Photograph by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

A same-sex marriage supporter waves a rainbow flag in front of the US Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC, as the Court takes up the issue of gay marriage.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson just took himself off a shrinking list of Democratic Senate holdouts: He reversed his position against same-sex marriage.

With Nelson as the 51st senator to voice support, more than half the U.S. Senate now backs same-sex marriage.

Nelson will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the California law prohibiting same-sex marriage, he said in a statement in the Tampa Bay Times, excerpted here:

“Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”

“So I will add my name to the petition of senators asking the Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional.”

Nelson, whose home state of Florida voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, told the Miami Herald he believes marriage is a state issue after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.

“I believe marriage should be left to the states, and Florida voted on same-sex marriage in 2008,” he said at the time. Floridians voted 62-38 percent to define marriage as between one man and one woman in 2008, the Herald reported. Currently, 75 percent of Florida voters support at least civil unions for same-sex couples, according to Public Policy Polling.

Nelson’s reversal comes three weeks after Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, said he supports same-sex marriage. Prompted by two March Supreme Court cases on the issue, a wave of Democratic senators and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois followed Portman’s lead.

Only six Democratic senators have not endorsed same-sex marriage: Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Among them, Pryor and Landrieu are up for re-election in 2014.

Original post is Nelson Backs Gay Marriage: Six Democratic Senators Left Silent by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

Hollingsworth v. Perry Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, left, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo are pictured on the steps of the National Archives in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2013.

5:10 p.m. Today’s coverage of  Hollingsworth v. Perry is ending. Check back with Political Capital early Wednesday morning for our live blog of the oral arguments in U.S. v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

4:35 p.m. Nearly lost in the shuffle of tweets was this post-arguments assessment by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, co-counsel to the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case.

@erin_gs wonderful day @ Court.fusillade of questions for both sides. thrilling and inspiring day 4this country #time4marriage

— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) March 26, 2013

Boutrous recently talked about the sustained coverage and heightened awareness of the Prop. 8 case over the last few years. He spoke with us by phone on the one day in March when he wasn’t on the road and away from his Los Angeles office. Boutrous has been fielding most of the press requests for the plaintiffs’ team and working on addressing public interest in the case.

“We’ve been very sensitive to the fact that we were treading into an area with a lot of political sensitivity, and we had to match our team and public discussion about the case to that reality,” he says. “We live in a time of incredible modes of communication that can affect public views and public discussion but when it’s a case of such national importance, and it’s important to real people across the country, it’s necessary to also engage in the public sphere.

“There have been comparisons to Roe v. Wade but it’s not even close to a comparable situation. Back in 1973, people didn’t know what cases were being argued at the Supreme Court. Here we have a situation in which for four years, there’s been nation-wide and global discussion of the case, of the issues…So the Court’s rulings, when they come out, their decisions are less controversial because the public knows what the possible outcomes are.”

4:20 p.m. Another excellent recap of today’s proceedings comes from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who offers the following details on the arguments put forth by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and the questions he faced:

The Obama Administration’s argument ran into considerable skeptical questions from both wings of the court. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. argued that same-sex marriage should be imposed on those states that already grants all of the benefits and duties of that status through their recognition of civil unions–nine states.

“So a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but a state that has made no progress doesn’t have to do anything at all?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who along with Justice Stephen Breyer, saw that argument as “internally inconsistent.”

But Verrilli said, “We’re not prepared to close the door (on states that might have legitimate interests not yet known).” The Proposition 8 proponents have offered no state interest to justify the exclusion of gay couples when the state already gives them all of the benefits of the marriage status, he argued.

Read the full article here. There is also this report from Coyle’s colleague and fellow Supreme Court reporter, Tony Mauro.

3:40 p.m. Three big, and telling, questions were asked during today’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, writes Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Paul Barrett.

I just wonder if the case was properly granted.

The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?

Was not the appellate-court decision in the California case ‘very odd’?

