SAN FRANCISCO (KTVU) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday set a date in April to hear arguments about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Advocates say an adverse court ruling could create chaos among the states that support same-sex marriage.
Trude Helfrich and Carol Hudson wore 49ers football jerseys on their wedding day Thursday to highlight their love of the team.
They were first introduced by mutual friends in 1991, but even as they tied the knot Thursday afternoon at San Francisco City Hall, they were focusing on an uncertain future.
"My job is being moved to Michigan," said Helfrich. "And Michigan does not recognize domestic partners or same sex marriage. So I'm not [moving], I have to quit."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday announced an April 28th date to hear oral arguments on cases involving Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. At issue: whether there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and whether those marriages must be recognized by every state.
On Thursday, hundreds of big companies -- including Google, Apple and the San Francisco Giants -- filed a friend-of-the-court document, urging the Supreme Court Justices to strike down laws banning same-sex marriage.
The San Francisco City Attorney's Office -- which helped lead the fight for marriage equality and against California's Prop. 8 same sex marriage ban -- has filed a separate amicus brief in the case.
"The stakes are potentially high even for people in California," said City Attorney's Office spokesman Matt Dorsey. "If the court were to say that there is no federal right, there's no fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry, it could theoretically open the door to challenges like having another Prop. 8 here in California."
San Francisco's National Center for Lesbian Rights is representing three couples whose same-sex marriages weren't recognized when they moved to Tennessee.
"It took a toll on these couples in every way you can possibly imagine," said National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. "They had extra expenses in terms of health care, they had extra expenses in terms of taxes. One of them had a baby while the case was pending- they had to worry about whether she was going to be able to see her wife and child in the hospital."