This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Oral arguments last week at the Supreme Court on gay marriage have engendered even

further discussion on the issue and some changes of

sentiment from many prominent conservatives.

But the court might hand down a victory for both sides in the fight over gay marriage.

Trevor Burris, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, explains how it might happen.

When we look at the case and we compare it to other cases where the Supreme Court had been called upon to possibly make drastic changes in American life.

So for example, Brown v Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, we have a very different situation

here where the court is under constraints that are you could call them political or

prudential in terms of an institution that tries to respect political processes

and people's voting and right now we have a we have a movement to have more legalization of gay marriage

moving incredibly fast it's not the same as it was during Brown v Board of Education

or Rose so I believe that the court will respect that in some way in terms of trying to create an opinion

that will give both sides kind of a victory, but also not overturn every state that prohibits

same-sex marriage.

Now if I just understand what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during oral argument,

she sort of seemed to indicate, hey, let's give half a loaf now and when public opinion really shifts in this

direct, this is not what she actually said, but it's what she seemed to indicate was, let's give him half a loaf now, and then when the public opinion continues to shift, we'll scoop up the pieces a few years from now.

Exactly, and some people think it's illegitimate for the court to be concerned with public opinion.

I think that that's wrong because the court depends on public opinion to be convincing

and it has to convince the other branches to enforce its rulings and if they don't believe in what the court is saying

...