It’s no surprise that all three questions came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, as Barrett sees it, “hold[s] the decision in his hands.” That’s in keeping with much of what’s been put forth in the hours after the hearing ended, shortly before 12 p.m. ET on Tuesday. “When the Supreme Court rules, probably by late June, it’s a safe bet that Kennedy’s answers will determine the outcome.”

2:28 pm.Every now and then, a break from reading — the recaps of today’s arguments as well as the previews of tomorrow’s equally important questions in U.S. v. Windsor (Political Capital will also cover Wednesday’s DOMA case)–is in order. There’s a link to a nice artists’s rendering of Ted Olson making the case against Proposition 8 earlier today in this tweet:

Lawyer Theodore Olsen, representing same-sex couples, addresses #SCOTUS in artist rendering of today’s arguments: apne.ws/XadF9v — AP Courtside Seat (@AP_Courtside) March 26, 2013

1:50 p.m. Major media outlets issued assessments of oral arguments shortly after the proceedings concluded. Here is a selection of some of the coverage:

Supreme Court Justices Conflicted on Gay Marriage Case – The Washington Post

“Defending the 2008 law that effectively banned same-sex marriage in California, Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper encountered skeptical questions from at least four justices, including Anthony M. Kennedy, who is considered a potential swing vote in the case.”

Justices Hint at Fears of Acting Too Quickly on Gay Marriage – The New York Times

“In a vivid comment as the Supreme Court conducted the first of two days of arguments on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often a swing vote in major cases, spoke strongly about the interests of the children of same-sex couples, saying there were an estimated 40,000 such children in California alone. ‘They want their parents to have full recognition,’ Mr. Kennedy said.”

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban – The Huffington Post

“The justices spent a good deal of time in the first half of the hour examining whether the parties defending Prop. 8 had legal standing, and seemed to cast doubt on whether they did. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that the case may not reach the central issue of whether gay couples are entitled to marriage, and might fall on issues of standing.”

High Court Hears Arguments on Calif. Gay Marriage Ban – Associated Press

“The Supreme Court is raising the prospect that it will find a way out of the case over California’s ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a substantial ruling on whether gays have a right to marry.”

Justices Wary of Broad Ruling Endorsing Gay Marriage – Reuters

“As the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on the delicate and divisive issue of gay marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed doubt that California opponents of gay marriage had a right to be heard in federal court.”

Supreme Court Justices Wary of Sweeping Vote on Gay Marriage – Politico

“The country may seem to be in a hurry on same-sex marriage, but not the Supreme Court.”

1:20 p.m. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, in his recap of this morning’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, details the options before members of the Court in this case and includes reactions from the Justices. Justice Kennedy, Denniston writes, “appeared to be troubled about the Court entering ‘uncharted waters,’ on the core issue of who may marry, but at the same time, he also did not look comfortable with any of the other, more limited options. So he openly wondered why the Court had agreed even to hear this case.’”

12:50 p.m. The audio recording of today’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop. 8) is now available at this link, as is the transcript of the proceedings.

12:40 p.m. Here’s a nice state-by-state look at same-sex marriage laws, from Bloomberg Visual Data reporter @AlexTribou.

12:20 p.m. There’s an abundance of analysis to review. First up is SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein’s take on today’s oral arguments. Goldstein already has predicted how the Justices might vote on the case. It comes down to the question of “standing”:

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

As for the constitutionality of Proposition 8, there is equal division among all the Justices–other than Justice Kennedy –along ideological lines, Goldstein notes. “For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.”

Read Goldstein’s full report here.

12:00 p.m. Charles Cooper is now addressing reporters. “We believe that Proposition 8 is constitutional and the place for redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts.”

Charles Cooper, who argued for proponents of Proposition 8. #SCOTUS twitter.com/learyreports/s… — Alex Leary (@learyreports) March 26, 2013

11:52 a.m. David Boies is now addressing reporters outside the Supreme Court, and cautions people not to read too much into the questions asked by the Justices. Ted Olson says, “the questions might not even reveal how they’re thinking…they put every advocate to the test.” The live feed is being carried by Reuters at this link.

