Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150425

Bride, the church, marriage is a picture of the promise. Ephesians number five 3132 says for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined and the two shall become one flesh. You dont have to dash buchanans choose to embrace, god designed men and women were you can reject all of that and you can make your own alternative truth, but you cannot exchange what god has spoken and verified in nature, many have tried and history documents that folly. In the past, stating such a position was known as practicing religious freedom and freedom of speech. And thousands if not millions whose faith and conscience will not allow them to respect any decision that fundamentally rejects god his word and the natural order. If majority redefines marriage thousands of christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has any jurisdiction over their lives. In the spirit of Martin Luther king we will do any attempt to enforce such a ruling isnt just. More importantly our duty to our god will force us to disrespect it. We will obey god rather than man. And our next presenter is an esteemed authority of this country. He is the founder and chairman of liberty counsel and he is the former head of Liberty Law School in virginia it is argued two cases before the Supreme Court in more than 35. Please come on out. Thank you brent. For those that will come at me i asked her to spell your name so that the media will be able to get it. I am founder and chairman of the liberty counsel which is in International Nonprofit litigation education policy organization that we have policies in florida, washington dc, hundreds of affiliates around the country and we also have a major presence in israel. And we are here because of the impending Supreme Court decision. This week i released an article that i wrote and you can read it at stream. Org. Recently it was founded by this man who is part of life international. This is an online media publication. In the article i began to talk about that. In 2009 the manhattan declaration was signed. It was instituted and inspired by chuck colson and codrafted by timothy george. In that declaration and ends with these words. We will fully render what is caesars and under no circumstances will we render this with what is gods. Five years later, that is now here with the impending decision at the United States Supreme Court and as a result of what was about to take ways expected by the end of june Keith Fournier will speak after me, a christian catholic, and me it an evangelical christian, began to codraft this document is called the marriage pledge and we have circulated that among different leaders. Manhattan declaration has over half a million signers and this one here has just been posted online and hundreds more are signing this. Orthodox christians, jews, leaders from all around this country and from various perspectives that do not agree on certain theological issues but unified in this area. That is that marriage is the union of a man and woman and on our watch we will not idly allow them to be deconstructed. Whenever it happens, by experience and history we have known that the government uses the power to collide with religious freedom. That is what happened in our country, its happened around the world and what will happen when we cross the line. We have jewish leaders are to come together and unify around this one issue. But we also have a copy of this here to pass out. We confirm that marriage and the family has been ascribed to the natural creativity. That wasnt created by a legislative act. It was not confined to any particular religion, it was not created by religion, it is not a religious belief. Religion affirms that which is part of the natural creative order just as civil government affirms that as much as it affirms gravity. You may not like gravity. You may prefer it to be able to jump off of a building or quiet. Gravity is what gravity is. You can resist it but its there and part of the natural creative order. The fact that theres part of our natural creative order. Humans male and female coming together for not only unity but procreation and having the best initial cell, the unit on which society is built to raise children and produce those as productive citizens, that is the central structure of humanity that transcends time and generations and geographies. Its not created by any civilization, its part of our natural creative order. As such we have come to a letter from doctor Martin Luther king jr. When he wrote this from the birmingham jail. He was asking the question why do you applause and others who dont respect and it is in conformity to a higher law principle. Those are earthly laws that directly collide with higher laws. And there are other teachings and history and the scriptures. And that includes an unjust law that is not just a law that collides with denominational doctrines or whims of society. Something that collides with the natural creative order for natural law. When we find a law like that it really is no law at all, something that is in collision with a higher law principle. Neither the United States Supreme Court or any civil government has the right or the authority to change the natural creative order. As we have seen a couple of different principles, number one, the court has candidly stated that the only authority that it has is in the confidence of the people. Justice oconnor wrote that it is one of the justification she came for withholding the decision of roe versus wade. That is that the selfpreservation of the authority of this court is at stake. She said because unlike the executive which has the power of the sword and unlike the legislature that has a gator powered to pass laws, this has almost no authority to enforce its own laws but laws upon other situations. So not only in this power but in the confidence of the people. If they lose confidence in the people they lose their authority. And she said we took such a drastic shift in 1973 that if we now say that we were wrong, the people will wonder what are we doing. And how can we trust you to make these major social shifts. If we cant trust you then we do not accord your decisions the way that they ought to give. And she says even if this was wrong, we cannot we will lose our own authority. The only authority is the fact that people have stressed that it is doing its job system with the rule of law in interpreting the constitution and adhering to the document that they are intending to interpret. And about 230 cases it has overruled itself, saying that the previous decisions are wrong. Let me look at two of the decisions. In the 1800s as Supreme Court justice talked about this colliding with Abraham Lincoln over the issue of slavery and dread scott asked for his rights as a citizen, a black american. He was denied those rights. When the case went to this, he said that theres no justice for you at this high court because we believe that blacks are inferior human beings,. How bigoted and racist is that decision . No one today will defend it. Its not the rule of on now. It was repudiated in everyones minds today. That includes a movement that was taking place around this time. Three previous generations have lower iqs. And so the commonwealth of virginia took care and forcibly sterilized her. She sought justice. But instead of that she got an opinion from oliver holmes. And it was okay for the commonwealth to remove the undesirables among them. And guess what during during the nurnberg trials were not these were put on trial, what tasted they cite to justify what they were doing . You are doing the same thing in america that is called buck versus bell and how shameful that history is. No one will justify that decision that is consistent with the rule block. And if it wasnt the rule of law in everyones mind that it wasnt the rule of law than, those decisions are example of Supreme Court decisions that are contrary to the natural creative order and they were no law than and frankly we are facing another one of those decisions before the United States Supreme Court. If they cant get this right whether or not there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage in the United States constitution, if they cross this line and invent some right for this in the constitution and this includes the United States Supreme Court in the same way that we in history have viewed dread scott and i say this with all due respect to someone who argues before this court that the decision would be an unjust law. We cannot and we will not give it the respect of the rule block. Echoes too far