1 of 19. Protestors Ellena Popova (C) and Seosamh Hackett blow bubbles as they rally against the Defense of Marriage Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, March 27, 2013. 
 
 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court seemed to be leaning on Wednesday toward striking down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in a move that would reflect a shift in Americans' attitudes about gay marriage. 
 
 In a second day of oral arguments on same-sex marriage, a majority of the court raised serious concerns with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, enacted in 1996 under President Bill Clinton. 
 
 Arguments over the last two days on the DOMA case and a separate one challenging California's ban on gay marriage marked the high court's first foray into a delicate and divisive political, religious and social issue in the United States as polls indicate growing public support for same-sex marriage. 
 
 In theory, the cases have the potential for the court to take a significant step toward endorsing gay marriage as it gains support in some parts of the country. Based on the arguments, however, a partial victory for gay rights activists seems more likely than the sweeping declaration of same-sex marriage rights they had hoped for. 
 
 As demonstrators rallied outside the Supreme Court building for a second day, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, showed a willingness to invalidate DOMA, which denies married same-sex couples access to federal benefits by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 
 
 He warned of a "real risk" that the law infringes on the traditional role of the states in defining marriage. 
 
 A conservative, Kennedy is viewed as a key vote on this issue in part because he has twice authored decisions in the past that were viewed as favorable to gay rights. 
 
 In contrast to the ambivalent approach they displayed on Tuesday in arguments about California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, the nine justices seemed willing to address the substantive issue in the DOMA case, while also eyeing procedural questions. 
 
 The court is not expected to rule on the two cases until the end of June. If the justices were to strike down DOMA, legally married gay couples would be winners because they would have improved access to federal benefits, such as tax deductions. 
 
 Justices gave a strong indication they might resolve the Proposition 8 case on procedural grounds, but even that would be viewed as a win for gay rights activists as same-sex marriages in California would likely resume. 
 
 What appears highly unlikely is a sweeping declaration of a right for gay people to marry, a possible option only in the California case. 
 
 Overall, a majority of the justices made it clear that, while they might not impede the recent movement among some states toward gay marriage, they were not willing to pave the way either. 
 
 Nine states now recognize gay marriage, while 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between. 
 
 On several occasions over the two days, the justices' own remarks illustrated how quickly attitudes have changed in favor of gay marriage. 
 
 During Tuesday's arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, questioned whether there was sufficient data to show that children are not adversely affected if raised by same-sex couples. Likewise, Justice Samuel Alito noted the concept of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones and the Internet." 
 
 Offering a liberal perspective, Justice Elena Kagan prompted murmurs of surprise from onlookers on Wednesday when she quoted from a U.S. House of Representatives report written less than two decades ago, at the time DOMA was enacted, that referenced "moral disapproval" of gay marriage. 
 
 'SKIM MILK MARRIAGE' 
 
 As attention turned to DOMA on Wednesday, Kennedy made it clear where he stood, referring to DOMA as "inconsistent" because it purports to give authority to the states to define marriage while limiting recognition of those determinations. 
 
 His states' rights concerns were echoed by two of the liberal members of the bench, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?" Sotomayor said. 
 
 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer also raised concerns about the law. 
 
 Ginsburg stressed how important federal recognition is to any person who is legally married. 
 
 "It affects every area of life," she said. 
 
 Comparing marriage status with types of milk, Ginsburg said that a gay marriage endorsed by a state, but not recognized by the federal government, creates two types of marriage, "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage." 
 
 If the court rules on the states' rights issue, the justices could strike down the law without deciding the bigger question of whether DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. 
 
 On that issue, Kagan spoke of a "red flag" that indicates Congress passed DOMA with the intent of targeting a group that is "not everyone's favorite group in the world." 
 
 Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency. 
 
 Separately, several conservative justices criticized Obama and his Justice Department for not defending the marriage law in court. 
 
 Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Obama had "the courage of his convictions" for continuing to enforce DOMA while calling it invalid. 
 
 (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, Joan Biskupic, David Ingram and Joseph Ax; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Eric Beech) ||||| For two days, history, morality, religion and civil rights will be debated inside the court as the justices consider California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act 
 
 Marcos German-Dominguez waves a rainbow flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26. (Photo: Andrew P. Scott, USA TODAY) Story Highlights Ruling on California's Proposition 8 ban could affect other states 
 
 Gays, lesbians hope to gain marriage equality in historic decision 
 
 Federal Defense of Marriage Act on the docket Wednesday 
 
 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court began two days of historic oral arguments Tuesday on a civil rights issue with sweeping moral, religious and social overtones: Can members of the same sex get married? At times, it seemed the court regretted taking the case. 
 
 As thousands of supporters and opponents of gay marriage marched and demonstrated outside, a select few hundred – some of whom waited up to five days for a seat – sat hushed as the nine justices peppered questions at attorneys for both sides. 
 