Boies and Olson outside #Scotus talking to the press. twitter.com/josephax/statu… — Joseph Ax (@josephax) March 26, 2013

11:39 a.m. With arguments now completed, SCOTUSblog, via its Twitter feed, is predicting that the Supreme Court will neither uphold nor strike down Proposition 8 — “Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.”

11:32 a.m. Much of the discussion has centered on the question of the effects on children of having same-sex parents. Justice Antonin Scalia noted that there’s “considerable disagreement” over this question. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child?”, he said, according to Bloomberg News. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not.”

11:28 a.m.

SCOTUS Breyer, Kagan + Ginsburg question Prop. 8 argument gay unions interfere with goal of marriage: procreation. ow.ly/jqK7C — JamesVGrimaldi (@JamesVGrimaldi) March 26, 2013

11:20 a.m. From the Wall Street Journal’s live coverage:

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominated the questioning at the end of Mr. Cooper’s argument time. Each of the three justices questioned the argument that same-sex marriage interferes with a traditional goal of marriage: procreation.

11:14 a.m. SCOTUSblog is back with another update from inside the courtroom. Blog founder Tom Goldstein is taking a strong stand, saying there are not five votes to strike down Prop. 8. He was one of the few observers to call the Obamacare cases correctly.

There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 26, 2013

11:04 a.m. Arguments are nearing the one-hour mark. The Court announced on March 19 that audiotapes of today’s arguments will be released in short order, no later than 1 p.m. this afternoon, according to the announcement (via SCOTUSblog). Visit the Court’s website at www.supremecourt.gov to access the materials. (Update 11:10 a.m. – Chief Justice Roberts has allotted a few more minutes to the parties.)

10:59 a.m. Here’s a shot of the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, shortly before the start of oral arguments this morning:

The first picture of the #Prop8 plaintiffs in the Supreme Court today, up at @buzzfeed: bit.ly/11GYwKH #SCOTUS — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 26, 2013

10:57 a.m. The Wall Street Journal has some of the details on Chief Justice John Roberts’s comments during this morning’s oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry:

Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether Mr. Cooper’s clients were any different from any other citizens of California to be able to defend Prop 8, when the state’s elected officials refused to do so. Mr. Cooper argued that the California Supreme Court had argued that the citizens had a vital interest to have the law defended and had agreed his clients could do so, since the state was refusing to defend the initiative approved by voters.

10:54 a.m. Here’s the link to the full Bloomberg News story by Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr, reporting on Justice Kennedy’s remarks.

10:46 We’re waiting on more details as reporters emerge from the arguments to report on the proceedings. This is one exchange we’ll be looking for more on:

U.S. Chief Justice Roberts, midway into gay marriage arguments, raises doubts about California case #breaking #Prop8 — Reuters Top News (@Reuters) March 26, 2013

10:44 a.m. Bloomberg News’s Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr report that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in early questioning, “suggested that children of same-sex couples suffer an “immediate legal injury” from California’s ban. ‘They want their parents to have full recognition and status,’ Kennedy said. ‘The voices of those children’ is important, he suggested.”

10:40 a.m. Here’s a BREAKING update from SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed –

Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 26, 2013

10:25 a.m.

If a history of discrimination were sufficient to justify its perpetual existence, as Proponents argue, our public schools, drinking fountains, and swimming pools would still be segregated by race, our government workplaces and military institutions would still be largely off-limits to one sex–and to gays and lesbians, and marriage would still be unattainable for interracial couples. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men, and lesbians from the most important relationship in life.

‘In respect of all civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.’ Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896)

–Hollingsworth v. Perry, Brief For Respondents

10:21 a.m.

The arguments this week pose an unusually stark choice among the radically different paths of heroism, restraint, not deciding and minimalism. The lawyers will be offering some highly technical arguments. But the competing analogies, and history’s likely verdict, loom large in the background. — Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley Professor at Harvard Law School, writing for Bloomberg View.

10:07 a.m. Bloomberg News is reporting that oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Texas are underway.