another one that we cannot cost not because we want a controversy or to fight over this issue, we didnt pick this, but we know from history that once a government seeks to redefine the natural creative order of marriage, the first collision is with religious freedom. Because this is a zerosum game this is an issue. If the chickfila founder says i believe that this is between a man and a woman and the mayor of District Of Columbia says you can have this here in my city or district where they are getting kicked off because of this or if a photographer says but i dont discriminate against someone because theyre gay or lesbian, i photograph all kinds of clients and people but i cannot photograph an event, and i dont discriminate against people that are caucasian, but for instance people burning crosses i dont weve not either. And she has been told that you cannot participate in photography. Outlast a 70yearold lady has been friends with one of her clients for nine years. Doesnt discriminate because hes gay but one day he comes and says that i want to to cater my wedding with another man and she says and im sorry, thats contrary to my religious police. But theres another horse down the street i can do a job for you. You would think that that person would understand and the attorney general will come after her to bankrupt her personally and financially with her business as well. This is a zerosum gain. The reason we cannot comply is because we know that this will collide with religious freedom. And there are certain things that we cannot and therefore will not render to the state when they collide directly and unequivocally. So we stand united together in this unity and i want to read the last sentence on this pledge. Make no mistake about a result there are many things that we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural creative order and the common good that this is the line that we must draw. My name is Keith Fournier founder of the common good alliance. I have a path towards a phd and its my honor to stand with all of you and to be a part of this pledge. Pastor, i dont know if dropping it was intentional, but it certainly something that were doing as we stand with thousands, millions the history of the Christian Church going all the way back to the beginning between one man and one woman to use a philosophical term and its the first meeting association. The entire social order built on the family. I stand fully in tradition with my church and the crap untracked classical Christian Christian tradition dating its not just religious but written in a natural and moral law. As with so eloquently pointed out, a law that is written on the human heart and can be known through the exercise of reason. We all know across culturally and across civilizations. It we stand at a point in our history where justices may decide that the natural moral law no longer has a standing in the jurisprudence of the United States. And they would be wrong now, i would only add that the infamous decision of roe versus wade. Close to 60 million of our youngest neighbors with us. So im honored to be a part of this and to stand with other christians and jews and people of faith and goodwill. Making it clear that we will stand for marriage. And we will do all that we can to ensure that the marriage continues as what it is. Only adding one thing to what has been said so far that there is in fact the 2000 year christian history. Not only do i stand with these names but on the shoulders of others and this is not the first time in its history that we have entered into a culture that has rejected the natural moral law turned against god. What we do as christians . We try to infuse once again like 11 in the low bed elevates all humanity no matter what the religious police. It is one that we cannot obey just as the apostles cannot stop preaching. What will that mean . I dont know. But i do know this. God is going to time. Truth is going to try and. Finally ingratitude catholic friends, Orthodox Christian friends and jewish christian friends come i want to thank you for having the courage to stand together. This is the Silver Lining in this cloud and we are being brought together. Not just to protect ourselves this is not about protecting ourselves, but we love this nation. Not only am a member of the clergy but next year i will have been married for years and i have ive grown children and im baptizing my seventh grandchild. I want this to continue and it was routed by the founders in this very christian tradition rights come from the creator and they are endowed and they cannot be taken away by civil government be a judiciary, legislative or executive. And i thank you very much. [applause] hello everyone. My name is janet boynes. I have a ministry to help men and women leave a life of homosexuality and im based out of minneapolis and now i live in texas and i also enjoy helping churches have a better understanding how we work with those that are in the churches that struggle. I believe in compassion with compromise. We are not going to compromise the gods. We have an understanding why the gay communities do not want someone like myself because we have the opportunity to debunk everything that they are saying. Cnn, today msnbc, good morning america. If i come on the show they think that i will tear down their belief system. My goal is to debunk everything that they are saying to be true when i know that it is alive. We have tragically watched our nation cave into homosexuality propaganda. More and more people believe that homosexuals are born that way and we know that that is a lie anyway. Homosexuals have successfully made inroads into Hollywood Television public schools, university, government the president of the United States, and now our churches. Homosexual marriage has grown in america and reality which is currently being litigated in our nation Supreme Court as a potential set civil right. We know that this is not a civil rights issue. The color of my skin is an unchangeable characteristic. I cannot change from black to white. But i did live a homosexual life for 14 years and then ive been out. We know that its possible due to the power of jesus christ. If samesex marriage becomes the law of the land no one can even imagine or project the ramifications of this decision is going to have. I know from personal experience that homosexuality is a lost identity that is rooted in emotional brokenness, if samesex marriage is a projection of gods design for how to raise our children. When we reject reality we harm her children. And i grew up in a family of seven kids with four different fathers and i understand what its like not having a dad because of all of those forefathers. Every child deserves and once a father and a mother. Is critically important to their sexual development. In the 14 years that i have lived as a lesbian, i saw firsthand that there is no substitution for the rule of the father and mother in this place into the health and wellbeing of our children. I know this to be true because when i was in a homosexual life with a woman that had two children i tried to fill the role of a daddy. And at that time i realized that i was not equipped nor capable of being a father to these girls. More and more children and family members and friends those that were never predisposed are now experimenting sexually trying out homosexuality and becoming hooked, those that seek help may soon discover that theres no longer any help out there. Activists and their attorneys are pushing to ban any kind of ministries such as the janet boynes ministries that help people exit homosexuality. Their goal is to indoctrinate our kids and to silence us. Their greatest fear is men and women like myself who have walked away from that life and soon it may become illegal to even have this kind of minutes he. Who knows how much longer we will have do we are doing today. Unless we act now. We must be bold. I thought about what president obama said in his inaugural speech. You have allowed gays and lesbians into the white house, you sat down with them you heard their voices and i challenge you as you listen to what we have to say. I pray that our courts will opt for traditional marriage so that god will continue to bless this great nation. The United States of america. First of all im honored to be here. I stand here brokenhearted because i never thought id see the day when the United States of america are holding to a biblical worldview that subjects you to ridicule it is important to remember that christians didnt invent marriage as a response to the gay rights movement. And the idea that this is