Is a tree into his next on booktv is a professor of law and Political Science at Yale University takes a look at the way geography impact in the way state constitutions have been shaped. [inaudible conversations] [applause] ladies and gentlemen welcome to the National Constitution center. I am president of this wonderful institution which has one or two of you may be aware is the only institution in America Charter by corporis to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis. Beautiful. You can all sing along to our Glorious Mission statement and weve now encapsulated this to say that this is the only place in america in these polarized times are people of different perspectives can come together to learn about celebrate and debate the greatest vision of human freedom up or invest it, the u. S. Constitution. [applause] as you know those of you who have been here before, if they are an incredibly great excitement in constitutional heaven that you are in for
Follows on individuals and families couldntntravenes the basic constitutional equivalent to dignity. Abiding purpose of the 14th amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to secondtier status. What do you do with the windsor case where the court stressed the federal government a stark deference to states when it comes to matter of domestic relations . States do have primecy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the Constitutional Rights of persons. Windsor couldnt have been clearer about that. Here we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in the very extensive Government Institution that provides protection for families. You say join in the institution. The argument on the other side is that theyre seeking to rere redefine the institution. Every definition i looked up prior to about a dozen years ago defined marriage as a unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously if you succeed, that core d
I guess its just odd to me that state legislatures dont get a little bit of the benefit of the doubt in terms of when the pacing is right for them. Ms. Stanyar again, in michigan it doesnt matter what the legislators do anymore. Its a constitutional ban. Judge sutton four of the states did this through initiatives. In other words, four of the states ruled that it came out the right way in your clients perspective through initiatives. Initiatives are just as effective as legislation on this point. Ms. Stanyar ourselves would have to be repealed. We talked about that already. In addition, judge freedman found that the constitution is for the here and now. This court doesnt have the luxury of dodging a constitutional dodging a constitutional challenge. I understand that the court in perry didnt decide the ultimate question. The court looks to be telegraphing in windsor in terms of some doctrinal change, and if the court was intending on telegraphing, it worked. But 20 straight decisions w
Sanction. It must approve that relationship. Theyre two different questions. Mr. Verrilli it is different, i agree. And i, and it leads to the second thing i think that the that the lawrence catalyzed for our society, was it put gay and lesbian couples, gay and lesbian people, in a position for the first time in our history to be able to lay claim to the abiding promise of the 14th amendment in a way that was just impossible when they were marginalized and ostracized. And youre right, mr. Chief justice, this is about equal participation, participation on equal terms in a stateconferred a stateconferred status, a state institution. That is different than lawrence, but i do think that what lawrence has allowed us to see is that the justifications for excluding gay and lesbian couples from equal participation in this Institution Just hold up. And i do think and the court has raised this question about whether what we are talking about here is a is a fundamental change in the nature of mar
Mr. Scarborough we will close the formal part of our press conference. If you have a question, we are glad to entertain. I kid you not call for taking time out of your busy schedules to cover this information. God bless you all. [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the Supreme Court hears arguments today in two cases regarding samesex marriage. The case is from michigan and ohio will determine whether states are required to issue licenses to same sex couples. And whether states must recognize marriages performed in other states. Well be live outside of the court and possibly comments from the dispenser. Beginning at 4 00 p. M. , we will bring you the audio of the arguments. That is live on cspan3. Coming up, the swearingin ceremony for the new attorney general, Loretta Lynch. Then Charles Grassley speaks at the National Press club at the department about his de