10:00 a.m. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs challenging California’s Proposition 8 have a lot to do with the attention that’s been focused on the case over the past three years–Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Legal veterans, both, they were unlikely allies, it seemed, when they first emerged as partners on the case in 2009, given their differing political views. The two had faced each other in Bush v. Gore. But as The American Lawyer reported in “Marriage Brokers,” a March 2011 profile (subscription required) of the lawyers and the case, the pairing was “a culmination of a professional and personal relationship that bloomed over the past decade.”

As Ross Todd reported then, “The case is the most closely watched that either lawyer has handled since their election showdown. And, one way or the other, it will shape their professional legacies.”

Olson, a legendary Supreme Court attorney, now stands before the Justices to argue the case for the plaintiffs.

“Lawyers sometimes get caught up in what they want to accomplish and what their goals are,” he has said. “We represent four people whose lives are in our hands, in a sense. We want them to have their goal. We want them to be married and to be treated as equals in California…We can’t forget that we’re representing human beings.”

9:40 a.m. Who’s arguing the case against same-sex marriage rights?

Charles (Chuck) Cooper, the founder and chairman of Washington, D.C.-based litigation boutique Cooper & Kirk, is the attorney for the sponsors in Hollingsworth v. Perry . He is a champion of conservative causes, the Wall Street Journal notes, “including preserving gun rights and limiting affirmative action and gay rights.”

A graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, Cooper was a clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (1978-79) and to Judge Paul Roney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1977-78).

“Chuck is a traditionalist,” Kenneth Starr told the Wall Street Journal. “[He] has great and abiding respect for traditions embodied in law—a historic position in American jurisprudence.”

9:27 a.m. There are just over 30 minutes to go before the Court opens for business. A procedural note, via SCOTUSblog:

At 10 a.m. on both Tuesday, March 26 and Wednesday, March 27 we expect opinions argued in cases… Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe previews the case here.

9:13 a.m. “The Phelps family has arrived,” reports Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed, via Twitpic. Phelps patriarch Fred Phelps, Sr., who heads the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, is a staunch gay marriage opponent. Follow Geidner’s Twitter stream for frequent photo updates.

The Phelps family has arrived. #SCOTUS twitpic.com/ceihm6

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 26, 2013

9:09 a.m. Lawyers Ted Olson (left) and David Boies are on the way to the courthouse. Olson is arguing against Prop 8 today.

On the way to #Scotus #time4marriage twitter.com/BoutrousTed/st…

— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) March 26, 2013

And the New York Times’ Adam Liptak reports the reporters are getting restless.

The ordinarily sleepy #scotus pressroom is as crowded and anxious as a European train station in wartime

— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) March 26, 2013

8:43 a.m. The wait is almost over for everyone standing on line at the Supreme Court this morning. Spotted among the crowd was director Rob Reiner (click here for a photo), as AP legal affairs reporter Mark Sherman noted via Twitter:

Actor-director Rob Reiner at the head of line for gay marriage argument. Must have missed him waiting out front all weekend. #gaymarriage

— Mark Sherman (@shermancourt) March 26, 2013

Reiner is one of the founders of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage. “I was raised in a political family,” he told the Huffington Postin March of last year. “Civil rights issues were talked about around my kitchen table. People say, ‘Do you remember where you were when President Kennedy died?’ Well, I remember where I was when Medgar Evers died. This was something I was raised in. [Gay rights] is an extension of the civil rights movement. There are basic civil rights denied to people.”

8:20 a.m. A big development in this debate in recent weeks has been the increasing support for gay marriage, notably among Republican lawmakers. As Bloomberg News reports, two Democratic senators have joined the “growing and bipartisan chorus of support” for same-sex marriage. Saying it is the “fair and right thing to do,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia expressed his support on Monday. Late last week, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri became the second sitting U.S. Senator in recent weeks to endorse gay marriage. “I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love,” McCaskill wrote on her Tumblr page. (McCaskill’s statement follows an announcement by Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio earlier in March that he supports same-sex marriage. Noting that his son, Will, told his parents that he is gay two years ago, Portman admitted his stance “isn’t how I’ve always felt.”)