something that is motivated by bigotry, hatred, and long before there was any such thing as a gayrights movement. And no matter how much we express is one woman dead as a customer came in and demanded that she provide a floral arrangement for a wedding and she put her hands on his hands and said i love you, you have been coming here for years, but i cant do that. She was still his friend. But he was asking her to break her commitment to our lord and savior, jesus christ. And we follow a long line at for those who surrendered everything including the 158 children. And there were kids that were not renounce their faith in jesus christ under threat of beheading and murder. I want to make. One is. Frankly. I am frustrated by this. This idea that homosexuality is like enand anal guyed by the black civil rights movement. First of all. I will look around the room and some of you i know. I dont know other than than those i know personally. And who is day. Who is not. You know who is black in here. And when some be walks up to a hotel and says i need an overnight stay. And you look at the person because of the color of their skin you say no whether somebody goes up to get a drink of water and says you cannot use that water fountain rut wrong color that is different than coming into the store to do business. Come on in. I dont care if you are a homosexual or heterosexual you want me to make a floral arrangement. And photographs of your graduation. And family reunion. No problem. Dont ask me to do something that violates my faith. That is very different than what people face in the area of segregation. This is not like ended to interracial marriage. There is no biblical basis for denying two people of the same race the right to marry or right to be together. That is concocted to justify the subgas station of people on the basis of the color of their skin to the keep them in their place. You will not find adds i have pointed out to you. A 2000 year history of pro hibition of people the same race getting of different races getting married. And it is to continue to use that analogy. People say i do not want to be like that. I do not want to be a discriminate or. These are two very different situations and i would say this. We are facing and undermining the very foundation of the country because it is founded in truth that we hold truths. To be self evident. Jesus. Faced upon muches pilot. Jesus says i have come to bear witness to the church of all of those who are of the church hear my voice. What is truth. I think that we are sewing the seeds of internal destruction. If there is no overriding moral truths and everything is up for grabs. Might makes right and the only thing that determines who is right and who is wrong is force. That is not the condemnation that we have been. We answered to the higher authority. And truth thats nobody could change. And marriage is one of those truth thats cannot be changed. People can talk about redefine tchlth i will always believe there is only one definition of a marriage and no matter how they label a union it will never be a marriage. And it will never be a valid marriage. Marriage was or daned by god. And it can only be one thing a union with one man and one woman. You know. Truth forever on the scaffold. Many long forever on the thrown. The future. And behind god within the shadows. Keeping watch over. I do not know what will happen with the stand that we are taking but i think that i can say for every one of us. That we will give our lives and standing for the truth. Which will do it with love. Compassion and be couragous about it. We will never back down. We will bring the people back up here that were spoken. Janet, rick and keith if you can come up. And if there is any aw jackson. My name for those is rick scarborough. And those could be found in the vision america. Org. And if there are any questions. And things i wanted to point out. And the first thing. Is not very much of a question and samesex marriage says two men and two men are equivalent of mom and dad did he priefz children of ever having an opportunity of an i mother and a father. Heather wrote and i think the article is in federalist. Or good. She was raised in a home with two moms and is married to a man has children and her heartached when he was in her moms she was not speaking evil against her mom but deprived of a father and was never able to have the tune sxichlt now married and sees her own husband interacting with children she realized exactly what she missed that is what janet was talking about. And what does the are sift ans look like that is a common question. Of the line that we will not cross mean . And i think that it will be manifested like the civil rights movement. It may be arose a parks that refused to get off of the a bus or someone that sits at a counter segregated and a white only water fountain. Catholic charities that were in the ministry for many decades and moms and a dad. And they were told that you no longer can do that have you to put them in the samesex couples. And christian beliefs and dock rain of the church that would you cease. I say then and now. Number one they should pursue a call to place children with moms and dads whether it is photographer and whatever it may be. And that they should not voluntarily cease. And stand their ground. If the police use the state and the power. The state will choose. We will not voluntarily cease and we will not voluntarily compromise the calling and the commitment this. Is align that we cannot and will not cross. So if there are any questions. State your name please. America united for church and state. A bunch of questions. I will stick with one. Namely that i keep hearing not just today but it has been increasingly a popular talking point that samesex marriage is legalize in june that the past yorz will be forced to officiate samesex wedding and forbid friend the certain topics and will be in jail. And lgbt rights organization. And what basis do you have for it. And legally with respect to samesex unions. And so let me extrapolate that. They cannot hire white only catholics or back baptists. The church may have arrest room. It cannot say a white only restroom. Sorry sir this is white only drinking fountain. Bob Jones University had a policy they later abandoned. It was a policy they never longer do. And they correct in abandoning the policy. And banded interracial dating. There was no law to ban the interest racial dating and College Campuses what it was was a Civil Rights Act to ban discrimination on the basis of race some the irs came to bob Jones University and change the policy. And the biblical beliefs and they went to the United States Supreme Court. They lost that case. Therefore they lost their tax exempt status. Whether and when it will reach to the point what have a pastor can say. I do not know. Bellwether of marriage for the world is denmark, norway and sweden. From those that study family law to europe and the United States of america. Nether land. And 1989. And the first time in world history. We know that the pastor in the nether lands was jailed for preach inging pastors in europe have been targeted for preaching on the and we know that for example in canada you cannot have critical and home owe sexuality. Denmark. Norway and sweden. We are. Where europe was in terms of the issues and targeting people. That are faithbased. We now are. I would like to add to that not only as a constitutional clergyman. And case protected somewhat. Some of the challenge thats we are facing already firing and hiring the catholic church. And we recognize that every Single Person human rights including those of self pro fessed day or lesbian. And there is going to be no changing what we have stood for 2000 years concerning marriage. Relate now we are dealing with struggles employing those in a reported marriage. Men with men and women and women. And we cannot hire them. They are in fact violating the fundamental teaching of the catholic church. There is some protection but there is no question that matters are correct and the police power of the state will follow any ruling that are says that we must give an equal treatment legally to homosexual couples or to couples as we do to marriage and if we do not do so we will suffer the punitive implications. This is not a scare tech tactic. We are witnessing it. I am a clergyman. And i witness and do so as civil authority. Registered in virginia and as a cleric. In australia and other nations the church is beginning to look twice. Will they be able to do that any longer . We may not be able to do that any longer. We face the genuine spector of the