The Supreme Court could reshape marriage in the United States with its decision on Proposition 8, the California ban on gay marriage approved by the state's voters in 2008.

Here are 13 key moments from the transcript of Tuesday's arguments before the court.

1. Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending the California ban, summarizes his case:

“The accepted truth that — that the New York high court observed is one that is changing and changing rapidly in this country as people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. The question before this court is whether the Constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all 50 states.”

----

2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks about gays, discrimination and marriage.

Sotomayor: “Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any — anything to offer you in that regard.”

----

3. Justice Elena Kagan gets to the heart of the case against Proposition 8:

Kagan: “Mr. Cooper, could I just understand your argument. In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite — opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?”

Cooper: “I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our —our position, yes.”

----

4. Justice Antonin Scalia, apparently not satisfied with one of Cooper's answers, appears to throw him a lifeline, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumps in to argue:

Scalia: “Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's — there's considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”

Ginsburg: “California — no, California does.”

Scalia: “I don't think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it — whether it harms or helps the child?”

Cooper: “No, Your Honor. And there's — there's — ”

Scalia: “But that's a possible deleterious effect, isn't it?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, it — it is certainly among the — ”

Ginsburg: “It wouldn't be in California, Mr. Cooper, because that's not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.”

Cooper: “That's right, Your Honor. That is true. And — but — but, Your Honor, here's — here's the point — ”

Scalia: “I — it's true, but irrelevant. They're arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to states other than California, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples. And so even though states that believe it is harmful — and I take no position on whether it's harmful or not, but it is certainly true that — that there's no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”

----

5. Justice Anthony Kennedy raises a question about the welfare of children of gay couples:

Kennedy: “I — I think there's — there's substantial — that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, I certainly would not dispute the importance of that consideration. That consideration especially in the political process, where this issue is being debated and will continue to be debated, certainly, in California. It's being debated elsewhere. But on that — on that specific question, Your Honor, there simply is no data.”

----

6. Justice Stephen Breyer takes issue with Cooper's argument that procreation is a purpose of marriage:

Breyer: "Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.”

Cooper: “Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.”

----

7. A lighthearted moment as Kagan continues the questioning on marriage and procreation. Scalia mentions the late South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who lived to 100 and fathered children as late as 73:

Kagan: “Because that's the same state interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional — ”

(Laughter.)

Kagan: “No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”

(Laughter.)

Cooper: “Your Honor, society's — society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that — ”

Kagan: “Actually, I'm not even — ”

Scalia: “I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage — you know, are you fertile or are you not fertile?”

(Laughter.)

Scalia: “I suspect this court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think?”

Kagan: “Well, I just asked about age. I didn't ask about anything else. That's not -- we ask about people's age all the time.”

Cooper: “Your Honor, and even asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. Again — ”

Scalia: “Strom Thurmond was — was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.”

(Laughter.)

Cooper: “Very few men — very few men outlive their own fertility.”

----

8. Theodore Olson, arguing against Proposition 8, summarizes his case:

“I thought that it would be important for this court to have Proposition 8 put in context, what it does. It walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this court, thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal, and not OK.”

----

9. Justice Scalia asks a question about history, and Olson answers with a question of his own:

Scalia: “I'm curious, when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?”

Olson: “When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?”

10. Chief Justice John Roberts explores the meaning of the word “marriage” — and the meaning of friendship:

Roberts: “So it's just about — it's just about the label in this case.”

Olson: “The label is — ”

Roberts: “Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.”

Olson: “The label ‘marriage’ means something. Even our opponents — ”

Roberts: “Sure. If you tell — if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what the — what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're — all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”

Olson: “It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical.”

----

11. Justice Sotomayor pushes Olson on the slippery slope argument, a favorite of conservatives.

Sotomayor: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?

Olson: "Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

----

12. Kennedy worries about a decision that goes too far.

Kennedy: “The problem — the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff. Whatever that was. (Laughter.) But you're — you're doing so in a — in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on — on standing. I just wonder if — if the case was properly granted.”

Olson: “Oh, the case was certainly properly granted, Your Honor. I mean, there was a full trial of all of these issues. There was a 12-day trial, the judge insisted on evidence on all of these questions. This — this is a — ”

Kennedy: “But that's not the issue the Ninth Circuit decided.”

Olson: “The issue — yes, the Ninth Circuit looked at it and decided because of your decision on the Romer case, this Court's decision on the Romer case, that it could be decided on the narrower issue, but it certainly was an appropriate case to grant. And those issues that I've been describing are certainly fundamental to the case. And -- and I don't want to abuse the Court's indulgence, that what I — you suggested that this is uncharted waters. It was uncharted waters when this Court, in 1967, in the Loving decision said that interracial — prohibitions on interracial marriages, which still existed in 16 states, were unconstitutional.”