7:55 a.m. Welcome to Day One of the Supreme Court oral arguments in this week’s landmark gay marriage cases – Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. This is your blog to all the action. Reload this page throughout the day for our latest updates.

We’ll be aggregating the best coverage from across the Bloomberg media universe, as well as from other news outlets, the blogosphere and social media channels. And we’ll do the same on Wednesday in U.S. v. Windsor.

Up first shortly after 10 a.m. ET Tuesday is Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the court will consider whether there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. The case stems from California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in that state.

Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr has outlined the issues in both cases here. Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia spoke with SCOTUSblog* founder and noted Supreme Court attorney Tom Goldstein – watch the video interview here.

Dimitra Kessenides is an editor and blogger with the multimedia team at Bloomberg Law.

*Bloomberg Law is a sponsor of SCOTUSblog.

Original post is Live Blog: Tuesday’s Gay Marriage Arguments at Supreme Court by Political Capital.

Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Justin Kenny of Akron, Ohio holds a modified Stars and Stripes flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC.

That’s the percentage of Americans who have a favorable view of the Supreme Court, according to the Pew Research Center.

That compares with 31 percent who have an unfavorable view of the high court, according to interviews conducted March 13-17.

The public’s view of the Supreme Court is near a quarter-century low of 51 percent set last summer, when it upheld the core of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul. In the wake of that ruling, the high court’s approval rating plunged among Republicans, who opposed the overhaul, and rose among Democrats.

Forty-seven percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, according to Pew’s most recent surveys.

The Supreme Court this week is considering same-sex marriage for the first time. It will hear arguments today on a California ballot measure, passed by voters in 2008, that prohibited same-sex marriage. The court will hear arguments tomorrow on the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions. The court will decide the cases by June.

The California ballot measure banning gay marriage has lost support in public opinion polls, Bloomberg’s Alison Vekshin reported yesterday. Dozens of people, some of them hired by interest groups, lined up outside the Supreme Court days ago in hopes of securing a chance to witness the arguments, Bloomberg’s Nick Taborek reported.

This week’s arguments may yield insight into whether the Supreme Court “cares what big business thinking about gay marriage,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Paul Barrett wrote. Companies including Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc. filed briefs in support of same-sex marriage.

Original post is Bloomberg by the Numbers: 52 by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

Hollingsworth v. Perry Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, left, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, right, along with other family members climb the steps of the National Archive in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2013, a day before the oral argument in the Hollingsworth v. Perry Supreme Court case, which could end California’s discriminatory Proposition 8 legislation banning same-sex marriage in the state.

Several scenarios emerge when assessing the likely outcome of two high profile same-sex marriage cases being argued before the Supreme Court this week. Among the possibilities is that the Court will find a way to avoid the core issue of legalizing gay marriage.

“They have off-ramps,” Tom Goldstein of Washington, D.C.’s Goldstein & Russell and founder of SCOTUS Blog* told Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia. “So that the Proposition 8 case [Hollingsworth v. Perry, scheduled for arguments on Tuesday] asks the court to decide a really fundamental question about whether there’s a right to gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act case [U.S. v. Windsor] the next day challenges the constitutionality of the federal law that says federal benefits only go to heterosexual marriages. But the justices in either case could decide, ‘We don’t have the power to decide those issues.’ They could say that the parties in front of them are the wrong ones. And they have in fact directed the litigants in the case to brief that question for them. So it’s clear they have their finger on the trigger of deciding either the big question or deciding they actually don’t want to have anything to do with them.”

Goldstein, for one, says the cases are too close to call. “The country has moved incredibly quickly in favor of recognizing that there should be equal treatment for same sex and opposite sex marriages. But the issue is that the Supreme Court moves much more slowly than the rest of the country. It’s conservative both in its ideology but also in its disposition, it doesn’t like to move too fast.”

SCOTUSblog details the litigants in each case here.

*Bloomberg Law is a sponsor of SCOTUSblog.

Original post is Gay Marriage at Supreme Court: A Viewer’s Guide by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jin Lee/Bloomberg

Rachel Baker, left, and Christine Tully wait in line to get their marriage license at the Manhattan City Clerk’s office in New York.