state invading the church. And telling us what we can and cannot preach and what our sackrament are about. We are about to lose our cspan audience. I want to encouraging everybody that has watch this had broadcast first place. Thank you cspan and number two to go to defend marriage. Org. Let us know what you think about this pledge. Had you make this a federal law than implications are profound. Churches do not only preach they have bookstores. Daycare programs and do a series of other things. Now. If you start applying the law to these things that they do that you may not consider to be worship or strictly religious, then you will impin not on the churchs ability to do what it does. If the standard is that why you are a discriminate or why wouldnt that be an implication. Maybe you should stop from the pulpit. And that things are discriminating and that the moment there is a sort of court order. A court case of which an order is given we will not because it is discriminatory. That is a violation of religious liberty and christian convictions. What happens when you violate a court order . There are practical up cages to this that do not require that we go to the point where there is a law that says that a pastor may not preach this particular truth. Other questions. Yes maam. Microphone. I am jasmine with the news service. What was your response to the support of day marriage or rights that doesnt automatically mean that you would agree with homosexuality in the support equality and humanity. What was your response going to be to that . I can begin. I am sure that everybody else has a along cal statement. Reality of it is that is not the agenda of this particular movement. The agenda is not just to make me silent and to have my own particular view point and discuss this among the people of my community. The agenda is to make me participate affirm and to promote it. For example, why was there a big backlash against the founder of chickfila . Now what they want to do is for the business out. This Large Software company that was forced to resign as chairman of the board. Because he gave about a thousand dollars contribution or so to the proposition 8 campaign. Multiple years before this. This agenda is a very intoll rant agenda that is not content with the silence of those that have object the agenda is. An agenda that wants to you participate and to an affirm. And have you known i am day. And i understand your heart. The agenda is. I want to you participate in my ceremony, and to participate in my kkk rally though they do not discriminate against white people. They want to you participate in a public affirmation of it. That crossing the line is different than roe vs wade in the sense of that you could have roe vs wade as horrible as it is to have genocide of that massive nature. This is not a decision by the Supreme Court, where we stand on the sidelines and grown about it and complain about it and have our own view. When it crosses that line it will change the landscape. Changes the culture and there is a coercive come point of the state that targets anyone who objects. And in answer to the previous question there was an order nancy that was passed in fayetteville arkansas. And gathered enough to repeal 2014. It was the first order nancy of the country. That actually had the criminal penalties against churches. Samesex and Sexual Orientation. And the hiring. With the people they go into criminal prosecution. Shop shocking. So and that is the issue. In the question a distinction of recognizing equal rights and human rights. And for day persons and lesbian persons and they move on day marriage. That is the shall here. That is an okayy more on between day couples to live together. And it cannot be changed. And caller on. I will say as a catholic. The matter. For the sacrament of marriage there needs to be a man and a woman. Who pledge their consent for life. And are open to life. If in fact we are moving to the redefinition of marriage and police power of the state behind it will there be come pulse for priests and daekons in the catholic church. To preside over services. And trends of history, the police power follows the federal decisions. Incredibly important that we will recognize the imcages of this and we have a wonderful document by 1990s with the care of homosexual persons. We will not and cannot recognize any such thing as marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. If the state tries to compel us to do so we must and we will resist. Denied me the right to would. Right to live. Work. To have housing. We respect the dignity of every human being. We do not hate anybody. But we believe what is really at work here. Something far worse with the would be the heart. And come into line if you want to be acceptable and if you do not want to be a bigot and day rights it sounds great. But my understand something that every american has rights. I am not sure what day rights means. And beat up or harassed. And fine me calling a person that i know to be day a name. And the nature of the behavior. And that is what we are asked to do many of the culture is asked to bow to this. And this is right. And good. And appropriate and it is not. Is pregnant with all kinds of political and social ill imcage thats we cannot agree with. The reason we are not here is not to win an argument and not to hurt people. But. This stecht Supreme Court is the first of the series of the steps to be attended in the two lawyers of articulated how it works. We are here to preach a right of a truth and defend right of all biblical create towers speak to the issue of sin and more importantly for the offer of the vehicle of salvation. So this is a heart matter for us and driven by the foundation of gods holy word. You may reject gods word. You may feel a purpose in my calling. That is quite all right. Dont deny a First Amendment right to prop gate the gospel and force to you cut off what we believe is the type of answer to change a young lady whose life was tormented by janet boynes offer them the solution of jesus christ that is the foundation that under pins why i am here today and why i will die if have i to for what i do believe. You know, this is really funny that we stand here. And we talk about the Day Community and marriage. Did you know as many support marriage for the days and lifestyles there are many in a day lifestyle that do not support day marriage . I have many that email me or privately, telling me to continue to make a stand. That they do not support it. But if they do voice their opinion they will be black bald. There is many in hollywood, that do not believe in marriage marriage. The designers. They shut it down. The day marriage. Agua dulce and ellen and everybody came after them and shot them down and said we will not buy your clothes that is what we are facing. This is what i say to you. We are going to make a stand. We are not going back to slavely. That was many years ago. We have a voice today. We will uphold what we believe is what the lord lad said that marriage is between a man and a woman. I received Death Threats from the Day Community. And nasty emails. But they are saying i am not a cyst am. I have not targeted them. You can google my name and you will not find one bad thing that i said about the community. Why do they continue to come after me . We can debunk their belief system. I believe in the last phase. I believe of that christ will return. And i am not surprised by what is happening out here. And matter of fact i am excited. I believe that we will see jesus soon. So we will continue our walk with christ. We are going to continue to make a stand. And i am bless that had we have all of these folks behind me standing with us. I am an example of the people that can change. I live the lesbian life for 14 years. I have been out 17. I still believe in god for a husband. I have not dismissed that the day that i get married. I will shout that from the mountaintops. I am so excited for now the lord has me single but before i die i know i will be married. And i will be ready to show people that you can have a nice marriage. A successful marriage. Now god has healed me from the inside out. Changed did not happen overnight. It has been a process. But change is possible. Through the power of jesus christ. Amen. We are going to close the formal part of you are press conference. None of us are in a hurry to leave. We are glad to entertain that. And i thank you all to come here to cover this important information. God bless you all. [inaudible conversations] next, a preview of tuesdays oral argument schedule before the Supreme Court. Eastern here on