The plaintiff's expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences -- that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. And among those real-world consequences, Your Honor, are adverse consequences. And consider, Your Honor, the California voter: in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her: whether or not this age-old, bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined. And knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of a profound redefinition of a bedrock institution, uh, would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor. That would hardly be, uh, uh, irrational for that voter to say, "I believe that this experiment, that is now only barely four years old" -- even in Massachusetts, the oldest state that is adopting it -- to say "I think it be better for California to hit the pause button, and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing --
JUSTICE SCALIA (interjecting):
Mr. Cooper, let me give you one concrete thing -- I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a, in a, in a single-sex uh, uh, family, uh, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Uh, some states do not permit, uh, adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.
JUSTICE GINSBERG (interjecting):
Do you know the answer to that? Whether it harms or helps the child?
No, Your Honor. And there's --
But that's a possible, deleterious effect, isn't it?
Your Honor, it is certainly among --
GINSBERG (forcefully interjecting):
Wouldn't be in California, Mr. Cooper. Because that's not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.