Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer had surgery on his right shoulder Saturday to repair a fracture he suffered in a fall from his bicycle a day earlier in Washington, the court said.

The justice, 74, was taken by ambulance to MedStar Georgetown University Hospital after the fall near the Korean War Veterans Memorial on Friday afternoon, the court said in a statement.

The court said that the procedure, reverse shoulder replacement surgery to repair a proximal humerus fracture, was successful and that Breyer was resting comfortably and was expected to be released from the hospital early in the week.

The justice broke his collarbone in an accident two years ago and suffered broken ribs and a punctured lung in a bicycle accident in 1993. He was appointed to the court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton and is considered a member of its liberal wing.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:04 PM EDT

In a Supreme Court test of whether a company can be granted a patent on the genes in the human body, a majority of the justices indicated during Monday's oral arguments that the court is likely to rule that a human gene can’t be patented. 

It would be one thing, several of the justices said during Monday’s oral arguments, for a company to seek a patent on a test for breast cancer that was developed by analyzing a human gene, but it would be going too far to be awarded a patent on the gene itself.

"What's the difference between snipping off a piece of the liver or kidney, and seeking a patent on that, and seeking a patent on a piece of a gene?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito made a different analogy, to someone seeking a patent on a plant found in the Amazon rain forest that bore leaves containing a cancer cure. "You could patent the process used to get the chemical out and the use of the result, but you cannot patent the plant," he said. 

Stelios Varias / Reuters file photo

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

The case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. The test can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.

Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer.

Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.

In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.

"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who argued the case for Myriad.

The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.

"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.

"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.

But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.

In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.

The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.

"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.

Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.

The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.

But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.

The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."

Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.

As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.

The Obama administration has urged the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."   

NBC's Tom Curry contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:17 AM EDT

The legal question at the heart of the US Supreme Court’s debate over the patenting of human genes has practical ramifications that could ripple into the lives of every American -- not just women at risk for rare breast cancer.

Dorothy Warburton, Ph.D./Newscom

BRCA 2 (breast cancer) gene on chromosome 13.

What the high court decides could affect who will conduct your medical tests, how those tests are interpreted, how and how fast drugs can be developed -- and what your doctor can tell you about your health, experts say.

That’s because all of those issues are entangled in the case involving a Utah company, Myriad Genetics, which controls the patents on variations of two human genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Women with mutations in those genes are at much higher risk for getting breast and ovarian cancer.

“This is important,” says patent expert Arti Rai, the Elvin R. Latty professor of law at Duke University School of Law, and an affiliate of Duke’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy. If the court rules against Myriad, “this may make it easier for you to get second opinions,” about diagnostic tests, she said.

Myriad owns the patents to the genetic sequences, as well as any mutations along those genes. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has brought the case on behalf of a coalition of patients, researchers and doctors, argues that that means that if genes from a particular person are analyzed or separated from other biological material, regardless of how or for what reason, that would constitute patent infringement.

The industry has countered for years -- and won on this argument -- that they don't patent the genes, but the man-made molecules based on those genes.

Myriad’s current exclusive right to the testing means all BRCA tests are conducted by Myriad. There’s no second opinion or confirmation by an independent second source and Myriad can set its own price free of competition. 

If the court rules in favor of Myriad, that won’t change. “They have had a monopoly over all genetic testing for breast cancer for nearly two decades,” says bioethicist Arthur Caplan, an NBC News contributor and director of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “Doctors and patients have complained bitterly that Myriad’s high-priced tests have limited access for many women.” The tests can cost up to $3,500, although a statement on Myriad's website says the company offers a financial assistance program for low-income or uninsured women.

Moreover, since only Myriad can perform the tests, it can, and does, keep any data it gleans from tests results, such as geographic and demographic patterns, or new genetic variants  it may find. It has stopped sharing this data publicly, keeping it as its own trade secret so nobody else can use it to conduct research or develop therapies or tests.

“Now [Myriad] controls this database, including gene variants that may have unknown clinical significance,” says Michael S. Watson, executive director of the American College of Medical Genetics. So even though they don’t have patents on such data, “they control the marketplace.”