Kennedy: “It was hundreds of years old in the common law countries. This was new to the United States.”

Olson: “And — and what we have here — ”

Kennedy: “So — so that's not accurate.”

Olson: “I — I respectfully submit that we've under — we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. I guess the — the language that Justice Ginsburg used at the closing of the VMI case is an important thing, it resonates with me, ‘A prime part of the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded.’”

----

13. Roberts questions Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the Obama administration against Proposition 8. The chief justice wonders about the scope of the court’s ruling:

Roberts:  “I don't want to — I want you to get back to Justice Alito's other points, but is it the position of the United States that same-sex marriage is not required throughout the country?”

Verrilli: “We are not — we are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country. We think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other states that don't have the situation California has.”

Jay LaPrete / AP

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, wearing the red jersey, riding in Columbus with his son Will in August 2012. Rob Portman said his views on gay marriage began changing in 2011 when Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told his parents he was gay.

The gay son of the first Republican senator to announce his support for same-sex marriage says he’s “pretty psyched” about his father’s decision and hopes his story will inspire people who are afraid to come out.

Will Portman, the son of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, wrote in a column for his college newspaper Monday that he came out to his parents in a letter that he wrote in a campus library and sent to them by overnight mail.

“They called as soon as they got the letter,” Will Portman wrote in the Yale Daily News. “They were surprised to learn I was gay, and full of questions, but absolutely rock-solid supportive.”

The senator once opposed gay marriage but announced March 14 that he supported it, saying that his son was entitled to the same happiness that he and his wife share.

“I’m proud of my dad, not necessarily because of where he is now on marriage equality (although I’m pretty psyched about that), but because he’s been thoughtful and open-minded in how he’s approached the issue, and because he’s shown that he’s willing to take a political risk in order to take a principled stand,” Will Portman wrote.

He wrote that he had had an understanding that Rob Portman was his father first and his senator second. He said they eventually began discussions about policy issues surrounding gay marriage.

The Supreme Court hears two landmark gay-marriage cases this week. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri on Sunday became the latest Democratic senator to support gay marriage.

“Good people disagree with me," McCaskill wrote on her Tumblr page. “On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.”

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee last year, considered Rob Portman as a running mate. Will Portman wrote that his father told the campaign he had a gay son, and that the family had decided they would be open about it on the campaign trail.

Will Portman wrote that he was relieved when his father wasn’t picked. He also defended his father against criticism that he waited two years after his son came out to support gay marriage.

“Part of the reason for that is that it took time for him to think through the issue more deeply after the impetus of my coming out,” he wrote. “But another factor was my reluctance to make my personal life public.”

His advice for anyone afraid to come out, or worried that there is something wrong with them: “I’ve been there. If you’re there now, please know that things really do get better, and they will for you too.”

Related:

GOP’s Portman announces support for same-sex marriage

GOP sea change on gay rights?

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

This story was originally published on Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:37 PM EDT

A lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the landmark Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage and says she is confident he will see that gays deserve “dignity, respect, and equality under the law.”

Jean Podrasky told the Los Angeles Times that she will sit in a section of the courtroom reserved for relatives and guests of the chief justice. She said that her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, whom she wants to marry, will attend with her.

Podrasky, an accountant who the Times said is a first cousin of the chief justice on his mother’s side, wrote about Roberts in a column Monday for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

“I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law,” she wrote.

The court is hearing two gay-rights cases this week. On Tuesday, it will consider Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage approved by California voters in 2008. Podrasky lives in San Francisco.

On Wednesday, the court will take up the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks federal recognition of gay marriages sanctioned by states and prevents legally married gay couples from receiving certain federal benefits.

Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. He generally sides with the court’s conservative wing, but last year he sided with liberals on the court in upholding President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Podrasky told the newspaper that she usually sees the chief justice only on family occasions and that he knows she is gay. She hopes he will meet her partner during their visit to Washington.

Supreme Court justices can give tickets to family and other guests. The seats are to the justices’ left as they face the courtroom.

Podrasky told the newspaper that she got the coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, then going through his secretary. She said Roberts knows she is attending.

In the weeks before the 2008 election, Podrasky carried a sign opposing Proposition 8 at a transit station and handed out fliers on a college campus, the Times reported.

In her column, she wrote that she believes Roberts understands that ruling for gay marriage will not be “out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit,” and hopes that most of the other justices will join him.

