A US federal court case that will tackle and discuss the legality of the ban on same-sex marriages in the state of California opened in San Francisco. This is a first in the history of the United States. Any ruling that is to come out of this controversial case is expected to cause a lot of stir, not only among the homosexual community but for everyone around the world.

It is also expected to be challenged either way, with predictions that the case will even reach the US Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court decision on the matter would determine the boon or bane of the issue on same sex marriages all over the nation. A “no” from the Supreme Court would mean the end to same sex marriages with the Supreme Court’s decision being the final say on the issue.

The suit was filed by two gay couples and challenges the controversial Proposition 8 or the decree banning same sex marriage in the state of California. Proposition 8 amended the state’s constitution, which earlier allowed such unions but are now restricting it among heterosexual relationships.

Supporters of the case have compared this to other landmark cases that have changed the history of the United States, like the case that ended segregation in US schools and the case that lifted the ban on interracial marriages. Supporters argue that the Constitution specifically states the right to marry but because it is limited to only heterosexual unions, gay and lesbian couples are indirectly discriminated.

On the other hand, backers of Proposition 8 say that the case is another attempt to overturn something that almost 52% of Californians are backing based on a 2008 referendum. The case is argued by high profile attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies.

The media hoopla following this case has been enormous. Lawyers are arguing that allowing media coverage for it will only cause unnecessary stir in the case so they want to proceed as discreetly as possible. But Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge handling the case, agreed with the media coverage saying that it was only appropriate because the issue being dealt with is something that is not restricted to the state of California and its constituents.