Such control could keep costs high for patients and insurers, and strangle competing research. For example, when new BRCA-related variants were uncovered,  Myriad didn’t include them in its standard BRCA testing. Rather, it created a supplemental test, called BART, available at an extra charge of $700, to cover these mutations.  So if a woman wants to cover all the BRCA bases, her doctor would have to order both tests.

The ACLU argues that genes are simply part of nature and therefore not patentable in the first place.

A ruling in favor of Myriad could also hamper the promise of “personalized medicine” based on our individual genetic makeups. Soon, some scientists say, it will be practical for doctors to order the sequence of each person’s genome to look for disease-related gene variations. But if big parts of the genome have been locked under patent protection, what would a doctor be able to do with that information?

Take, for example, the case of muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder that weakens the body’s muscles. A number of patents related to mutations in the dystrophin gene have been issued. If a parent were to have a young child’s genome sequenced,  the doctor may not able to communicate any important results relating to the dystrophin gene because the right to do that belongs to the companies or individuals who control the intellectual property. The doctor, or the genome sequencing company, could be sued.  

“That has enormous implications for a family,” says Watson. “They could have another child who's affected. Care could be approached differently if they knew they had [genetic] features of muscular dystrophy."

Many academic research scientists say that so-called “gene patents” hamper their ability to share information, slowing the pace of invention for new therapies for dreaded diseases, or making that research too expensive.

“Myriad’s early patent arguably hindered the willingness of others to aggressively explore better tests for a terrible disease,” Caplan said. “Other patents on other gene sequences could have the same effect.”

Anybody trying to develop a drug related to a patented gene sequence would have to deal with the patent holder, adding costs, time, and legal complications, possibly delaying or even preventing innovation.

Supporters of such patenting argue that striking down Myriad’s intellectual property claims could actually hinder the development of life-saving therapies because companies wouldn’t take the financial risk to pursue them. Medical science could stall. A ruling for Myriad by the Supreme Court, could help spark, or at least protect, the innovation engine, ultimately saving patient lives, its backers claim.  

Besides, they say, there is no such thing as a patent on a human gene. No one's patenting nature; they're patenting man-made molecules derived from human genetic information that are used to test for increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer, argued Karen Dow, a San Diego partner in the law firm Sughrue Mion PLLC, who has long experience in the biotechnology industry, but is not involved in the current case.

In the BRCA case, an appeals court has agreed with this argument and upheld the patents.

But major medical societies fear what impact a ruling in favor of Myriad could have.  

“The care available to patients should not be restricted because the naturally occurring building blocks of human biology have been inappropriately patented,” Dr. Jeremy A. Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement to NBC News. “Opportunities for scientific research and medical care based on human genes must remain available to all and exclusive to none.”

Brian Alexander is co-author, with Larry Young, of "The Chemistry Between Us: Love, Sex and the Science of Attraction."

Related stories:

• A search for visionaries to crack human brain's code
• Genetic test catches rare disease faster in newborns

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."

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.”

Alan Diaz / AP file

Miami-Dade narcotics detector canine Franky, who came out of retirement to give a demonstration, sniffs for marijuana in Miami on Dec. 6, 2011.

The use of a drug-sniffing dog by police outside of a home where they suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court said in a decision handed down Tuesday.

The case, Florida v. Jardines, dealt with whether police could use trained canines to investigate the immediate surroundings of a home for drugs they suspected were being grown inside, but could not see.

Officers from the Miami-Dade Police Department approached Joelis Jardines’ home with a drug dog in 2006 after receiving a tip that marijuana was being grown in the house. The animal alerted officers to the presence of marijuana in the house, after which officers obtained a search warrant and discovered the plants.

The justices affirmed the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision to suppress the evidence by a 5-4 vote. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the court’s opinion.

“To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to – well, call the police,” Scalia wrote.

This is the second of two police dog cases the court has delivered opinions on this term, both originating in Florida. In a February decision in the other case, Florida v. Harris, the court ruled that an alert by a trained police dog gave police officers probable cause to further search a vehicle.

Related:

• Will police dogs pass Supreme Court sniff test?

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