cspan. Neck the preview of the tuesdays Supreme Court oral argument on samesex marriage. The court will consider whether the 14th amendment will require the states to license marriages between two people of the samesex and if the license the out of state marriages must be recognized. Paul smith argued lawrence verses technology. And texas sodomy law. This is an hour and 20 minutes. Welcome every. I would like to welcome to you the briefing of the Marriage Equality casing. President of the american constitution society. I want to start by thanking general block for hosting us today. The firm had as come to support and promote lgbt the commit ment commitment and not desk for over ten years. If you and congratulations force being a force of justice in the United States. For those of that you are not familiar with the american constitution society, we are a National Network of lawyers and law students. Judges and policymakers. By shaping the debate and the legal and constitutional questions. It is our mission to ensure dignity, rights. And liberties to enjoy their rightful and Central Place in american law. Many view the fight for equality is one of the generations most pressing and important civil rights struggles. They have work today bring the reality of inequality to the forefront national dialogue, we will continue the work now with our focus on Marriage Equality. In the fight for Marriage Equality, we have seen the remarkable success as a nation. 37 states and the District Of Columbia now recognizes samesex marriage in the Supreme Court is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the remaining bans on samesex marriage by the end of this term. This of course is the issue that bring us here today. Experts we have gathered here have discussed the history of the fight for Marriage Equality from bowers verses hardwick to lawrence verses texas to the United States verses wins or and finally to hodges which will be argued in the Supreme Court on tuesday. What are the ways of which the court could decide this monumental case . Josh what will the potential outcomes mean for rights and other could not teksz. Here to lead the discussion on these and other important questions is amy howe. Aparter in with the gold steep and russell here in dc. She serves as council or cocouncil and merits and cases in the Supreme Court. She is also editor of the blog. In awardwinning website that is covering the Supreme Court. And author of the regular column about the court. And of course she is a good friend to acs. So please join me in welcoming amy. [applause] thanks caroline. Would i start by introducing the panel of experts, we will spend one hour talking with them. Then we try to leave plenty of time. Between 25 to 30 minutes for questions. And i will keep the introductions of the panel. It is accomplished and it will give us plenty of time to basque in their accumulated wisdom. Professor from the University School of law. And he teaches among other things constitutional law there. In this round of cases he was among the council on behalf of over 200,000 people peoples brief. Thank you so much for joining us. And this is aparter in here. Appellate practice. Group. And first a menment. And voting rights. And on the clean air act. And talking pointsmm owe i encouraging you all to check out. The lawyer that set the stage for Marriage Equality with his victory and 2003. And in texas. So it is great to have you all here today. We will start with paul, we will start by looking back and we will talk about the cases and then we will look forward at what the cases might mean for the future. So we will start with paul. He will take us all the way back to 1972 and baker verses nelson and talk a little bit about that case and how we got from baker verses nelson to the defense of marriage act during the clinton administration. That is along road. The possibility so quickly. And working very hard for a very long time. And one place that if you want to have a starting point is the case and which the court was asked the first time to recognize the constitutional right of the samesex couple to mayory. And the appeal of saying that this is the time when we were not in the stone age and a menment. There was no extra discrimination. And protection clause. And recognition of a fundamental right to marry. And nobody thought it would be relevant. Frankly. And most states in the days criminal lies any sort of samesex relationship. So this was not a surprising outcome. It was along stepbystep struggle to get from here to there. And it focused not only on the recognition of the relationship and marriage. And simply getting rid of the law thats were a barrier to indeed that of leading out and open lives in the open community. And so the first effort to get rid of those that went to the Supreme Court. And know. I this that i. Rejected by the court. In fairly harsh opinion said that to claim that the constitution protected two men from having engaged in sexual intimacy in the privacy of a home. So the next phase of the movement was to deal with stepbystep and going state by state to try to make the progress eliminating these laws. Which is reasonable case that i was in the right to be able to argue. Working hard to lay the groundwork. And 2003. With the sodomy problem. That you know. The argument that nonger could be made. You cannot argue and be in jail this much is the case and did this in an important way for Marriage Equality. And did two useful thing that you cannot argue that discriminal north is justified. And from now on. And not up to the government to did he sigh. And will get to make. And that the other movement. Court made is that you will important lifelong relationship as everybody el. And they deserve respect. And if you do not believe me. At the same time. And essentially waiting 2003 the other shoe to drop but it was not an easy process either. And with the movement at the point did. Go back to the state by state strategy to chip away at the sodomy laws. And that came just a few months after. And quite a remarkable focus on the marriage issue out of the blue. I think foremost people. To move forward on that. The next state of which success was in terms of recognizing the right of same is he couples was not in 2008. Somes lying 25 states. And constitutional amendment to prevent Marriage Equality. And washington and maryland. And Supreme Court level. And you will start to month of on marriage. Iowa. California. That of over turned. Prop 8. And to go to the Supreme Court and challenge the defense of marriage act and not ask for the right to marry so in 2009 we filed the challenge against the act. A law that said. A federal government will treat you as a couple and constitutional arguments were felt to be very strong. And so indeed conservative. They involve the states rights to be protect the against the federal and interferance. And and in that case. A while to get to filing 2009. And and and during the same period prop 8 that was filed by ted olson in california. And so the cases wound their way up and culminating the argument two years ago and the did he significants of two years ago. 1972 2013. And you mention eded and decision is made not to report on that and not necessarily well received throughout the movement. Did you think that it was too soon . The groups had been working every six months for 20 years at that point. Aclu. And and two states. Marriage equality. And nationalize it. The california Supreme Court. Meant that with people there was no option rather than to go for the federal claim. And it was the dilemma of everybody faced in 2009 after the 2008 election. And there was disagreements pretty strong disagreements. I will go ahead and ask the Supreme Court to recognize equality in that year. So the movement afterall was still a cutely aware of the generation to overcome the decision that almost won in 1986. And it took until 17 years later to have that decision. So when you lose in the court. It will make it worse if you had never gone there in the first place. That is was apart of the disagreement and i would say that the disagreement over the issue and pretty much the experts that had been done. Prepared in the state cases. And traditional day rights groups. And an as soon as now that John Davidson had said this that somebody was going to bring that challenging proposition. At least it was did not by the high quality legal team that was put together at the time. So those issues are behind us, fortunately. . We have things were putting in place. The only time where we have prohibited a ban was in minnesota in 2012 and that was the same people who voted in