 PROTESTS: Hearing attracts thousands of demonstrators 
 
 The discussion often focused on technical issues that could thwart both sides' desire for a clear result. Several justices, led by Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, questioned whether the case even belonged before them. 
 
 Justice Anthony Kennedy questions whether the Prop 8 case was granted properly. 
 
 MORE: Language of the laws 
 
 The case focuses on California's four-year-old same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8. It will be followed Wednesday by a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies financial and other benefits to legally married same-sex couples. 
 
 After nearly 90 minutes of debate -- a full half-hour more than scheduled -- several things appeared clear: 
 
 • Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical of gays' and lesbians' right to marry. "This institution's been around since time immemorial," he said. 
 
 • Kennedy, as usual, appeared torn and looking for an escape route. "I just wonder if the case was properly granted," he said. 
 
 • The four liberal justices appeared aligned with those favoring same-sex marriage. Justice Elena Kagan led a round of questions about the importance of procreation, a key argument of gay marriage opponents. What about infertile couples, those over 55, and prisoners? They can't procreate, either. 
 
 • Justice Antonin Scalia and the other conservatives appeared more likely to side with Proposition 8's supporters -- and particularly with the argument that the court should use caution before green-lighting gay marriages. 
 
 "It may turn out to be a good thing, it may turn out to be a bad thing," said Justice Samuel Alito, but same-sex marriage "is newer than cellphones and the Internet." 
 
 MORE: Map shows Twitter posts around U.S. about gay marriage 
 
 Theodore Olson, lead attorney for the gay and lesbian couples challenging Proposition 8, appeared ebullient on the court steps after the argument was concluded. But he acknowledged the difficulty in reading judicial tea leaves. 
 
 BALDWIN: Gay senator to attend Wednesday hearing 
 
 "We are confident with where the American people are going with this,'' Olson said in reference to growing public support for gay marriage. "We don't know where the Supreme Court is going.'' 
 
 The justices wasted no time Tuesday in tackling the issue, peppering Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for proponents of the proposition, with a series of questions, including whether California voters even had authority to appeal a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the marriage ban. 
 
 Roberts, Kagan and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly questioned Cooper, with Ginsburg once suggesting that voters had "no proprietary interest" in the matter after they had cast their ballots in November 2008. 
 
 In a discussion over the possible "harm" that could result in allowing same-sex marriage, Kennedy noted that there were nearly 40,000 children in California with same-sex parents who would likely want their parents to have the same rights as heterosexual parents. 
 
 "The voice of the children is important, don't you think?'' Kennedy asked. 
 
 Scalia countered, saying that not enough information is known to determine whether same-sex parenting can be harmful to children. 
 
 "There is no satisfactory answer at this point in time," Scalia said. 
 
 Cooper argued that it was time to "hit the pause button" in California. 
 
 "Redefining marriage as a genderless institution," Cooper said, would likely "harm the institution of marriage." 
 
 Supporters of Proposition 8 say the Supreme Court should respect the verdict of California voters who approved the ban on same-sex marriage in 2008. It's the court's first major examination of gay rights in 10 years. (March 26) AP 
 
 Whatever decision the court ultimately reaches by late June will mark a milestone on an issue that has divided the nation for decades. Thirty-eight states have instituted bans on gay marriage; nine states and the District of Columbia allow it. 
 
 If the court rules broadly against California's ban, it would implicate other state prohibitions, most likely leading to lawsuits and repeal efforts from coast to coast. If the ban is upheld, it could stall the gay-rights movement for years to come. Either way, the losing side is sure to mount new legal, legislative and lobbying campaigns. 
 
 Attorneys for two couples trying to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage says the other side made no attempt to defend the ban itself. The comments came after the Supreme Court heard arguments on what is known as Proposition 8. (March 26) AP 
 
 The court could rule more narrowly, limiting its ruling to eight states that allow the benefits of marriage without the title; to California only, because it took away a right that previously existed; or by deciding that the case is not properly before the justices because the four gay and lesbian plaintiffs and the state of California are on the same side. California has refused to defend its ban in court. 
 
 That same dilemma could influence Wednesday's debate as well. The federal government has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, leaving it to House Republicans to argue the case in court. But it hasn't returned the $363,000 in estate taxes paid by lesbian widow Edith Windsor after her same-sex spouse's death, either. 
 
 Natalie DiBlasio talks with USA TODAY political editor Paul Singer regarding Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage. USA TODAY, Kaveh Rezaei, 
 
 Whatever the court rules, public opinion appears to be trending in favor of gay marriage. A December poll in USA TODAY showed 53% support for gay marriage, up from 40% in 2009. A more recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed 58% approval. And a Pew Research Center survey this month showed that support has soared to 70% among young people ages 18-32. Nearly one-third of all supporters say they have changed their minds, most often because they know someone who is gay. 
 
