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. but do you think it should have gone further? and are you celebrating this senate victory for now? no, i am not celebrating, laura. i will say i m happy that at least something has been done, something that we will have to fall back on should the supreme court overturn obergefell in the future. but this act, i find it curious that is called the respect for marriage act, because this act does not respect lgbtq+ communities, our marriages, our relationships, or our families. and the fact that this act
hillary points out, this is washington, d. c.. jim obviously doesn t work here. nothing gets done is town, right. for smith to pass, it s really amazing. it s taken a lot of effort on a lot of people s parts to get where we are today. i was one of the republicans that signed on to a letter urging the senate to pass this bill. it is important for a variety of reasons. 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 loomis 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
protection that the obergefell decision offers as of right now. but remember there, in obergefell, states must allow and recognize same-sex marriages under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. codifying something into federal law does not mean you codify it at the state level. that is what you call federalism by design. despite the fact that congress 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 was 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.
about whether it s better to have to iran still in because it promotes the conversation around what s happening in iran but. and now that they re out well that conversation and? this one has to end temporarily, but we ll be looking ahead to saturday to watching this match from the u. s. men s team against netherlands. thank you all. hope you get some rest and enjoyment out there, don. and everyone else, thank you for being a part of it tonight. it was really exciting to see this happen. thank you. well, from the politics of 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 obergefell decision? well, jim, obergefell himself says he s not celebrating today. and i ll explain why, next. but