he did, although he did invite a referendum. he didn t telegraph which position he would take on a referendum, if any. he said he would be against it. it s interesting so watch the polling on new jersey because it s a progressive state. you look at maine last year, these things started passing in some blue states last year. i think it would pass in new jersey if they put it on the ballot. also new jersey, if the supreme court of new jersey said, you have to have something equivalent to marriage and civil unions may be that, now clearly civil unions is not equivalent to marriage because it doesn t come under the aegis of civil union. you go to jerry is right. here s what s going to happen next in these cases. in all of these states, all the purple states for sure, but even in some of the red states, plaintiffs, real people who want to get married, are going to take the supreme court decision in the windsor case, in the doma case, not prop 8, but doma,
making the case for voting rights act, that being covered on the national news, it will be hard for republicans to turn their back on someone like that. and i think there are people within the democratic caucus within the house who have the moral stature to get this done, to make it the legacy. to say 50 years we ve made a lot of progress but we had 200 years of slavery, 100 years of jim crow. if we want to get to the post racial future we still need protections to go there. we have the issue of the supreme court which is what started all this this week. i want to talk about what sort of the game the supreme court is playing here, long term on this and other civil rights issues after this. for their family. that s why i created the honest company. i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i could rely on, that did all of the hard work for me. i m jessica alba, and the honest company was my dream. [ male announcer ] legalzoom has helped a mil
tough political way make gay rights an issue that they could be used used as a wedge issue against president clinton. this was an effort by bob dole, who was head of the republican party that year, to try to insert gay rights into the 1996 presidential election and to use it as a wedge issue against president clinton. right. so, the background on it was there was a case in hawaii that was suggesting that possibly hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage. a republican issue ated thing we ll have doma which says the federal government doesn t have to recognize hawaii s no, no, no. but also no, no. the entire debate, it s very interesting now. the entire debate, as my recollection is, all the debate was on section 2 of doma. that state one does not have to recognize gay marriage performed in state two. nobody discussed section 3 of doma, which is what the supreme court just overturned that says the right. states don t have to
discrimination. there was a quite a extensive argument going on in the white house at the time, key veto it? what would that mean? could he allow it to become law without signing it? because you don t have to veto it s not your only option. you can just let it sit, a pocket veto. what were the other options? but, you know, at the time you ve got to remember, there were there were only 14 members of the u.s. senate who voted against this bill. a veto would have been overridden. there was no state in this country where same-sex marriage was allowed so it affected nobody. there was less than 30% of the american public who supported same-sex marriage six weeks out of a presidential re-election. that was the case. i made the case to him that, mr. president, your legacy think about your legacy. think about, do you want to be remembered for this? you will be remembered for this. same-sex marriage is possible.
jurisdiction. as to whether there are five votes there or not i think that the five justices who joined the windsor opinion put language in that opinion and wrote an opinion that is i think a very strong opinion for gay rights and at least gives us clues as to how they might vote in the future. but it seems that they are not ready to do that right now because they decided to completely steer clear of that question in the hollingsworth case. do you think, amy, do you think that we re going to see the court take up same-sex marriage again maybe for nationwide to clarify this? i think that s right. the court made very clear in the decision, the windsor case, striking down doma, that it was striking down one provision of doma, about whether or not the federal government has to recognize these same-sex marriages for purposes of benefits and immigration and estate taxes. it made clear it was not addressing section 2 of doma, which provides that states don t have to recognize same-sex mar