STEPHANOPOULOS: This was surprising. We've seen a lot of -- lot of news in the last several months about gay marriage. But this one probably surprised me the most, Ted Olson, long-term Republican lawyer joining David Boies. And it's also created some unrest in the -- among groups who support gay marriage, because they say, wait, we don't want this to go to the Supreme Court right now. GREENBURG: That's what's been the most extraordinary thing, I think. I mean, lawyers will take on a case. And obviously, they believe in this issue or they wouldn't have done it. And they're doing part of it, you know, at a cut rate.
But the groups on the left and the gay rights groups are incredibly upset about this. They're like, we don't want your help, Ted Olson and David Boies, because those groups recognize that they don't have the votes right now on the Supreme Court. And you can do real damage if you pursue a case and you lose.
The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that states could ban gay sex, criminalize it. It took 17 years for the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, which it did in 2003, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy. There's no evidence that Justice Kennedy, who's, kind of, that, you know, human jump ball up there...
... I mean, both sides are, you know, trying to get his vote on this -- no evidence that Justice Kennedy is going to vote that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage.
WILL: Thirty-six years ago, at a point when state after state was moving to liberalize abortion laws, including California, signed by Ronald Reagan, the Supreme Court yanked that issue out of democratic debate and embittered our politics down to this point by not letting a consensus emerge in the community.
And as we've seen by subsequent votes in California on gay marriage, the consensus is moving toward gay marriage if they would just let it alone. Let democracy work and settle this.
IFILL: Maybe this is the unity the president's been talking about, to have...
... to have David Boies and Ted Olson holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya. Who would have thunk it?
But I still don't know whether that -- whether their effort might do the president a favor in that it takes it out of his hands. The last thing he wants to do is talk about -- talk about looking back and not wanting to reliving old mistakes. This is one of them. They don't want to get back into that.
GILLESPIE: I -- I couldn't agree with George more. I mean, I think this is clearly aimed at taking this to the Supreme Court, where it's probably ultimately going to end up at some point, anyway.
But the fact is, this is being dealt with in a rather civil manner in the states where there are debates over this and legislators are voting on it or it's taking place in referenda. And if you take it -- if you take it out of the hands of the electorate and allow for -- don't allow for a civil discussion, and you impose it by fiat, I think we'll live with it for a long time.
KRUGMAN: Well, like I say, it's a shocking moment. I agree with George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's all we're going to have time -- we're going to have to end with Paul Krugman and George Will agreeing on something. You guys can continue this in the green room. And you can get political updates all week long from me on Facebook and Twitter.