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.
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.
*Editor's Note: A previous version of this story misidentified Breyer as the one "dominating" Cooper. It was, instead, Kagan.