will not accept marriage equality. what does this do to the party? the party is going to have to make some changes or stay with the hard rooirt wingers? right. so december graphically and societ societally, this causes big problems down the road. i saw a 17 and 12-year-old. they have no issues with same-sex marriage and you have you have these milenials who are now voting. what about the don t ask don t tell but i was a real institutional move in the military. i think president obama brings this issue to light as much as heck he can and he brought it tolight being the first president to support same-sex marriage and don t ask don t tell and this work has culminated. not one case has been won in a court of law since the windsor
down. surprising everyone at 2:00 local time in utah and by 3:00 local time in utah, people were getting married in that state. people who probably thought they would never, ever, ever in their entire lives ever be able to get married in utah let alone today. does this utah decision today just feel like it s a bigger deal than all the others because forgive me, it s freaking utah? or is the fact that this is a federal court ruling and that the reasoning of the ruling, does that mean this is more than just the next step? that this could be a harbinger that antigay laws around the country really are more done than we thought they were? joining us now, the chief justice professor at nyu law school. thank you for being here. am i just having an emotional reaction to the word, utah? or did something qualitatively different happen? i think something different happened tonight. and two regards.
down. surprising everyone at 2:00 local time in utah and by 3:00 local time in utah, people were getting married in that state. people who probably thought they would never, ever, ever in their entire lives ever be able to get married in utah let alone today. does this utah decision today just feel like it s a bigger deal than all the others because forgive me, it s freaking utah? or is the fact that this is a federal court ruling and that the reasoning of the ruling, does that mean this is more than just the next step? that this could be a harbinger that antigay laws around the country really are more done than we thought they were? joining us now, the chief justice professor at nyu law school. thank you for being here. am i just having an emotional reaction to the word, utah? or did something qualitatively different happen? i think something different
wrong. it seems to me that when we ve had previous rulings, it s been state supreme courts. state courts ruling on state laws. ruling on the tenants of their own state constitutions. or like in new mexico s case, the sort of awkward situation where some courts, some clerks are going ahead, but no state law that defines it either way. seems like we all thought those types of rulings were going to run out quickly. there s always a constitutional ban that written into the state constitution that says marriage does not include gay people and so, i did not know that the windsor ruling was going to mean that those states, those more than 30 states in their constitution would see those vulnerable. so that is amazing. can i just start by saying i m really sad here because i think you d make a lot better of a law
but then came today. and i don t know why this one feels different. but this one feels different. today, a federal judge in utah, yes, that utah. struck down the state s ban on same-sex marriage. the very first federal ruling since the supreme court s landmark rulings this morning. state s law prohibiting the law was unconstitutional and violated the right of the people of utah. in his ruling today, less than two and a half weeks after he first heard arguments in the case, the judge set himself a self-imposed deadline that he would rule, make a decision by january 7th. it s nowhere near january 7th and he surprised everyone when he just went ahead and ruled today in a sweeping ruling. he thought apparently, there was not only no rational reason to uphold utah s gay marriage ban, but that there was no reason to wait and so, the ruling came