is my good friend thomas roberts who covered this brilliantly. exciting four hours. impressions, i want to hear what you think about all this. it was fascinating to be in the chair, to hear the fact that they came down with the decision, 5-4. i think a lot of people figured it would come that way if it was going to come down at all in the affirmative. i think if we look back over the context of the supreme court and a lot of people have been looking at this decision like we would look at loving versus virginia in 1967 that was unanimous for the supreme court thought we could be colorblind. as a country when it came to interracial marriage. now there is a majority of the court that thinks we can be sexuality blind when it comes to marriage and be afforded that right. but i think it s interesting, as you were talking to ari there about how this is going to come up to states 14 of which did not have marriage equality. how quickly they re going the move inside their borders to make this
race. correct. in our legal system you couldn t marry across the racial line now you can legally. virginia had the law against that. loving versus virginia was the case that decided that. those who were advocating for that outcome it is a dusty old document that must be adhered to in terms of original intent. because this high school debating point. air force, where is that in here? there s no air force in there. there s an army and navy and the navy includes the marines but the army air corps was okay but when they created a separate force called the air force, where is that in here? they didn t have airplanes back then. i think it s just fine because it contemplates our armed services defense structure. it doesn t have to be literal? it doesn t have to be literal. but the application is sufficiently broad. there s nothing in there that talks about the faa or the fcc, the ability to regulate interstate air waves. is that the post office? no, more of the application
mandate that. bill: on website for the station restaurant denies services to same-sex couples. it never happened. it did not take place. it was just a camera there at counter. that is disgraceful. anybody putting out death threats this is horrible. you should leave the pizzeria alone. disgraceful people put out death threats. doug to your point back in the 50s and 60s, people would use religion to cater or accommodate interracial marriage t happened all the time. if you kind of wedding you should cater any kind of wedding or don t cater? i grew up not too far away from woolworths in north carolina. they were fighting to sit at counter. how is this different from loving versus virginia, enshrined, no discrimination against interracial marriage into law? how is this different? people would say you can t mix races. bible says races were created different. but they were separate water
and two women who were legally married in the state of california but have failed in getting the state of virginia to recognize their marriage. there was another case called loving versus virginia that led to enter racial marriage back in the 1960s. yoe, thank you so much for that, and happy valentine s day. i like that red tie. it s strong. it s strong. let s take a look at headlines. ap is reporting the obama administration may be willing to wait a little longer to get a security agreement signed with afghanistan. the white house wanted a deal by this spring before president karzai leaves office. now, they may be willing to wait for whoever replaces karzai. three people have been killed by a volcano eruption in indonesia. 75,000 people have been told to evacuate. the eruption has caused buildings to collapse and
so look, that spirit is permeating the city. and that sense of possibility and hope that we can take this message across the country as christine said to all of these other states. so eventually we go back in front of that supreme court and have the loving versus virginia adjudication and get this addressed on the issue of merit and deal with those remaining states that still deny full equality for all of their citizens. i d like to see as i said in the opening, go all the way with the lawrence decision where david boies said we ought to go and recognize liberty and due process and come down on the states that don t want to go along with this. would you like to see that happy? you d like to see it happen for everyone. the fight state by state we ll do it, but it s going to be hard. i want to follow-up on one thing pete williams mentioned. in the ruling around prop 8, it was really are said that for this case to move forward, there would have had to have been harm against someone