“I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings,” she wrote.

Pete Williams of NBC News contributed to this report.

Related:

Same-sex couple wins $100,000 dream wedding

Gay marriage's big day in court: What's at stake?

Timeline: Key dates in the struggle for gay rights

This story was originally published on Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:08 AM EDT

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

Politicians, business leaders, athletes and other high-profile figures are racing to announce their support for gay marriage before the Supreme Court holds landmark arguments next week — an unusually broad and public push.

Many of them have filed formal briefs with the court. Others have stayed out of the legal case but made public declarations that they said were carefully timed in hopes that they might sway the justices.

“Those kinds of things make the court feel that what they’re doing is sensible,” said Alan Morrison, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University. “It may not affect the constitutional questions, but the court does want to feel comfortable.”

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 60,000 doctors, published a policy statement saying that whether a child is raised by gay or straight parents has no effect on development.

Dr. Thomas McInerny, president of the academy, told NBC News that the policy change was in the works for two years but that the academy hurried its announcement so the policy would be available for the justices.

“We are an apolitical organization,” he said. “On the other hand, we do feel very strongly about the best interests of children.”

The court will hear arguments in two cases. One is about Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage approved by California voters in 2008. The other is about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocked federal recognition of same-sex unions.

In the final days before a Supreme Court deadline to file papers in both cases, prominent Republicans rushed to add their names to a brief arguing that gay marriage promotes the conservative values of stability and mutual obligation.

Besides former governors and members of Congress, the 131 signers of the brief included top aides in the administration of George W. Bush and senior advisers to the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney last year.

And last week, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican senator to support same-sex marriage. Portman, whom Romney considered as a running mate, said that he had had a change of heart on the matter after his son, who is 21, came out.

Portman did not sign the Republican brief before the Supreme Court but said that the upcoming arguments were a factor in his decision to go public.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state and a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, released a video last week through a gay rights group and said flatly: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.” As a candidate in 2008, she had opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions.

Her announcement came after her husband, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law as president, published an Op-Ed in The Washington Post encouraging the Supreme Court to overturn it.

“I now know that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law itself is discriminatory,” he wrote.

Morrison, from George Washington University, who filed a brief that called parts of DOMA “utterly irrational,” said that the gay rights cases may be unprecedented in drawing support from such a broad spectrum of society.

Earlier this month, more than 100 corporations, including Google, Nike and Estee Lauder, signed two briefs in support of gay marriage — arguing that blocking recognition is just not legally wrong but hurts their businesses.

Lloyd Blankfein, the head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs, told The New York Times that captains of industry “wanted to attach themselves to what may be the last great civil rights issue of our time.”

And on Monday, Rashad Evans, a mixed martial arts fighter, told the gay website Outsports that he felt a duty to support gay rights as a competitor in “a macho-type sport.”

“I have kids,” he told the site. “I don’t want them growing up in a society where they, or their friends, could be second-class citizens based on which person they fall in love with or who they want to be happy with.”

He joined a brief filed by Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and Brendon Ayanbadejo, a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.

Marc Solomon, national campaign director for the gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said that his group was pleased that the cause had drawn such broad support, particularly from the political right.

“Our side has put forth the most powerful case that could be made that America is ready,” he said. “There is no question that justices live in the real world.”

Polls show increasing public support for gay marriage. A Washington Post-ABC survey earlier this week found 58 percent for gay marriage and 36 percent opposed — a mirror image of public opinion less than a decade ago.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group opposed to same-sex marriage, said that the pediatrics academy had taken a “transparently political step” by endorsing gay marriage and had been influenced by studies produced by gay-marriage advocates.

“Which parent can a child do without — her mother or her father?” he said in a statement. “We remain confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the ability of states and the federal government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a definition that has served our nation well for hundreds of years.”

Another group opposed to gay marriage, the Traditional Values Coalition, mocked Portman’s announcement last week by publishing a hypothetical statement from a parent who came out in favor of drunken driving because her son is a drunk driver.

When the Supreme Court takes up the question Tuesday and Wednesday, most of the public statements won’t matter, said Tom Goldstein, a founder of the widely read Scotusblog, which analyzes the court.

What’s more, he said, “Some of these developments are a double-edged sword. The cases rely to some extent on the notion that homosexuals face widespread discrimination and hostility. The fact that the country is coming around so fast ironically could hurt their cause in court.”

The announcement by the pediatrics academy could matter because it speaks directly to conservatives and their concerns in the case, he said, but “what someone thinks in Hollywood couldn’t be more irrelevant.”

