prevents california from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that proposition 8 is unconstitutional. that right there says it all. the judge saying, again, let me read this again, the evidence shows proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the california constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. now, where we go from here? well, ultimately this is going to be appealed and we know that opponents of same sex marriage already asked the judge to stay this order while this is under appeal. we ll have to read this more closely and see what happens with that and we also know that eventually this whole issue of same sex marriage is going to be decided by the united states supreme court, wolf. we ll be poring through these documents and come back to you a bit later on but obviously, again, a huge victory for supporters of same sex marriage. back to you.
from his decision now. it fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. indeed, he says the evidence shows that proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the california constitution the notion that opposite-section couples are superior to same-sex couples, and he says because california has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because prop 8 prevents california from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriage on an equal basis, it is unconstitutional. he also says that the evidence about a two-week trial showed that one of the primary reasons behind the prop 8 campaign, this is the judge says, is a moral disapproval of homosexuality, but he says moral disapproval alone is an improper basis for denying rights to gay men and lesbians. the evidence shows conclusively, he says, that prop 8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same-sex couples
constitutions, but tonight, for the first time, a federal judge says that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional under the u.s. constitution. judge von walker ruled on proposition 8 passed two years ago by 52% of california voters banning gay marriage, but he says it fails i m quoting from his decision now. it fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. indeed, he says the evidence shows that proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the california constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples, and he says because california has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because prop 8 prevents california from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriage on an equal basis, it is unconstitutional. he also says that the evidence at about a two-week trial showed that one of the primary reasons behind the prop 8 campaign, this
enshrine too big to fail. democrats sick of hearing that line of attack are now taking off the gloves. nbc s luke russert joins me in studio away from his usual perch on capitol hill. we like having you here, luke. what what happened after the speech, democrats went on the offensive. democrats went on the offensive in ways we haven t seen, depicting a video of republican lies. let s look at it now. if you look at it carefully it will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of wall street tax. on the health care bill we allowed too many lies to get out there without rebuttal because we thought they were so obviously untrue. we ve learned our lesson. the minute these things come out of the mouths of some of our republican colleagues, we rebut them, and we rebut them again and again. monica, what you saw there was literally guys like chuck
thanks for having me on. senator johnson, do you think we re really going to get this deal done in a timely manner before august the 2nd, and in your estimation what do you think that deal is going to be, either led by republicans, democrats, or really the bipartisan type of deal that everybody has been saying could happen? i mean, i really don t know. that s just part of the probable here. you hear about all these plans, but i don t see anything in writing or anything on a piece of paper, and the problem really sshgs you know, the republicans act like it or hate tshg the house passed a budget, and now we ve also passed the cut, cap, and balance bill, which i believe really is the solution. i just don t see washington ever having the political will to cut spending, to prioritize spending, until we actually establish hard spending caps and enshrine that in the constitution, and, you know, i guess what i m willing to say is there has to be some very short-term deal to allow us to