Adam Ganucheau and Emily Le Coz

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves will rule on a preliminary ban of Mississippi's same-sex marriage prohibition after five hours on Wednesday of what one attorney joked was a cold day in hell come true.

"It's supposed to be real cold tomorrow," Reeves replied to Hinds County attorney Peter Teeuwissen, one of three counsels for the defense.

Teeuwissen had opened his remarks in the hearing for Campaign for Southern Equality v. Gov. Phil Bryant by saying he thought it'd be a cold day in hell before Mississippi courts took up gay marriage.

The Campaign, which along with two lesbian couples from Mississippi — Carla Webb and Joce Pritchett, and Becky Bickett and Andrea Sanders — asked for a preliminary injunction of the state's same-sex marriage ban, which has been on the books since 1997. Mississippi residents also approved a 2004 constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

The state asked the court to put such an injunction on hold — otherwise called a stay — if it was granted.

After hearing both sides, Reeves told the court he would take the matter under advisement and rule as soon as possible, but he gave no indication about how soon that would be.

If he grants the injunction without a stay, gay marriage in Mississippi immediately would be legal — at least temporarily. If Reeves also issues a stay, it would cancel out the injunction for a period of time to be determined in the court order.

Reeves could set a specific time line for the stay, like three days, or could pin its expiration on the outcome of another court decision, like the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on the pending Texas and Louisiana same-sex marriage ban cases.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Jackson-based Robert McDuff, said it's unusual but not unheard of for a judge to grant both an injunction and a stay at the same time. But he noted that the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant a stay in a judge's ruling in Kansas that struck down a similar state statute, allowing gay marriage to go forward.

At times humorous, other times somber, the hearing offered a study in contrasts about not only different interpretations of the law but also in different litigation styles between the two counsels.

Described by her firm as a "powerhouse corporate litigator" and "pressure junkie," Roberta Kaplan already has successfully argued in favor of gay marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. v. Edith Windsor case.

In the case before Reeves, Kaplan presented a well-rehearsed litany of reasons why Mississippi's same-sex marriage ban infringes upon her clients' rights, and she padded her arguments with documented case law. When not at the podium, she leaned back in her chair and glanced several times at the first few rows in the courtroom.

The state's lead attorney, Justin Matheny, appeared uncomfortable at times and seemed to hesitate in his reasoning. A well-respected attorney, Matheny admitted an unfamiliarity with many of the issues at hand as compared to his more seasoned opponent but steadfastly affirmed the state's right to uphold its laws. He rarely looked back at the courtroom spectators.

"When I found out I would be the one to come to court and argue this case, I had to do some research," Matheny said near the opening of his remarks.

Reeves admitted that he, too, had a lot of reading to do.

In addition to Bryant and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, the plaintiffs also named Hinds County Circuit Clerk Barbara Dunn as a defendant in the case.

Dunn has denied marriage licenses to numerous gay couples, but Teeuwissen, acting as her attorney, said she was merely following the law and should not be held responsible for following her duties as a public servant of the state.

Bryant, Hood and Dunn were not in court.

About 50 people, most in support of the plaintiffs, jammed the small courtroom on the building's fifth floor. An additional room opened nearby to accommodate those unable to find a seat.

At the heart of the hearing was whether same-sex couples, and specifically those named in the suit, face irreparable harm if the same-sex marriage ban continues to stand. Kaplan argued yes, because the rights denied to them should one of them tragically die. These include the right to adopt each other's biological child or adopt outside of the union, the right to make life-altering medical decisions for the other, the right to receive pension and death benefits, as well as estate inheritance.

The state argued irreparable harm would befall both the plaintiffs and the state as a whole should the ban be lifted, even temporarily. Predicting the state would appeal such an injunction, defense attorneys said the on-again-off-again marriage ban would create chaos, confusion and paperwork.

Defense attorneys, including Teeuwissen and Paul Barnes, also stated numerous times that they're obligated as public officials to uphold the law and that Mississippi's law currently bans gay marriage.

Reeves asked attorneys from both sides several questions, but he reserved his sharpest comments for the state.

In one exchange, he grilled Barnes on whether the state should defend laws that clearly discriminate against a certain group of people. Barnes bristled at the remarks, calling the judge's line of questioning inappropriate and untrue.

In another exchange, he questioned Matheny's argument of "responsible procreation" as the state's defense of its same-sex marriage ban.

"What is the state's rational basis that same-sex couples can't marry?" Reeves said, when it allows prisoners to marry and infertile people to marry and elderly couples to marry — none of whom can presumably bear children either.

Matheny steered the discussion back toward his dominating argument of orderly process. Throughout his presentation, Matheny continued to say that the courts must consider legal precedent and the venues in which those precedents were set.

"When a change in the controlling precedent is set, it should come from the court that set the precedent," he said.

Both Barnes and Matheny were asked specific questions by Reeves, and they could not produce answers on more than one occasion.

Asked by Reeves about the length of the county process of marriage license approval, Teeuwissen cited a state law which was amended three years ago. During a counter-argument, Kaplan corrected him.

Attorneys for the state would not comment after the hearing, but plaintiffs and their counsel held a news conference on the steps of the federal courthouse.

About 30 supporters held blue signs with the state of Mississippi that read "Love Will Win" as Kaplan and the plaintiffs spoke about the case. .

"This is just historic, and I just can't believe I'm standing here in Jackson, Mississippi, witnessing it all," Jackson native and resident Helen Shaw said. "It's extremely emotional, and it's just an incredible day. This just has to be amazing for all the kids in Mississippi to see."

Bickett, one of the plaintiffs, broke down when talking about her and Sanders' 15-month-old twin boys. She said they want for their children what all parents want.

"With their kids, they soothe the owies, kiss the boo-boos and teach them right from wrong," she said through tears. "They hope their children grow happy, take their life lessons from their parents and have successful futures."

Pritchett expressed the same desires. Although she and Webb were married in Maine, their union isn't recognized in Mississippi. It's a subject that comes up frequently with the couple's 6-year-old daughter, Grace.

"We had to explain to her that there were some bad laws in Mississippi that didn't allow us to get married here," Pritchett said of those conversations. "We've talked to Grace about changing the bad laws, … (that) it's up to us as good citizens to work to change them into good laws."

Contact Emily Le Coz at elecoz@jackson.gannett.com or (601) 961-7249. Contact Adam Ganucheau at aganucheau @jackson.gannett.com or (601) 961-7303. Follow @emily_lecoz and @GanucheauAdam on Twitter.