maryland and washington state. We always knew the Supreme Court would have to come to this decision. The decision was what they thought was the next right move. They were talking about states rights and ruled on the 14th amendment. The kind of disrespect that was showed was intolerable the fear is that people had in the hopes they had about this case, none of those came to be because the court said there was never pellet or jurisdiction in the case. The reason being is because the California Attorney general and california governor refused to and proposition eight in the amendment. Ultimately the decision of the Supreme Court was that private individuals who had campaigned on the ballot didnt have standing to represent the state of california and didnt have standing in their own right and therefore there was nobody for the court who had none to decide. Its not to create any new law, it did however since there is no valid appeal, appeal, and meant that proposition eight was no more and we had Marriage Equality in the state of california. It was the largest state in the country that added a lot to the movement in that outcome. The federal courts had gotten very much involved before and people started filing federal lawsuits all over the country. Everybody decided well, we know what the next step will be. It will be a decision on Marriage Equality in two or three years people. The federal coat courts thought the same thing. They figured out where this was going or where they thought it was going and so we had a remarkable string of victories in the federal courts starting in 2013 and through 2014. Something like 21 decisions in a row. It looked like we might have to wait for a Supreme Court case for a long time. Things could eventually change. Were you involved in that . We encourage attending attorney generals to defend the lawsuits that were being brought in their case. We made the argument that they did not have to defend a lawsuit where the long question is a clear violation of the federal constitution and a handful of attorney generals it was a surprising election and what democrats swept the Lieutenant Governor and attorney general seed and they won by a very small number of votes. They were in a position to really analyze what would happen. Each of the atty. Gen. s really had to dig in and make an assessment about what would happen if they refused to defend. The laws from state to state can vary dramatically. Some have clear mechanism for who gets to defend a lawsuit. Others are absolutely silent on the matter. It really drew attention from the general populace. They started to Pay Attention to attorney generals for the First Time Ever in a new way. They saw what type of power those position had. There were 21 or 22 decisions in a row on samesex marriage. The strip premccourt comes back with all these decision asking it to weighin and be surprised i may be missing some but those three, i was on the phone with the reporter, hopefully not somebody in the room what a dumb question i said i couldnt believe anybody would it just seemed like all of these were holding the reports on the state law of the constitution and that is almost always a prescription for a grand court. It seemed to us like they would have to weigh in and for whatever reason they decided they would wait. It it turns out they didnt have to wait very long but it was an interesting moment because the entire movement was in the bag. There are questions. The court, when it finally did get around to granting it in january immediately raised a few eyebrows when it rewrote questions and asked parties to pose questions. Whats been forgotten or underplayed in this whole issue, the second question they asked is does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage that has been licensed and performed in another state. If they answer yes on the first question the second question is irrelevant. If they cant deny it on the first and they cant deny it on the second. But second. But they might say no on the first question and then have to decide the second question. I didnt advocate this idea but there might be a possibility that this has something to do with some sort of conniving and that would be a modest approach. A federalism compromise that might appeal to more states can it could be that before cases coming out of the circuit, two of them just involved couples seeking recognition and some are seeking. Well see how that plays out. In every one of these cases there are constitutional questions presented an equal protection clause is that samesex couples should have the appropriate level of protection and what is the due process clause argument. Is it a fundamental right and if so how does it apply to samesex couples . Is it a different fundamental right or is it just that there are fundamental rights to marriage and who gets access to those fundamental rights and who doesnt. Those are the issues that the parties in one way or another addressed. Ive read all the briefs, i have to say i think the quality of the briefing by varies. These are not briefs that were written by law professors and so that may be a good thing but theyre not as rigorous as we would like to have one more teaching our were teaching our students but its also fair to say that in many cases they werent written by or meet the standards of the Supreme Court briefs. Thats not to say there badly done its just to say they somewhat vary. The petitioners in their briefs all emphasize a mix of doctrine, other cases in due process and equal protection. Personal stories about their clients and their parties, appeals to Justice Kennedy which are an inevitable feature in any case like this and preemptive strikes making their response brief. The respondents briefs, the state briefs emphasize a mix of responses about going slow and its legitimate for a state not a state not to plunge ahead into the unknown consequences of legalizing samesex marriage and all that means for children and other unknown factors. There are several federalism arguments. Windsor was really a federalism decision. Everything was premised on the idea that its the states that choose whether or not to confirm that. That. Theres arguments about direct democracies that all these date bands came about through votes of people. I think thats a problematic argument because these amendments were really intended to shut off the debate and prevent future legislative action from revisiting the action. Then the argument about responsible procreation. States have learned they really cant make arguments based on morality or tradition for its own sake. Theres no indication any of these things the states are saying like gays make bad parents in some way but they want to encourage straight people that have the possibility of accidentally getting pregnant and paste producing babies to get married. Its reserving marriage for that purpose and encouraging responsible procreation but theres no evidence of these arguments ever having been made. It really emerged in 1990 and the writings of people when religious conservative oppositions had to come up with something that sounded reasonable and plausible to the state interest that didnt seem to be disparaging people or making moral judgment about gay people. I think ill leave it at that and take specific questions. You might want to weighin on the windsor argument. Another case they rely on is whether it could stand affirmative action at a public university. Very often you see in cases people who want to overturn state decisions. There is a great deal of discussion in the briefs and the decision below about whether or not this issue is best tied by the states one by one as laboratories come out or by reference to the 14th amendment. The windsor case does give particular ammunition. Theres a whole section about family law is reserved for states and federal government. The federal government should accept whatever decisions the state has made. Theres a great deal of language that can be pointed to in the other case epoint to to ban affirmative action in education and michigan which was held unconstitutional by the lower courts but constitutional by the Supreme Court. That was a case where they join the majority. Theres a 650 word passage of the kennedy purple prose of democracy and citizens coming together to think about and resolve issues together and that is being quoted back to him and some of those briefs and commentary about this issue. I think a couple things to remember is Justice Kennedy is still the same person who in 1996 had no difficulty smacking that amendment after people came together. In one way or another because it