sports to what s actually happening here on capitol hill, a critical vote in the senate passing a bill to protect same-sex marriage. and it is expected to pass in the house next week. but what happens if the supreme court overturns that 2015 overfilled decision? well, jim, obergefell himself says he s not celebrating today. and i ll explain why, next. but get decision tech from fidelity. [ cellphone vibrates ] you llll get proactive alerts for market events before thehey happen. and insights on every buy and sell decision. with zero-commission online u.s. stock and etf trades. for smarter trading decisions, get decision tech from fidelity.
it does not mean using their religion to persecute others who do not share that same fate structure. so, this is not about tolerance. this is about kowtowing the people who want preference for their religion, their interpretation of their particular religion, in the fall of sphere. and that is not religious freedom. jim obergefell, thank you so much for your insight tonight. it was appreciated. thanks, laura. david urban is. back and join me is political commentator hillary rosen and cnn s court reporter area on devote. ariana, let me pick up exactly where jim left off and this notion of religious freedom. this does not mirror the obergefell decision. it is not precise by any stretch of the imagination. but because of federalism, because of what they ve accomplished in the court, can you just explain a little bit about why you think the religious liberty aspect of it was top of mind? right, well, in 2015 when
for religious liberty. and that is what is important at the supreme court right now, because they care about that issue, they cared about it last term into big cases. and we have another case that will be argued next week all about somebody who designs websites to celebrate marriages but does not want to design such a website for same sex couples. they think that they should be accepted. and that s before the supreme court. and the supreme court is probably going to rule in favor of that person. i mean, it is the layering of all of this. everything needs to lead to the next thing. hillary, what s your action? you are listening to the interview with. jim did you have a reaction to a satisfaction? jim is an old friend of mine and i respect what he says. but the forum we are in right now is a political forum. the legislative form is a form of compromise by its nature. and this bill was a compromise. we would not be here if it were
jim articulated, hillary knows, and i ve articulate. so, you know, it is. we had 47 republicans in the house vote for this. we had 12 republicans, a wide range of folks from really liberal folks to very conservative people. but whatever cynthia lummis did or did not do, she still voted yes for us. it s a big deal. if really conservative people vote for this. and i think it s a big victory. you know, it may not be the whole of what everybody wanted and what jim wanted and others, but i think it s a very positive step forward. it should be celebrated as what the art in the possible can get done in this town, and so what can happen when people try to get things accomplished. the fact that bipartisanship is the pinnacle but we face this in the house, and in the congress next year, after the supreme court, we are going to something else it s going to pass the senate, it s going to pick up past the house. we are going to pick up some
does not hold all of the cards though, they certainly did play their hand in this matter. a lot of political games had to be played, and successfully, to get where we are today. the question is, given that hand, let s see if the voters at the state level let the cards they been dealt when it comes to codifying these rights. i want to bring in jim obergefell, who is the plaintive in the 2015 obergefell versus hodges decision. jim, i m glad to see you. welcome to the program. how are you? thanks laura, i m happy to be here. i wish it was for better reasons. but thanks for having me. you know, it s interesting, because someone look at this, jim, and think it s counterintuitive. should people be celebrate the codification of this decision? and at first glance, it sounds like when congress says we are going to codify and make sure we ve got same-sex marriage on the books, but that s exactly what it s done. but you don t think that it does. and i ve explained of course the reasons why.