One of the attorney's litigating in support of Prop 8 is expressing why he feels the definition of marriage should not in homosexuals.

''Marriage is a public institution whose operation is influenced by cultural norms...redefining marriage as the opponents of Prop 8 would want to do, would reduce marriage to whatever emotional bond the government says it is,'' said Ken Connelly, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.

''Before you take a fence down, you have to know why it was put up,'' Connelly said. ''You must remember marriage pre-dates the government.''

''Marriage has always been about the union of man and woman, centered around procreation. Across societies, across religions, for thousands of years, marriage was defined as a marriage between a man and a woman.''

''Homosexuals don't implicate the same state interest in marriages as heterosexuals do. They'd don't pro-create.''

But, heterosexual couples aren't required to have children..they either don't plan to or don't want to?

''That is true, in the sense that we [society] doesn't require that they will vouch to have children. But, sound public policy is based on the rule not the exception. All laws are, to some degree, over and under inclusive. That doesn't make it unconstitutional. The vast majority of children that are produced come from heterosexual marriage,'' Connelly said.

Where is the Supreme Court leaning?

Honestly, the quickest way to look like a fool is to try to read the tea leaves from their questions.''

''They should come down on the side of Prop 8 and the should hold that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is rational as well,'' he said.