means that you were able to do away with homophobia. that s not what happened with edi windsor s case, not what happened in other cases. homophobia still exists and we re witnessing that right now. my response to that, thomas, is i wish. i wish that winning either the windsor case or the other case would get rid of homophobia. i wish that there were courts that would get rid of racism and other forms of prejudice. that s obviously not going to happen. we re all human beings, we all have flaws. what is important in this case is the rule of law and the constitution. the judge has seen to it that s being enforced and that s what really matters. kim davis, though, as an american citizen, has taken the legal avenues that she feels she needed to to express herself about any religious concerns she has. i want to bring your attention robbie, a story in usa today about a muslim flight attendant says her airline fired her for refusing to serve alcohol. this is a practice that s
federal statute that restricted rights of individuals who wish to get married to the same person was demeaning and disrespected their relationship. it took away their constitutional rights. if you read what the supreme court said in that case there is really no other way for the supreme court to come out in the case that s up for argument on tuesday. the first part of that case is whether states have to recognize the rights of individuals who wish to get married in that stays. i think that will end the debate there. it does seem obvious you can see the federal government saying you ve got to recognize this is the way it works. you don t think they ll draw a states line here? no, i don t. because what the supreme court said in the federal case, they were talking not so much they mention states rights, but they were talking about the impact on the individuals in a relationship and the children of those relationship how it took away their rights. it made their relationships less equal
decisions. no evidence of a quid pro quo. republicans need to be careful not to overstate the case. it reminds us that clintons are complicated. they tend to make mistakes. it will be interesting to see how much more of this happens before democrats go as public as they did when i was talking to them last night. when we come back on this wee my cut hurts. mine hurt more. mine stopped hurting faster! neosporin plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria. neosporin plus pain relief kills the germs. fights the pain. that s it. good job. nice coating. and get this one next. whoa! what are you guys doing? making sure nothing sticks. otherwise, we gotta scrub all this stuff off. huh, what? nobody thought of this before? what s wrong with people? dish issues? not with improved cascade platinum. it powers through. your toughest, starchy messes. better than finish s best. the first time.
have to deal with this. reduction, reduced drone strikes by the end of 2014. this was done in 2015. obviously, i think the goal was when the afghanistan war was done and the withdrawal complete the drone program would maybe completely end or nearly enfrom move from the cia and pentagon. obviously we didn t withdraw from afghanistan. why didn t we move to the pentagon? we have oversight of those operations. there is? that is correct. a lot of people don t belief that. there is oversight over these programs. number two the framework is in place. and if indeed the standard by which the government makes a decision whether or not to take a strike is near certainty, near certainty whether or not there will be injuries to a civilian in this case that protocol was followed and it turn out to be inaccurate. the president asked for a review in this circumstance as to why that turned out to be inaccurate. but there is no doubt about the effectiveness of these programs
or the necessity of these operations. you don t think these drones of killing terrorists with drones, unmanned isn t making more terrorists? that has been a concern for some time. i don t think that is the case. this is what i think is the case. comprehensive evident by the united states against al qaeda and its leadership has resulted in a safer america. that in fact we have been able to decimate al qaeda s leadership, that we ve been able to reduce the threat to our forces in afghanistan and our interests around the world and in the united states. my own judgment is that ab isn t these operations like the president described object thursday absent these kinds of operations, a comprehensive effort against al qaeda there would have been further action against u.s. interests perhaps at the homeland. i don t have any doubt about that. let s talk about the constitutional rights of the two americans turned al qaeda operatives. the legal situation here is murky. according to the pre