 The California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriages four years ago, and quickly about 18,000 couples tied the knot. That led opponents of same-sex marriage to demand a voter referendum outlawing gay marriage, which passed narrowly in November 2008. 
 
 The original lawsuit against Proposition 8, filed by a gay couple and a lesbian couple, has won at both federal courts leading to the Supreme Court. The district court said the law violated the Constitution's equal protection clause because it was "premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." The appeals court ruled more narrowly that voters could not take away a right previously granted to the state's gays and lesbians. 
 
 Last year, following a string of gay marriage bans in other states -- including North Carolina, which hosted the Democratic National Convention, but where voters banned gay marriage with 61% of the vote -- the gay-rights movement rebounded. President Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage during his re-election campaign. Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington legalized gay marriage, and Minnesota voters rejected a statewide ban. 
 
 Rather than remaining on the sidelines in the California debate, the Obama administration came out forcefully last month against the ban and decided to help argue the case in court. It singled out California and seven other states that allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, arguing they cannot deny the title of marriage. 
 
 "Proposition 8's denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection," the administration's brief states. 
 
 Making the case for gay marriage was Theodore Olson, the conservative former U.S. solicitor general who teamed up with liberal David Boies on the case. They were representing two couples: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, lesbian parents of four sons, and Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, a gay couple who want to marry and raise a family. 
 
 MORE: Same-sex marriage advocates go red 
 
 "In this country, as children, we learned that there is a fundamental principle that all people are created equal,'' Perry said after the oral arguments. "We look forward to the day when Proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated.'' 
 
 Arguing in support of Proposition 8 was Cooper, the attorney representing the original proponents of the referendum. They argue that marriage is based upon producing and raising children by a mother and father. They say forcing opponents to recognize same-sex marriages would infringe on their religious beliefs. And they say states and voters should be left alone to make their own decisions. 
 
 Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Protect Marriage Coalition and supporter of the ban, said Cooper presented a "winning case.'' 
 
 "I thought that the hearing went very well,'' he said. 
 
 About 100 "friend of the court" briefs were filed, equally divided between the two sides. While support for Proposition 8 came largely from religious and conservative political groups, opposition ran the gamut from Fortune 500 companies who called marriage equality "a business imperative" to more than 100 prominent Republicans and two National Football League stars. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/10JUfas ||||| The tide might be turning in favor of gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will be swept up in it. 
 
 For all the toasting in Washington and excitement among gay rights groups about the historic oral arguments this week, there’s still a chance their set of cases could culminate in a loss. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset POLITICO Prop. 8 report Sights, sounds from day one 
 
 Under the worst-case scenario for gay rights groups, the court could uphold both California’s Proposition 8 and the federal law Defense of Marriage Act — extending no new rights to gay couples looking to marry or take advantage of federal benefits extended to opposite-sex couples. 
 
 But gay rights activists say this wouldn’t have the impact of Plessy v. Ferguson — the 1896 decision that left “separate but equal” the law of the land until Brown v. Board of Education six decades later. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Culture wars return — with a twist) 
 
 Instead, they say, they would still leave the court in a better position than when they started their legal trek because public opinion has swung in their favor, supporters have been galvanized and about 100 prominent Republicans signed a brief publicly endorsing gay marriage. 
 
 “Even if you lose the case, and I think that’s very unlikely, you would say that the case has been a success because it’s changed public opinion so dramatically,” said Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. “It’s really unbelievable what a successful communications and litigation strategy has combined to do in such a short time.” 
 
 Plus, they don’t think they’re going to lose big at all. 
 
 “There’s zero possibility,” said University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone. 
 
 One key source of confidence is Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority ruling 17 years ago in Romer v. Evans, a case throwing out a Colorado ballot measure that banned any special protections for gays and lesbians. Many analysts believe that decision and a 2003 ruling he wrote banning sodomy laws essentially guarantee Kennedy will vote to find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. With the four Democratic-appointed justices thought to favor at least that much of a win for gay rights, Kennedy would make a majority. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Poll: Court approval near record low) 
 
 Other potential GOP pickups for the pro-same sex marriage forces are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. 
 
 For those reading tea leaves, there are signs Roberts could be in play. While in private practice in 1995, Roberts gave pro bono help to the legal team preparing briefs and oral arguments for the Colorado case. And Roberts is using some of his personal allotment of tickets to this week’s arguments to allow a lesbian cousin and her partner to attend oral arguments, the Los Angeles Times reported. 
 
 Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are considered pretty certain votes against same-sex marriage. Scalia defended the Colorado measure as “a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.” Thomas joined the opinion. 
 
 (PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings) 
 
 There is one potential wild card on the left: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Though she was a pioneering litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union on gender issues, she has repeatedly said she thinks the Roe v. Wade decision went too far because it forced a consensus that many Americans had not arrived at and led to a backlash. 
 
