The California Supreme Court is once again deliberating the definition of marriage in the state. This time, however, justices are deciding whether a state constitutional amendment approved by the voters to restore the traditional definition of marriage is constitutional. So will this amendment withstand scrutiny by the very court that legalized gay marriage in the first place? How much does the argument change because the voters approved a constitutional amendment? What will it mean for our system of government if the court overrules the will of the people? How do traditional marriage defenders argue against the contention that gay marriage is simply a matter of equality? And when we we get a decision form the court? We ask Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, who argued the 2008 case against gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.
