end to racial segregation in public schools in 1954 and the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized most abortions nationwide.

Whether the court wants the job of social change-maker on marriage remains to be seen.

It may hinge on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s view of Section 3 of DOMA. If Kennedy and his colleagues strike down Section 3, then, as Verrilli said, it is “difficult” to see how laws in the 38 states that define marriage almost exactly as Section 3 does would survive court challenges.

Both Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending California’s traditional marriage law before the court on Tuesday, and Paul Clement on Wednesday defending section 3 of DOMA, pleaded with the justices to let the democratic process work.

“Persuasion,” Clement said in his closing argument. “That's what the democratic process requires. You have to persuade somebody you're right… That's going on across the country. Colorado, the state that brought you Amendment 2 (which essentially banned gay rights in the state in 1992), has just recognized civil unions. Maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide (same-sex) referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way.”

Clement implied that the political momentum is all in the direction of gay and lesbian rights.

But he omitted mention of North Carolina, which last May became the thirtieth state in the union to amend its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. Three out of five North Carolina voters voted for the amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts also seemed to making a case for the court staying out of the fray, implying that gays and lesbians are powerful enough to get politicians’ attention.

In an allusion to recent same-sex marriage endorsements by politicians such as Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Roberts told lawyer Roberta Kaplan -- representing Edith Windsor, who is seeking to have DOMA overturned -- that “political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

He told Kaplan that “the political force and effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case” had led to laws being changed in nine states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

He asked “You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?”

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

George Washington University students and hundreds of others rally outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Kaplan disagreed. Her argument and the Obama administration’s rests partly on a contention that gays and lesbians are a politically powerless minority.

In his brief, Verrilli wrote that “the final consideration is whether gays and lesbian people are ‘a minority or politically powerless.’ They are both.” If gays are powerless and are what the courts call “a suspect class,” then it is easier to strike down laws that affect them under Supreme Court precedents.

Evidence that gays and lesbians aren’t powerless is that politicians such as Hagan, who is up for re-election next year in a state that just banned same-sex marriages, are now not shy about joining the same-sex marriage cause.

But to say it’s no longer too politically risky for Hagan in North Carolina to endorse the right of same-sex couples to marry is not the same as saying there are now the votes in North Carolina to rescind the marriage law which voters enacted just last year.

Putting national polls aside for the moment, it may be useful to look at the pattern of voting in states where real, flesh-and-blood voters have recently voted on marriage.

Maryland voters last November approved a referendum that allows gay and lesbian couples to marry. The vote was 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent – this is in a state that Obama carried with 62 percent.

The pattern reflected the long-standing urban/rural split in politics; urban and suburban counties such as Montgomery County, in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., approved the measure. Two-thirds of Montgomery County voters voted for it.

But in rural counties such as Harford County, the measure was defeated. It was also narrowly defeated in predominantly African-American Prince George’s County in the Washington suburbs. 

The pattern in the state of Washington, where voters last November approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriage, was the same. In suburban Snohomish County, 53 percent of voters voted for legal recognition of same-sex marriages; just across the mountains in rural Chelan County, 57 percent of voters rejected same-sex marriages.

Many of the 38 states that have traditional marriage laws have conservative electorates that more closely resemble rural counties' electorates than urban ones. It may be, as Clement argued, that momentum will eventually move people in those 38 states to OK same-sex marriages, or it may be that Kennedy and his colleagues won’t wait, and will decide the question for them.

Related:

Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of broad ruling

Shifts on same-sex marriage come from surprising groups

Obama on rights of gay couples: 'It is time for the justices to examine this issue'

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:54 AM EDT

After two days of highly anticipated courtroom arguments about same-sex marriage, a sweeping ruling on gay rights seems unlikely from the U.S. Supreme Court. But when decisions in both cases come in late June, the result may nonetheless be an important one for advocates of same-sex marriage.

Though it's risky to predict how the court will rule based solely on comments by the justices during the oral arguments, one outcome seemed probable -- a decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

"A decision saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, and requiring the federal government to give full recognition to the existing marriages of same-sex couples, would be a huge victory," said Paul Smith of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jenner & Block.

He was in the courtroom when the justices took up the Proposition 8 case on March 26. Ten years earlier to the day, Smith stood before the justices to argue the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. 

In the challenge to California's Prop 8 -- the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man-one-woman couples -- the justices seemed to be searching for a way to avoid a decision. One possible outcome: declaring the case procedurally flawed and sending it back to California, where a lower court decision found Prop 8 unconstitutional. That would allow same-sex marriage to resume there without setting a precedent for other states. 

During Wednesday's argument on DOMA, by contrast, at least four of the justices suggested that the law improperly discriminates against gay couples by blocking the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states that permit them.  

Elena Kagan read from a House report that said Congress passed DOMA to express its "moral disapproval of homosexuality." Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1,100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples water down their relationships to "skim-milk marriages." 

Sonia Sotomayor asked if members of Congress could create any "class of people they don't like" and deny them benefits. Stephen Breyer asked what justification would permit treating gay marriages differently. 

The fifth vote to strike down DOMA seemed likely to come from Anthony Kennedy, whose comments throughout the argument reflected a concern that Congress had no authority to define marriage, a power reserved to the states. 

Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the House Republicans who came forward to defend DOMA, said the law was proper because it dealt only with the government's own definition of marriage in federal laws. For that reason, he said, the question of federal power was "not a DOMA problem." 

Justice Kennedy disagreed. "I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said. 

Kennedy said DOMA was "not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states." 

Even if Justice Kennedy's focus on the limits of federal power constrains the court's ruling in the DOMA case, avoiding a full-throated declaration that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, advocates of gay rights say it would still send a powerful message. 

"I think it's enormous," said Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a pioneer in gay rights litigation, of the possibility that DOMA would be struck down. 

"This is a law that has the effect of discriminating only against married same-sex couples. And anytime you eliminate a double standard based on sexual orientation, it matters," she said. 

And Paul Smith of Jenner & Block says such a decision could lay the groundwork for future legal challenges to state laws that forbid same-sex couples to marry. 

"While it's not the same thing as requiring states to let people get married, it will push the momentum forward," he said, and could have an effect on lawsuits now pending that challenge bans on same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Related:

Shifts on same-sex marriage come from surprising groups

Justices signal they might strike down federal marriage law

Obama on rights of gay couples: 'It is time for the justices to examine this issue'

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:08 AM EDT

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."