The US Supreme Court today is hearing oral arguments against the constitutionality of California Proposition 8, passed in 2008. Prop 8 changed the constitution of California to state that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” and was passed by a state ballot initiative by 600,00 votes or 4.5%.

An all-star tag-team of lawyers are arguing against the proposition. David Boies, who represented Al Gore in the landmark Bush v. Gore case of 2000 and Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush in the same case have teamed up in an unlikely “marriage” and argue that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment protects marriage equality.

For one to say that the Supreme Court should leave the question of marriage equality to the political processes of the states is to say that states should remain free to discriminate—to impose this pain and humiliation on gay men and lesbians and their children—for as long as they wish, without justification. The Constitution forbids such an indecent result. It did not tolerate it in separate schools and drinking fountains, it did not tolerate it with respect to bans on interracial marriage, and it does not tolerate it here.

Defenders of the legality of Prop 8 argue that justices should not use judicial solutions to override the democratically reached wishes of the voters. They also argue that the decision of the Court could invalidate close to 40 states’ marriage laws.

This is a landmark case for the Supreme Court. The justices could ride a tidal wave of public opinion towards marriage equality and make a ruling that would invalidate Prop 8 thus calling into question the legality of 31 state constitutional amendments that either ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other contracts or a combination of the three.

The Court could also rule that Prop 8 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and that states can ban same-sex marriage, a verdict supporters of Prop 8 are looking for.

But the Court could also dismiss the case, ruling that the plaintiffs in this case, supporters of Prop 8, do not have legal standing to appeal the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, because they are not government officials, therefore upholding the 9th Circuit’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, without having to make that ruling for themselves. That would leave all other similar state laws without resolution.

Its decision is expected in June.

The Supreme Court will also hear arguments Wednesday for and against the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 by large majorities in both houses of Congress and signed by then-president Bill Clinton. Many lawmakers who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act have now reversed course and are opposed to it.

UPDATE: It looks like the Supreme Court will likely take the third choice and kick the can down the road a bit.

According to @SCOTUSblog

[Justice] Kennedy told [attorney Charles Cooper] bluntly to “address why you think we should take and decide this case.” And with that, the Justice may have confirmed that the real question before the Court is not whether it would strike down Proposition 8, or what the broader effect of such a decision might be, but whether it is going to reach the merits of the case at all – a prospect that would be (to say the least) anticlimactic but seemed to be a real possibility by the end of the morning.

So it looks like the court might pass on ruling on Prop8, subsequently upholding the lower court’s decision to invalidate the law, but won’t make a ruling on its constitutionality. That will leave the matter unresolved.

ViralRead will continue to follow the arguments tomorrow and give necessary updates.