was decided through the democratic process doesnt mean that we give it a pass or look at it any less critically. Ive always thought of that passage in him wrestling with his attitudes about race. He thought there should be standing on the components of the referendum to appeal because otherwise the officials of california, the california, the very people who are supposed to be bypassed by this popular vote have the power by not appealing. He was happy but it seems to be the popular vote argument is weak in the situation where the majority vote say we can keep getting more varied and you cant. They dont want to make law for the moment the examples in these four states are constitutional amendments to lock it up to prevent others from dealing with the issues if people change their mind in five years they have to go through extremely long and extensive process so this is really not about true democracy just because people voted. Voted. They voted in a way that was intended to settle the issue and not come back. To give you a little more on the other argument the argument that the reason its okay to limit marriage is because they are the only one that can become accidentally pregnant. Theres hundreds of thousands of people being raised by samesex couples that are not married and cant get married but the only ones that can become accidentally pregnant so we have to have marriage to channel them into it. This argument doesnt work for a whole variety of reasons. The devise to force people to get married isnt what marriage is about. Marriage is about commitment and mutual support and love and a lot of other things. The idea that marriage is just about this is wrong and the second thing is children are children regardless of how their conceived and the route if youre concerned about having unmarried parents why would you let everybody get married . Theyre hinting at but never quite say is that the problem with samesex marriage is that the other people are worried about the institution that theyre getting married in. And they think other people are gonna start getting married. The only people that seem to want to get married in this country are gay people. I think this also gets to a standard of review. The states go to Great Lengths to say yes this may be overinclusives out or under an elusive it may leave something out or may not be completely coherent but after a rational review, doesnt have to be perfect but just something the legislator could review and so i think as long of states are pressing for a most deferential process of review, review, they cant come up with the flimsiest rationale for their review but i dont think that will happen. If you look at the kind of analysis the court did even if you put a label on it the court has never applied the economic on a rational basis. We demand to know what the relationship is. Align is being drawn and its hard to think of any other kind of law where you can discriminate in that type of rational way. It doesnt lend itself to the economic regulation. The proponents of the amendment in the perry case the natural argument and the things that got the attorney justice appeased, and they made a joke about it. They werent taking this argument particularly seriously. Theres been a lot of focus on the Supreme Court decisions but theres a real history that the court has had in addressing access to marriage that includes permitting people who dont pay Child Support to be able to marry, permitting individuals who are prison to be able to marry while they are in prison. There is this really huge issue that the Supreme Court has viewed marriage over 40 times over a couple hundred years. The court has consistently found that we have to give huge to individuals who are willing to marry. Theyre not interested in picking out who should and should not have access to the institution. The other piece of this aside from the Child Welfare piece is the notion that children are better off with a mom and dad. A lot of people still believe that. It doesnt have support by the social sciences but the more fundamental problem with that argument is that kids are there any way. Samesex couples have the same right to reproduce regardless of marriage or not and are in fact doing that. Even if you thought that they are not ideal parents, and theres no evidence of that if you thought that married parents were better than unmarried parents, you still dont have an argument for why they shouldnt get married. There are 400,000 children in foster care still waiting foster care and more waiting adoption. Even if you think or believe the idea that the optimal situation might be a mother and father why would you not want to deny these children a mother and father. Does a place in michigan where they have four or five special Needs Children that they have adopted. Theyre all living in the same household together and that is okay with the state but they still wont let them get married. What is the reason for that . Its a difficult road once you can no longer argue that samesex is a bad thing and that people shouldnt be gay from a moral sense. These arguments are just really torturous that theyve been making for the past several years. Assuming that the court agrees with you all are they going to put a label on it this time . If its a Justice Kennedy opened in lets not forget that the court has not identified any new categories for heightened scrutiny for a long time. Theres been a fair number of justice in academic commentators that said people disagree whether its a good thing or bad thing but there is one equal protection cause clause. It may vary from case to case on how its applied, but consciously or unconsciously that seems to be Justice Kennedys attitude. It looks like intermediate scrutiny and all the other gay right cases. I think were likely to see equal protection clauses and due process. The best read say they are together and this is something that law professors have written about. The equal protection and due process clause are complementary and they interact and i think the best way of thinking about that is that there is a fundamental right to marry. Then we might have the right to say that the burden shifts to the state cannot deny this fundamental right to this particular group of people. It would be desirable if the court would articulate. We had a long time to think about things with the Court Adoption band and people involved in samesex relationships and there seems to be a lot of scrutiny of these things. There will be cases Going Forward where it would be nice to know what the constitutional standard is. Where the law was defended in the indiana case by some vigorous representative of the attorney generals office, even they can see that there was no other situation where the government was involved in this individual other than marriage or that discrimination was appropriate. Can you think of any other way where the government is allowed to discriminate against people. They said they couldnt think of anything. If we go to a hand higher standard of review now weve reached the ultimate thing that everybody was worried about and there seems to be a lot of danger if youre going to strike down these laws. Are they going to strike down these laws . And if so by what vote . I think the most likely outcome is a five to four decision with Justice Kennedy. Ive gone back and read what they said at windsor and im prepared to argue that he left himself brewing in that opinion to join a majority in this case. His opinion emphasized federalism and what the courts were not deciding in the windsor case but he said very little about what he thought the proper resolution of the state law issue was. I think theres a nontrivial chance that it could be six three where he gets on board with existing marriages without getting on board with creation of new marriages. I think those are the two most likely outcomes. Also a slight possibility, but not likely, a straight up majority opinion addressing yes on the marriage recognition question. I actually agree. I think theres a chance of this being a six three vote. Coming out at a more practical level the chief justice i have children who are roughly the same age and we know the justices are human and part of what theyre looking at is their legacy. How are their children and grandchildren going to think about them in years to come and i think that significantly increases the likelihood that the justices will join in in some way or another. Not necessarily a hundred on point. I think one of the areas we may see more of a concurrence from him is on consumer currents. He may concur that they should have access to marriage but it shouldve been determined on rational law. It may not be a bad thing a bad thing for clarity and rigor. As long as he doesnt write it into modest of a form. Its gonna be 524 come on guys. He said it was okay for the federal government to overrule state decisions on marriage. Hes got the states making their own decisions and its a very difficult opinion. Do you think there some possibility he was thinking this was a legacy and institutional issue and he doesnt want to be on the wrong side of the issue . I said possible, but not likely. Assuming all of you are correct that the vote will be 54 remember you only remember the ones you get right. Indiana was in the news recently. The talk about is their position from the court are we going to see more of these or a backlash as there was an indiana particularly in states without laws protecting i think what we are seeing our people have long opposed any rights for lgbt people. Its not new this is occurred for decades but what has changed is the American Public opinion. In the wake of indianas decision to pass a federal not a federal, that would be fascinating if they could pass a federal law but the act that will allow a Business Owner to go into court and say that they had the right to undermine existing, municipal nondiscrimination laws that prohibit the discrimination of Sexual Orientation in public areas to Purchase Services and go and shop and going claim that their religious beliefs allow them to take hold in that law for purposes of not serving lgbt people individually or samesex couples. There was a huge reaction to indianas law which passed and was later revised somewhat, in large part because American Attitudes have changed. 50 of the American Public responded to polling questions and there were multiples that were held saying they felt that it was wrong to discriminate against samesex couples in public accommodations even if it was wedding related. Major corporations from apple to angies list and walmart came out in opposition to these types of laws. On the other hand some laws. On the other hand some of the laws that we are seeing are much more targeted. Theyre much more narrow. Michigan just recently passed, and needs one more vote to go to the governors desk, a law that would allow adoption agencies to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Alabama one vote away from passing a nearly identical away. The state of louisiana is considering legislation that would allow government pastors to discriminate on the basis of marriage if they did not believe in that marriage. If that marriage violated their religious beliefs. So if you have a judge that doesnt think that a samesex marriage is legitimate then they can claim divorce. Theres nothing the state could do to sanction that. That doesnt mean they wont be in operation for a number of years or that they will pass. There is a case last fall out of new mexico. Yes, the owner of a photography business was approached by a samesex couple people and this was before they had Marriage Equality and they wanted to have a quick a Commitment Ceremony. They said they would like you to take pictures of the Commitment Ceremony and the owner said well i disapprove of your relationship. It doesnt align with my views on marriage and family even though they have very clear laws about discrimination on Sexual Orientation, i dont think i have to serve you. They found in favor of the samesex couple. They said to the photographer you are bound by non description discrimination law and you are flatout discriminating on the basis of Sexual Orientation. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to take that case up and they declined to do so. I dont think you can read too much into that they did. I think there was a real interest in how courts are going to come out on these issues. To date there have not been that many Supreme Court to deal with the issue. We dont have federal laws protecting samesex couples from discrimination in public accommodations. It. It was not a religious case at all, it was about her art and that she didnt want to create that art to make her wedding beautiful. The idea that you are complicit in someone elses marriage by selling them a product like a cake or flowers i dont think religion is sufficient to justify exemption. I do think we will continue to see these issues asserted. Like the ones in alabama who made these claims but the fact that the community feel so strongly against this suggests that religion for an anti gay opposition is not as powerful as people thought it was. This has been the drumbeat among social conservatives. This is the argument against samesex marriage that it interferes with religious beliefs. I also want to push back against the idea about Small Businesses. A large number of Small Businesses believe that the same behavior is inappropriate and theres been many Business Owners who have come out and said as a catholic, as a protestant, as a jew, i may not believe that samesex couples should be getting married but when i am opening my business up to the general public i understand my obligations are different in the public marketplace then my own personal views. One of those might be worth reading. There is a very prominent scholar on religion and litigation and he filed a brief in favor of samesex marriage and supported his petitioners to discuss ways to live up to the discussions of samesex marriage and civil liberties. I think some of them have gotten the majority to Say Something about this. He spoke respectfully of people who have traditional views about marriage and empathetically who wanted to get married. Theyre making a play for something in the opinion that might give a nod to the idea that there are issues down the road that may need to be resolved even if the court grants samesex marriage. Absolutely look already all of the major republican candidates for president have made this an issue in their campaign. He wrote an article in the new york time in which he plays out this vision of opposition for Marriage Equality. It really suggests that individuals should be willing to oppose even if the Supreme Court rules and favor. They are all trying to attract a small subset of the american people. Those primary voters who are extremely social conservative and they are going to have significant challenges if they continue on this path when they end up in the general election. If you look at americans under the age of 40 75 support Marriage Equality. Even if you look at republicans under the age of 30 61 support Marriage Equality. Theyre setting themselves up for potential success amongst their core base but will have problems in the general election. Theyre using this in the primary elections but when you look to the general election they dont want to be talking about this. They want the Supreme Court to handle it and take it off the table so its not up to the president to make this decision. They really dont want to have this issue be a lot alive issue. They can downplay discussing it later. Mitt romney keeps getting asked this question. We know americans have access to view it. Itll be one of those, what i like to have a beer with this person kind of question. Essentially it has nothing to do with samesex marriage in this country but will be a character issue that people measure president ial candidates by. Today by. Today believe in fairness and respect and do they respect my gay son or my gay nephew. Lets move onto the next set of questions. Do support nondiscrimination issues across the country because that issue is still out there. I think were going to have to continue to talk about marriage because of state legislature needs to introduce bills that are an attempt to limit the scope of Marriage Equality within the state and carve out for individuals who dont want to interact with samesex couples who are marrying. I think theres going to be many opportunities for them to determine how they feel about samesex relationships. I wonder whether or not transgender issues are going to come up. After marriages decided i think another set of issues waiting in the wings is chan trans gender inequality. Itll be interesting to see whether or not those issues have enough momentum to get discussed. There are cases alleging that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is another set of sexual discrimination. They have determined for federal employment jenner identity discrimination is discrimination. Now they are trying to look at private employees. As these issues progress theres going to be opportunity to go on record about these issues. Okay it is now time for your questions