That’s how much support for same-sex marriage has advanced in 10 years.

With the Supreme Court ready to hear oral arguments this week in two cases involving gay marriage and the legal rights of those in civil unions, the Pew Research Center reports that 49 percent of Americans surveyed support gay marriage.

That has increased from 33 percent who supported it in 2003, Pew reports.

Opposition has diminished from 58 percent to 44 percent over the same period.

The latest survey of 1,501 adults was conducted March 13-17, with a possible margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

See Mike Tackett’s report at Bloomberg.com today on the issue in the tradition of the civil rights movement.

Original post is Bloomberg by the Numbers: 16% by Political Capital.

Photograph by Mario Tama/Getty Images

Revelers celebrate during the Gay Pride parade in New York City.

That’s the percentage of people of the so-called millennial generation who back same-sex marriage, according to the Pew Research Center.

The millennial generation — those born since 1980 and between the ages of 18 and 32 — is more supportive of same-sex marriage than older groups, according to Pew surveys conducted March 13-17. In 2003, 51 percent of Americans age 18-to-32 backed gay marriage.

This increased support among younger Americans explains in part why support for same-sex marriage among all age groups rose to 49 percent from 33 percent a decade ago, Pew data show. Forty-four percent of people in the most recent Pew poll said they oppose same-sex marriage.

Gay marriage is legal in eight states and the District of Columbia.

Original post is Bloomberg by the Numbers: 70 by Political Capital.

Photograph by Robert MacPherson/AFP via Getty Images

Wayne MacKenzie, left, and Clayton Zook admire their wedding rings after exchanging vows January 1, 2013 at Black Walnut Point Inn on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

Support for gay marriage has reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, “marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade,” pollster Gary Langer reports.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans surveyed now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.

Support has grown from a low of 32 percent in a 2004 ABC survey of registered voters, Langer notes, `advancing to a narrow majority for the first time only two years ago, and now up again to a significant majority for the first time.”

Word of the latest polling arrives as some high-profile players in both parties announce their own personal evolution to support of same-sex marriage: Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, senator from New York and first lady, produced a video explaining her thinking, and Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, announced support last week as he revealed he has a son who is gay.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments over the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s state constitutional ban on gay marriage, most Americans say the U.S. Constitution should trump state laws on gay marriage.

Looking at political lines, 72 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents favor legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to far fewer Republicans, 34 percent. Nevertheless, support is up by 18 points among Republicans since 2004, as well as by 24 and 29 points among independents and Democrats, respectively.

The survey of 1,001 adults was run March 7-10, with  a possible margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Original post is Gay Marriage: Public Support Rising by Political Capital.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally announced her support for gay marriage in a Human Rights Campaign video today.

“I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples,” Clinton said publicly for the first time in the six-minute video. “I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans.”

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage, while favoring civil unions for gays, as a U.S. senator from New York and during her 2008 presidential campaign. When New York legalized gay marriage in 2011, Clinton, then secretary of State, called the vote “historic” and said, “We have to continue to stand up for the rights and the well-being of LGBT people,” according to Politico.

“Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith,” Clinton said in the new video.

Clinton said her time at the State Department “inspired and challenged” her to reexamine “who we are and the values we represent” as Americans. She said she directed diplomats to combat “repressive laws” around the world and changed State Department policy to ensure fair treatment for LGBT employees and their families.

“To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given potential,” she said in the video.

Clinton, who has made no commitments about her political future, would be a leading contender in the 2016 presidential race. She topped a recent poll of potential candidates, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Vice President Joseph Biden. Her supporters set up a super political action committee, Ready for Hillary, in January in case she decides to run.

Clinton’s announcement comes just over a week before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, a law banning same-sex marriage that her husband, Bill Clinton, signed 17 years ago during his presidency. Bill Clinton urged the Supreme Court to strike down the law on March 8, Bloomberg reported.

Hillary Clinton’s announcement also comes three days after Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, said he supports gay marriage because his son is gay.