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:54 PM EDT

The nation's most influential pediatrician's group has endorsed gay marriage, saying a stable relationship between parents regardless of sexual orientation contributes to a child's health and well-being.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' new policy, published online Thursday, cites research showing that the parents' sexual orientation has no effect on a child's development. Kids fare just as well in gay or straight families when they are nurturing and financially and emotionally stable, the academy says.

The academy believes that a two-parent marriage is best equipped to provide that kind of environment. Their policy says that if a child has two gay parents who choose to marry, "it is in the best interests of their children that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so."

The policy cites reports indicating that almost 2 million U.S. children are being raised by gay parents, many of them in states that don't allow gays to marry.

The academy announced its position Thursday. Officials with the group said they wanted to make the academy's views known before two gay marriage cases are considered by the U.S. Supreme Court next week.

"We wanted that policy statement available for the justices to review," said Dr. Thomas McInerny, the academy's president and a pediatrician in Rochester, N.Y.

The pediatricians' stance is not surprising. They previously joined other national groups including the American Medical Association in supporting one of the Supreme Court cases, which contends the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The academy also previously supported adoption by gay parents.

The academy's statement notes that several other national health groups have supported gay marriage. Those are the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American College of Nursing.

Dr. Ben Siegel, a Boston pediatrician and chairman of an academy committee that developed the new policy, said its focus is on "nurturing children. We want what's best for children."

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:01 AM EDT

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.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party's platform in a move that one who had a change of heart on the issue said would “strengthen our nation as a whole.”

More than 80 Republicans are signatories to the "friend of the Court" brief to be filed in the case over Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is waging the legal battle against the law. The nation’s high court will hear arguments in the case in late March. The New York Times first reported on the brief.

Credit: Stephen Lam / Reuters file

Meg Whitman, HP's chief executive officer and president, at a meeting on Jan. 16. She says she has had a change of heart on the issue of gay marriage.

One scholar described the effort as “inconceivable” just two years ago, and one of the signers, former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, said in a blog that she had changed her mind on the issue, “like several others who have either sought or held public office, including President Obama.”

“As the Republican nominee for governor of California three years ago, I supported the majority of Californians who voted for Proposition 8 and against same sex marriage,” Whitman, president and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co., said in a separate statement. “After careful review and reflection since then, I have come to embrace civil marriage for same sex couples.”

She noted in her blog that same-sex families “should have equal access to the benefits of marriage” and later added: “Establishing a constitutional right of marriage equality in California will strengthen our nation as a whole.”

Six former governors, including Jon Huntsman of Utah and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet, such as former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, four former and two current members of Congress signed the brief, AFER said. Members of the Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain presidential campaigns also signed.

The brief will be filed Thursday, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Additional names were still being added to it, said AFER, which noted one of its lead attorneys on the case was a conservative, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, who argued for Bush before the Supreme Court after the disputed 2000 presidential election. 

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,” called it an “incredibly important development” and noted the brief could influence Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he said was the swing vote on gay marriage.

“The fact that more and more Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage simply confirms how dramatic the shift in public opinion has been -- and that is a fact that likely is of great significance to Justice Kennedy,” he wrote to NBC News in an email. “Even two years ago, it would have been inconceivable that this many prominent Republicans would have been willing to buck their party platform on the issue.”

In an article last week, former Republican presidential candidate Huntsman wrote that as governor he had backed civil unions but now was supporting marriage for gays and lesbians.

“The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans,” he wrote. “This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.”

Huntsman’s argument echoed parts of the legal brief, which The Times said made the case that allowing same-sex marriage would promote conservative ideals of limited government and individual freedom as well as provide the children of gay couples a two-parent home.

The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage in Minnesota, a state considering such legislation.

“None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” said Brian Brown, NOM's president. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”

But LGBT groups said the brief was further proof of changing attitudes on the issue. Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry who saw the brief, said the list included Republicans going back to the Reagan administration.

He noted Meg Whitman’s new position represented a “significant shift,” while others who had signed, such as Republican Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, have also sponsored federal legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Steve Schmidt, who worked on the 2004 Bush re-election effort and as chief strategist on McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, has been a “powerful supporter” of same-sex marriage, Solomon said.

“I think most importantly, it’s the broad swath of leaders” on the list, Solomon told NBC News. “We’re no longer just dealing with … one or two ‘mavericks’ who are willing to sort of stick their neck out. …

“This is a big swath of Republicans, of mainstream Republicans, who view the freedom to marry as part of their conservatism rather than something separate from it.”

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

Related:
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples
Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue