Its very transactional. And being able to look at a potential action and trying to connect it to something larger is hard. Looking at an action and saying, okay, what it this becomes public . Can i explain it . Of i cant explain it, dont do it. Later on, the head of Strategic Communication for general petraeus sat down with the Al Jazeera Bureau chief, and he said, heres what your guys were doing that caused us concern. And the Al Jazeera Bureau chief says they were violating our guidelines on reporting. Hmm. And so the moral of the story is, why dont we start there . Have that conversation first and say, you know, weve got a problem. Either you solve the problem or well solve the problem. But doing it where you are able to handle the situation with Public Diplomacy in mind before it pops interest the open before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes a headline, an unflattering portrayal in this publication or that publication. Thats the mindset we have to have. And in a way, im alway
Examples of people he wrongly convicted for murder spending 18 years in prison, 18 years and 20,000 for payment a year as a result. They spend other than their arraignment hour or two no time in jail, no time in prison and they got 20 million. Several life events to tell you about tomorrow. In 2004 utah voters passed an amendment to the states constitution recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman effectively banning samesex marriages. Last december the eighth federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. The tenth Circuit Court of appeals took up the cake case last week when many around the country challenging samesex marriage bans. This is a little more than an hour. We are here this morning for one case, her team 41. Council you may proceed. Good morning. Im gene cher and im honored to appear on behalf of the state of utah as governor attorney general here with us today and its people and just for the courts information on going to try to reserve seven minutes for rebuttal.
It was a fundamental underlying issue about what marriage is. The question becomes at the Supreme Court exclusively defines marriage to reflect this conjugal, i think that was the term used, the conjugal vision of marriage. The Supreme Court has not done that. Under windsor, it wouldnt be appropriate for the Supreme Court to resolve this fundamental clash of different visions of marriage. That was the whole point is that that is not a proper separate function, that is a proper state function. Virtually complete authority over the definition of marriage. Returning to windsor, this is what causes me concern. There is no question i think Justice Scalia really highlights it the court was speaking in windsor about marriage that it very clearly indicated and gave directions that it was going to be talking about federal. In fact, when it came time to it language of windsor, essentially, not even the essentially but directly disallowed a decision that would be predicated on federalism and inst