Original post is Hillary Clinton: Gay Marriage Endorsement ‘Shaped Over Time’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Senator Rob Portman speaks with reporters outside of Speaker John Boehner’s office, on Capitol Hill, on Dec. 20, 2012.

Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, reversed his position against gay marriage and said he now supports it because his son is gay.

Portman, a party leader on economic issues who was considered a top candidate to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, said in an op-ed he has “thought a great deal about this issue” since 2011 when his son Will, then a college freshman, told him and his wife he is gay.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I’ve had for over 26 years — that I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay,” Portman said in an interview with CNN.

Portman, who has repeatedly voted against gay marriage, told CNN he decided to announce his support now because he recently became comfortable with his new stance, and because the Supreme Court is considering two gay marriage cases that he would probably be asked about.

Conservatives should support gay marriage because it is a matter of individual liberty, he wrote in the Columbus Dispatch:

“We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.”

Portman said he told Romney about Will’s sexuality while being vetted to be Romney’s vice president. The campaign told Portman his son’s sexuality did not eliminate him from the VP pool, he told CNN.

Portman said he consulted former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter is gay, when considering his position.

“I followed his advice,” Portman said. “You know, I followed my heart.”

Portman’s son tweeted this morning about his dad’s announcement:

Especially proud of my dad today dispatch.com/content/storie…

— Will Portman (@wdportman) March 15, 2013

Original post is Portman Endorses Gay Marriage, Says Son is Gay by Political Capital.

Photograph by Patrick Semansky/AP Photo

Darcia Anthony, left, and Danielle Williams react after participating in a wedding ceremony at City Hall in Baltimore, on Jan. 1, 2013.

The fact that dozens of prominent Republicans are petitioning the Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right for same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that plenty of Republicans aren’t telling the high court something else.

“We believe states ought to have the decision-making authority,” says Scott Pruitt, Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, whose state has joined others in briefs supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in the Supreme Court.

Some 75 Republicans have signed on to a brief backing former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a veteran of the George W. Bush administration, in opposing Prop 8 at the high court, according to the New York Times. They include Jon Huntsman, a former Utah governor who sought the Republican Party’s presidential nomination last year.

“I don’t think you’re seeing a rift in the Republican Party,” Alan Wilson, the Republican attorney general of South Carolina, said at a Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington today. He maintained that he and other Republican attorneys general supporting Prop 8 at the high court are trying “not to politicize the law.” Yet marriage, he believes, is a matter for a man and a woman.

Sam Olens, Republican attorney general of Georgia, suggested at a meeting of the three with editors and reporters from Bloomberg News, Government and Radio that the Supreme Court may not go as far as advocates of either side of the issue would like. He predicts a ruling narrowly focused on questions of federal and state authority, including constitutional amendments, as opposed to any declaration about gay marriage.

“I think folks on both sides… will be disappointed with the court’s ruling,” Olens said.

As a Thursday deadline nears for filing arguments in the Prop 8 case, all eyes are on the White House, which has filed a petition opposing DOMA. The California amendment will be argued on March 26, DOMA on March 27, with rulings likely by the end of June.

The Republicans have taken an activist role in other cases, challenging President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court. And Olens and others are involved in briefs challenging the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations.

“I’d much rather people work out problems,” Olens said of the financial regulatory issue. But in Washington, he said, leaders appear to have lost that ability. “We’d have much less work as AG’s,” he said. “We’re not looking for litigation,” Olens said. “We’re looking for Congress to do their job.”

The Southern attorneys general were reticent today to talk about gun control, with Olens suggesting: “There is, frankly, broad agreement that there can be a strengthening of background checks” for gun-buyers.” But “all the talk seems to be on the size of the clip and assault weapons,” he said, effectively losing the opportunity that the schoolhouse shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, have presented to address the failings of mental health treatment in the U.S.

Wilson maintained that his concern is not “infringing on the rights of many to ensure that the criminality of a few” is not carried out.

Original post is Republican AG’s: Marriage for States by Political Capital.