Proposition 8 has recently been brought to the Supreme Court because it is thought to be a contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.

Proposition 8, or section 7.5 of the California constitution, is an amendment that made gay marriage invalid in California which was passed in the state elections of November 2008.

Section 7.5 of the California constitution states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

“A state referendum put to California voters seeking to overturn a decision of the state’s Supreme Court that found that restrictions on gay marriage in the state were unconstitutional (under state constitutional law),” said Dirk Deam, a political science professor at Iowa State.

“The decision of the Court essentially ‘legalized’ gay marriage in California.  Prop 8 sought (successfully so) to reverse that outcome by popular vote.”

Proposition 8 received its day in the Supreme Court on March 26, 2013.

Charles Cooper argued to keep Proposition 8 and a ban on gay marriage, while Ted Olson opposed the ban on gay marriage. Cooper and Olson are the lawyers representing the case.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan asked, “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-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 went on to say that Kagan’s summary was correctly stated.

Olson referenced the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which overturned bans on interracial marriage.

“You could have said in the Loving case, what — you can’t get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong,” Olson said.

Olson’s reference to the Loving v. Virginia case was a common point to his argument.

To summarize the court hearing, Justice Samuel Alito said, “But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.”

Alito believed that the Supreme Court would need more time to see the affects of gay marriage on the country.

“There are two important issues here.  One relates to the rights or protections associated with ‘gay marriage’ itself.  The other has to do with whether constitutional principles can or should be overridden by a majority vote of the people,” Deam said.

When it comes to the outcome of this certain case, Chris Fowler, assistant director of Margaret Sloss Women’s center, said, “I think this and the [Defense of Marriage Act] will be heard by the Justices and possibly be ruled on in the summer.”

“They may also rule on one case and put the ruling of marriage back to the hands of each individual state to decide on marriage,” Fowler said.