not for this kind of radical right supreme court that is seems somewhat determined to unwind everything. and we would not be here, actually, if we don t have a democratic senate and a democratic house. like, this would not happen next year. the house would not do this next year. and that s why i worry about more decisions coming out of the court and winding civil rights that people have depended on, that they live on, and not having a congress that can codify the stuff. look, it s not critical critical things have happened today. if you re not already married, you don t have to worry about your marriage being an rolled. that s an important thing for families. and i m gay, i m not married, but it matters. you don t want your marriage on mount. do any other thing is yes, he s right. you don t have to go to nevada if you want to get married in your same-sex couple. and that is a pain. and it is not fair. and it is discriminatory. but once you get back to your home in wyoming, wyoming is
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
majority on the supreme court. while many people wondered, including myself, whether marriage rights would be next and immediately turned to congress to try to do something about it. what was that? while, to codify the protections that such rights would not be at the mercy of a supreme court or any court for that reason. to ensure that those rights were legislatively guaranteed. so, is what president biden will sign in line with the supreme court s landmark 2015 obergefell decision? does it codify what was said there? not exactly. so, the new law would assure full benefits for marriage, regardless of a couple s sex or race or ethnicity or national origin. federal government will be required to recognize marriages that were valid in a state when performed. but notice the nuance in what i just said. it had to be valid in the state before the feds are required to recognize it. the state, therefore, still
i mean, it is the layering of all of this. everything needs to lead to the next thing. hillary, what s your reaction? 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 forum is a forum of compromise by its nature. and this bill was a compromise. we would not be here if it were not for this kind of radical right supreme court that is seems somewhat determined to unwind everything. and we would not be here, actually, if we don t have a democratic senate and a democratic house. like, this would not happen next year. the house would not do this next year. and that s why i worry about more decisions coming out of the court unwinding civil rights that people have depended on, that they live on, and not having a congress that can codify this stuff. look, it s not critical things have happened today. if you re not already m
reporter ariane devogue. 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 the court issued obergefell, nobody would have thought that this bill was necessary, right. justice kennedy issued that sweeping decision, clearing the way for gay marriage nationwide. no one would have thought that this was necessary. and as you said, because of roe v. wade, you know, justice alito in that opinion said, look, this is, this opinion on dobbs is just about abortion. it is not about anything else. but then justice clarence thomas in that concurring opinion, he was not on that same page. remember he said that in future cases we should consider all of this c