The Defense of Marriage Act hearing at the Supreme Court was twice as long as yesterday’s Prop 8 arguments, with the first 50 minutes devoted to questions of jurisdiction (whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives has standing to defend DOMA and whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the Windsor case when Edie Windsor and the federal government both agree that DOMA is unconstitutional).  The second half of the arguments consisting of an hour of discussion of the case on the merits.

As SCOTUS Blog observes, under any circumstances, the same-sex marriage cases would shine a spotlight squarely on the Court, but that spotlight will be even brighter given the recent coverage of the dramatic growth in public support for same-sex marriage, reflected not only in recent polls but also in statements by Republican Gov. Rob Portman – who was on former presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s short list for potential vice-presidential candidates – and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996. 

Audio is here:

Get the transcript here.

The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) may be headed for stormy waters.

SCOTUSBlog, the pre-eminent Supreme Court and law media site, tweeted:

"Final update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states’ rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights."

As the New York Times reports, a majority of the justices on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of DOMA of 1996, as the Supreme Court took up the volatile issue of same-sex marriage for a second day. On Tuesday, the Court heard arguments for California's ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8, though it was hard to read the Court's general mood on the issue from the 1-hour's worth of questioning.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, widely considered the swing vote on the divided Court, joined the four liberals in posing skeptical questions to a lawyer defending the law, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.

“The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage,” Justice Kennedy said according to the New York Times during oral arguments.

At another point, he disagreed with the lawyer’s contention that the law simply creates a single definition for federal purposes. “It’s not really uniformity,” the justice said, because same-sex couples would not have access to federal benefits that traditional couples have.

That red equal sign, a viral PR campaign pushed by the gay marriage-supporting Human Rights Campaign, has completely gone viral ... if you haven't noticed.

Countless people have made the sign their Facebook or Twitter profile pictures, helping the logo clog news streams and new feeds over the last 24 hours. 

In a second-wave reaction to this symbol, absurb new logos have also gone viral ... suddenly Grumpy Cat, Yoda, and Paula Deen all have been included in the gay marriage crusade.

And if Grumpy Cat can be made to say "yes" — a 180-degree turn-around from her distinctive "no" reaction to every damn thing on the internet — then you know the gay marriage campaign has achieved something big.

Since Monday afternoon, the original photo posted on the HRC’s Facebook timeline has been seen by over 9 million people, and shared over 77,000 times from the organization’s Facebook page directly, Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlie Joughin told MSNBC.com on Tuesday. The photo has also racked up more than 25,000 likes.

Mashable reports that since actor George Takei changed his profile picture to the red equal sign, the post has received more than 40,000 likes from fans.

Even celebrities like Martha Stewart got in on the action: 

Why has the movement streaked like wildfire across social media? Momentum for marriage equality has never been greater. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows a record-high of 58% of registered voters nationwide support marriage equality. Moreover, 64% of these voters say that the Constitution should be the basis for establishing a right to marry for same-sex couples, compared to individual states.

Young people disproportionately support the issue: between 74% and 81% of millennials support gay marriage, according to different polls.

One poll released by ABC News and theWashington Post tracked sentiments regarding gay marriage from 2004 up to this year, showing a complete reversal in the majority of public opinion. While in 2004, 55% of the public was against gay marriage; that number has reduced to 36% now. Along party lines, the number of people who support gay marriage has also increased in every group. While Democrats and Independents boast high numbers of support — 72% and 62% respectively — Republicans have had a 10 point increase to 34% in 2013. 

Why are millennials supporting the LGBT community in such high numbers? Turns out that they are twice as likely to identify as liberal than those who are 65 and above. Additionally, due toincreasing levels of engagement in the political sphere, millennials are trying to add their voices to the political agenda.

HRC continues to push the message: The organization is working with a number of allied organizations as a part of the United for Marriage coalition to celebrate this historic event. Wearing red, supporters will gather at the Supreme Court building again today.

The Supreme Court notoriously does not allow video or cameras into its chambers. 

As gay rights activists are descending on the Supreme Court today for U.S. vs. Windsor, there will not be any live streaming video of the oral arguments. :-(

The Supreme Court will release audio at 1 p.m. In a statement they said yesterday: "The Court will provide [expedited] audio recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and United States v. Windsor ... The Court will post the audio recordings and unofficial transcripts as soon as the digital files are available ... The audio recordings and transcripts should be available no later than 1 p.m. [today] and no later than 2 p.m. [tomorrow]."

The case facing oral arguments from the Supreme Court on Wednesday is United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Clinton, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages even in the nine states and District of Columbia that allow them. Eighty-three-year-old New Yorker Edith Windsor brought the suit after she was made to pay more than $363,000 in estate taxes when her same-sex spouse died, because the federal government did not recognize their marriage.

Windsor married her partner of more than four decades, Thea Spyer, in 2007 in Canada. Four years later, New York state legalized gay marriage.

Windsor argues that the law unfairly excluded her marriage in more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marriage is relevant, including key parts of the tax code. She says the government has no legitimate reason to exclude same-sex married couples from benefits and obligations received by opposite-sex couples, and that she and other gay couples are being denied equal protection under the law.

The Obama administration has declined to defend DOMA, so the House of Representatives appointed seasoned attorney Paul Clement, who has argued before the Supreme Court many times, to take up the case. Clement will most likely argue that the federal government is not intruding on states' definition of marriage, but simply using its own definition in regard to federal benefits. He also has argued in legal briefs that the federal government has an interest in defining marriage as only between opposite sex couples because it encourages them to form stable family relationships when they procreate.

Hollingsworth v. Perry, or the Prop 8 gay marriage case, on Tuesday at the Supreme Court faced 1 hour of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the legislation, which amended that state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. 

The transcript of the oral arguments has been released, and the growing consensus is that Charles J. Cooper, the lawyer representing Protectmarriage.com (the original sponsors of Proposition 8, which is defending the law because California officials refused to do so) got absolutely dominated. 

Here's a snippet, really the only eight sentences you need to read: 

Justice Kagan: 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?

MR. COOPER (defending prop 8): I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our -- our position, yes.

later...

Justice Breyer: What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children.

Justice Kagan (continuing): Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

....

Game. Set. Match.

With Grumpy cat on board, there's hope for the Supreme Court.

The Onion, that amazing satirical newspaper, has done it again. Summing up Tuesday's oral arguments Re: Prop 8, they had this to say: Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares?'

A snippet: 

"'I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. 'Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shit, and you are wasting our time.'"

Dear The Onion Staff,

Gay/Straight Marry Me Please.

Love,

Chris

Hollingsworth v. Perry, or the Prop 8 gay marriage case, on Tuesday at the Supreme Court faced 1 hour of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the legislation, which amended that state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. 

See the full transcript below.

As Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS Blog lays out, "Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional."

As SCOTUS Blog observes, under any circumstances, the same-sex marriage cases would shine a spotlight squarely on the Court, but that spotlight will be even brighter given the recent coverage of the dramatic growth in public support for same-sex marriage, reflected not only in recent polls but also in statements by Republican Gov. Rob Portman – who was on former presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s short list for potential vice-presidential candidates – and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996. 

On Wednesday morning, the Court will hear nearly 2 hours of arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal laws and programs – including things like income taxes, estate taxes, and Social Security survivors’ benefits – as a union between a man and a woman only.

Here is the full transcript:

12-144

Here is the audio: