BOSTON -- The state's highest court heard arguments Tuesday that the state's ban against same-sex marriage is discriminatory and should be abolished like bans against interracial marriage.

Video

Justices Question Attorneys What Do You Think?

NewsCenter 5's Kelley Tuthill reported that the Supreme Judicial Court is considering a lawsuit brought by seven gay and lesbian couples against the Department of Public Health, which they sued for preventing them from getting marriage licenses.

"Hillary wants to marry Julia Goodrich, but the state is saying Hillary may not marry Julia Goodrich because it wants a man to fill that role," plaintiffs' attorney Mary Bonauto said.

Bonauto said that she doesn't believe that her clients are trying to change the definition of marriage.

"I would respectfully disagree, or at least in part I would disagree," she said. "I say that because at one point in this country, 40 states forbade the marriage of people of different races. It was considered natural and essential."

The attorney general defending the DPH told the justices that the state has important reasons for preventing same-sex marriage.

"Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interest in fostering the link between marriage and procreation," assistant attorney general Judith Yogman said.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall did not seem convinced that opposite-sex marriage is strictly for procreation.

"I think it would be a stretch to say it was for procreation," Marshall said.

After the hearing, the couples expressed hope the justices might rule in their favor sometime this summer.

"I'd like to say that after 32 years, today we know that the right thing is going to happen, and we'll finally be able to get married," plaintiff Gloria Bailey said.

Attorney General Tom Reilly released a statement Tuesday that he believes the Legislature -- not the courts -- should decide if, when and how to make such a change to Massachusetts law.