Because there is no rational moral or legal basis to deny same-sex marriage, I look forward to the United States Supreme Court upholding the rights of two people who love each other to marry. To deny this right is to deny the principles of our Constitution.

CA Attorney Gen'l Kamala Harris

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider marriage equality takes our nation one step closer to realizing the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all people. For justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity.

We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect...

We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case," said John Eastman, NOM's chairman and former Dean (and current professor) at Chapman University School of Law. "We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect...

Had the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' decisions invalidating Proposition 8, it could simply have declined to grant certiorari in the case...It's a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels. It's worth noting that [9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justice] Judge Reinhart is the most overruled judge in America. I think this case will add to his record.

Today marks the beginning of the end for a California journey that started eight years ago when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. By agreeing to hear the Proposition 8 case the U.S. Supreme Court could end, once and for all, marriage inequity in California.

Forty-five years after the Supreme Court ruled that marriages between interracial couples were constitutional in Loving vs. Virginia, Justices can once again reaffirm the basic American principal of equality for all.

The singling out a class of Californians for discrimination violates the basic principles of who we are as a nation. It is important at this moment in time to recognize that individuals can be mightier together than apart, that there is strength in our diversity, power when we unite around our shared values and success when we advance together.

Today’s announcement starts the clock towards the final decision for California. History will one day be divided into the time before marriage equality and the period that follows. And thankfully, we will be on the side of history worthy of being proud of.

THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS BY APRIL AND RULE BY JUNE 2013. ITS DECISION WILL LIKELY HAVE NATIONWIDE IMPLICATIONS...THE HIGH COURT COULD RULE (AMONG OTHER THINGS) THAT CA VOTERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THEY DID -- OR THE COURT MAY RULE THAT THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION -- OR THE COURT COULD DECIDE THE CASES WITHOUT ADDRESSING THAT MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE AND TWO OF THREE MEMBERS OF A 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL PANEL HELD PROP 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL O NGROUNDS IT DENIED SAME SEX COUPLES THE RIGHT TO MARRY WITHOUT ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION, STOPPING SHORT OF ASSETING A RIGHT FOR SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY IN STATES WHERE SAME SEX MARRIAGES AREN'T RECOGNIZED.

A MAJORITY OF THE CA SUPREME COURT UPHELD PROP 8, WHICH LED OPPONENTS TO CHALLENGE THE MEASURE IN THE FED'L COURTS.

THE HIGH COURT ALSO AGREED TO HEAR CASES CHALLENGING THE FED'L (CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED) DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN FOR FEDERAL BENEFIT PURPOSES), SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.

REACTION IS BEING ADDED AS RECEIVED: