from the south, but what was missing? what was there in 1964 that could break the filibuster that isn t there today? to get something done. so to respond to public pressure and international embarrassment that followed the bombing, of the church in birmingham and the violence that was on public display all over the world and shamed america to finally act. also kennedy s assassination in there, that fuelled pressure. we don t have that right now. i m thinking about this as you heard president obama yesterday talk about pass a bill, solve a problem. that is something we just don t see right now. because there isn t that pressure. as we talk about in present day, talking about the voting rights act, the supreme court ruling and can there be some kind of amendment or fix pass for what happened in the supreme court last year, i wonder, just practically speaking, if you
though, there was opposition, basically democrats at the time, you know, so today, though certainly democrats not from the south, but what was missing? what was there in 1964 that could break the filibuster that isn t there today? to get something done. so to respond to public pressure and international embarrassment that followed the bombing, of the church in birmingham and the violence that was on public display all over the world and shamed america to finally act. also kennedy s assassination in there, that fuelled pressure. we don t have that right now. i m thinking about this as you heard president obama yesterday talk about pass a bill, solve a problem. that is something we just don t see right now. because there isn t that pressure. as we talk about in present day, talking about the voting rights act, the supreme court ruling and can there be some kind of amendment or fix pass for what happened in the supreme court last year, i wonder, just
books. they can t enforce it. it s totally clearly unconstitutional. this year there was a bill to repeal it, to take it off the books, but the louisiana legislature voted no the to. they voted to keep their sodomy law and they did so in emphatic fashion. only 27 votes to repeal it and 67 votes to keep it on the books. that s the actual news in this 21st century, america. happy 21st century. consider also, consider also this other story. in the same country on the same day there was also this story in our national news, the man in this picture is charles j. cooper. he goes by chuck cooper. he s one of the most famous and accomplished ultra conservative lawyers in the country. he, in fact, is the lawyer who did the oral arguments in front of the supreme court last year defending california s anti-gay proposition 8. mr. cooper was the lawyer tasked with arguing against marriage equality to the supreme court. he is a really good lawyer. he did as best he could. he lost that kate in
republicans say evidence obama care sooig is a job killer. but democrats say it means new freedom. america s news headquarters live starting right now. this is no time to rest on our laurels. this is no time to back down, to give up, or to give into the unjust and the unequal status quo. the department of justice announces new federal benefits for same 60s couples despite a ruling from the supreme court last year. so is this the latest example of the obama administration going around congress to push through its agenda? eric holder says he wants to recognize gay marriages to the greatest extent possible under the law. so for example starting monday,
married, you don t have to you have the right to refuse to give testimony to incriminate your spouse, which is a right that a lot of you know, heterosexual couples already have. now that s now going to be extended to same-sex marriages as well. this is a big, a big announcement. it obviously affects millions of people, and it s something that the justice department has been working on for several months in light of the fact that the supreme court last year overturned the defense of marriage act which as you know, was the federal law that refused to grant federal recognition of same-sex marriages, fredricka. hmm. so, evan, help us understand, how will it be imposed on the 34 states that don t necessarily recognize same-sex xblargmarria? will it be an option or expectsed that those states would challenge this? well, this is only applying this only applies to federal jurisdictions. so if you have a federal court