 “It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast,” she said at Columbia Law School last year. “The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal. … Things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained.” ||||| Three months to the day after the justices heard historic arguments on California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, and on the last of its decision days for an already historic Spring term, the Supreme Court will rule on the two same-sex marriages cases on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts announced on the second-to-last day, minutes after issuing the majority opinion on the Voting Rights Act. Yes, after none of the first 72 decisions were the ones perhaps more people were waiting for than even the VRA or Monday's affirmative action ruling, the wait will finally be over — and June 26, 2013 officially becomes one of the most important dates in America's difficult history with civil rights, whether the tea leaves prove true with a chaotic split, or whether that history is instantly definitive. 
 
 The announcement came on Tuesday, after the Court issued what the NAACP called "a step backwards in the march towards equal rights." But the penultimate decision day has tended to be when Roberts, in his time as the chief, announces that the following day will indeed be the last, and with just three cases left on the docket, Prop. 8 and DOMA must be among the final boxes. As the always reliable SCOTUSblog reported: 
 
 Tomorrow is the last #scotus day. Same-sex marriage. History. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 25, 2013 
 
 History indeed. On Wednesday shortly after 10 a.m. Eastern time, same-sex couples will find out if they can legally get married in this country in a possible end to the five-year fight against Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) in California and beyond. With DOMA (United States v. Windsor), there remains more wiggle room, and the Court could punt or send the case back down to the lower court like it did in the affirmative-action case Fisher v. Texas. Here's a handy flowchart or two if you're not all up to date by now, though you're probably sick of having this explained to you already. 
 
 The rulings might not come down right after 10, though, as there's actually one more case to be ruled on Wednesday, which is likely to be the opening act. Rulings are announced based on the seniority of the justice issuing the majority ruling, and Sekhar v. United States could be just that, as the Supremes decide whether or not a lawyer's advice or "recommendation" can be the subject of blackmail, as SCOTUS blog explains, "intangible property that can be the subject of an extortion attempt" under the Hobbs act. It also involves a saucy extramarital affair. 
 
 There remains little-to-no possibility that the Court would carry the gay marriage cases to its next term, when the two linked opinions would be re-argued. That only happens if there are major outstanding issues regarding the cases, and lawyers would then be contacted with more questions. And while "standing" itself may be a big issue, there were only two big questions left in this one: How soon, and what will be our history? One down, one to go. 
 
 Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at aabadsantos at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire. 
 
 Alexander Abad-Santos
– The Supreme Court hears two landmark gay rights cases this week, starting today. Here's what to expect: What's on the docket for today? The court will consider California's voter-approved Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court allowed it, the AP reports. A federal district judge struck down Prop 8, but his decision was stayed until the Supreme Court can weigh in, the New York Times reports. What's on deck for tomorrow? The court will consider the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. What outcomes could we see? A decision is not expected until late June. Worst-case scenario for gay rights activists, per Politico: The court upholds both Prop 8 and DOMA. But there are a raft of other possibilities in the Prop 8 case: The justices could make same-sex marriage legal in California, but only California, thus leaving the decision up to states; they could make it legal in California and the eight other states that currently allow civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay couples; or, as activists hope, they could strike down all state bans on gay marriage. There's also the slim possibility the court will decide Prop 8 supporters don't have the right to defend it in court (California's governor and attorney general have refused to defend it). If that happens, legal experts believe same-sex marriages would resume in the state, but ironing things out could involve a lower court. How about the DOMA case? There are only two likely outcomes, SCOTUSblog reports: The court will decide it's unconstitutional or constitutional. We could see a split decision, with DOMA being struck down but Prop 8 being upheld. Why is today historically noteworthy? Exactly 10 years ago, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to Texas' anti-sodomy statute in Lawrence v. Texas. Ultimately, the court prohibited states from criminalizing sex acts between consenting adults. Which justices should we watch? Anthony Kennedy, for one—he wrote the Lawrence decision and is expected to be the swing member of the court; he also championed gay rights in another case, and experts believe he'll at least make a majority, with the four Democrat-appointed justices, in finding DOMA unconstitutional. On the GOP side, Chief Justice John Roberts has given some hints he could swing pro-gay marriage; Samuel Alito may as well. But Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will almost certainly not. And the court's liberals aren't a sure bet when it comes to the Prop 8 case—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, has said the court "moved too far too fast" by making abortion legal in Roe v. Wade, leading to public backlash. How much did a seat to watch the court "cost"? About $6,000, the AP reports. Technically, of course, it's free to get in—but you have to line up, or pay someone else to do so. In this case, people started queuing Thursday, and at $36 to $50 per hour for a professional line-stander, that adds up. And no, you won't be able to catch the arguments on TV. Click to see the latest senators backing gay marriage.