this is over one hour. [applause] >> thank you and good evening. we call ourselves the bard association. it tries to have lawyers do something more productive than what they do usually do to support the theater in all kinds of ways. as you know, the theater performance that we are using the stage for is based on the text of william shakespeare's "12 night." you have seen ethan mcsweeney do so many good performances. [applause] if you have not seen it, at least twice you will can sitter -- you will consider coming. 12 night is not about the time it takes for the tax reconciliation to occur. [laughter] shakespeare's 25th play . you know the basics. after a shipwreck, or a plane incident stranded on the coast of illyria, the a lot and sebastian become separated. while she assumes the disguise leaderse boy, to be the page, a man, she finds herself at the center of a very exclusive love triangle with the sophisticated lady, libya, who or the note desires but falls in love with cesarean who is really feel a. but then find that there is an identical sebastian who she can love just as much. following all this? this play is where identity, passion, and gender all threaten to become undone. with characters pretending to be people they are not. saying things they do not mean. plotting to advance themselves at the expense of others who trust in them. or in other words, the way the rest of the world thinks of us in washington dc. in illyria and now, the issue is will music be the food of love? will it be enough to hold them in holy matrimony. at the conclusion of tonight's argument, you will be asked as we always ask you to be the jury. to answer the following questions. should olivia and sebastian's marriage be annulled? if you believe yes, please vote with the blue token. if you believe the marriage should not be annulled, vote with your red token. now it is my extraordinary honor and pleasure to introduce the participants to the mock trial. please welcome u.s. supreme court marshall pamela token. [applause] >> and welcome counsel for the petitioner olivia. kate stenson. [applause] for me.y whoopeed and counsel dan webb with matthew carter. [applause] >> calling to order the marshall we will welcome the bench for tonight. the supreme court will be chief judge merrick garland. presiding, judge david table judge thomas griffin's and judge , the time g brown jackson. [applause] >> they will be here in a minute. please enjoy the trial. [gavel] >> all rise. oh yea, oh yeah, oh yeah. the supreme court is now in session. please be seated. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. to be leave olivia or not to be believe olivia. that is the question. [laughter] my client fell in love with one person. she was tricked into marrying another. when she realized that she had been married to a stranger, she sought annulment. the lower courts denied her that relief. annulment is only available when one spouse is behavior has been duped. this court should reverse. there is ample evidence that sebastian's deceptive behavior induced olivia to marry him. when sebastian first sets eyes on olivia, she called him her dear cesario. people do go by different names. for instance when she is kicking it with her homeys, justice ruth bader ginsburg goes by the notorious rbg. as well as her graffiti tag, i dissent. [laughter] but nothing in this record supports that sebastian ever went by the name cesario and yet he stayed silent. he thinks to himself that there is something in it disabled. he has a another chance to set things straight right before the the wedding. olivia asked him point blank. my most jealous and ever doubtful soul may live at peace. there is his opportunity break there. -- right there in the record to say, look, this has been great. [laughter] it is not you, it's me. [laughter] because it's not me. it's -- you are clearly in love with a different me. but he doesn't say any of that. instead, what he says is, having sworn truth, i ever will be true. sebastian says i did not deceive her. i used my name during the wedding. but that ignores the fact that the wedding itself, olivia was highly distracted. she had arranged for a little cake shop in the neighboring country of colorado to create a beautiful, artistic, highly expressive food for the wedding. the guy never showed up. not to mention her loyal servant malvolio, who is an ill-tempered man prancing around the patio in yellow stockings. yellow. malvolio has brown hair and hazel eyes. [laughter] can i -- can i ask? i am a little worried about the implications of this argument for misrepresentation or miss -- misunderstandings. you realize this is "twelfth night," which is 12 nights after christmas. therefore, winter is coming. [laughter] does this mean that john snow will not be able to marry the mother of dragons because, spoiler alert, he is not yet tarts'-- ned starks' son? we could be in a lot of trouble. >> i am really upset about that spoiler alert. i like, have not watched that part. thanks for that. [laughter] i think the answer is if we are talking about mistaken identities, we are talking about mistaken names. this is one of sebastian's arguments. because he used his real name at the wedding she was on notice that he was not who she thought he was. as the leading commentator put it, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. >> i want to be sure i understand the facts of this case. so, if the priest shows up in and drags sebastian into the pantry and apologizes for her haste, that according to the priest, she makes, according to the record, contract of maternal love confirmed by mutual joining of hands, attested by the holy coils of lips, strengthened by the interchanging of rings, during which sebastian declares, i, sebastian, take thee olivia as my wedded wife. you want us to believe that olivia did not know what you was -- what she was getting into? [laughter] >> so -- [laughter] olivia may have been a tad impetuous in proposing the marriage. but to be very clear, olivia was not looking for love. love found her. this was a woman who had sworn off all suitors for seven years. she had deleted her profile from tinder. [laughter] she had stopped surfing farmersonly.com [laughter] she was abandoned to her sorrow. this is not an elizabeth d-burton-fortensky situation. [laughter] >> but your brief does not focus on olivia. it focuses on sebastian, and you say sebastian engaged in deceit. that is too harsh. he identified himself by name in the ceremony. it just turned out to be different. he turned out to be different than olivia thought. how is that any different than a husband finding out after the wedding that his wife is a justin bieber fan? and that wouldn't be grounds for annulment. well, maybe that would. [laughter] --you getpothetical my point. >> i would totally write bieber into the prenup. the difference is there is a difference between a different name and a different person. this is not -- if you imagine a situation where joe dimaggio is at the altar with marilyn monroe and she calls herself norma jean, he is not going to walk away because he knows he is still marrying marilyn monroe. this is not joe dimaggio marrying marilyn monroe. this is like great britain's king edward marrying bart simpson instead of wallis simpson. [laughter] very different people. >> page 12 of your brief, you argue that sebastian agreed to marry olivia to claim immigration benefits. you write sebastian had no other rational reason to accept olivia's proposal. no other rational reason? are you aware that the role of alivia was played by helen not carter and michelle pfeiffer? no other rational reason? [laughter] >> visit so on for a royal -- is it so odd for a royal to fall in love with a foreign actor? [laughter] [applause] prince harry may have an issue about this. >> fair enough. here is what i would say about that. to the point about sebastian not having a different reason for marrying her other than the fact that he needed to claim citizenship, i think that is exactly what was going on. you have a situation where olivia fell in love with someone completely different. someone who wooed her and won her with beautiful words, yada yada yada. the only thing sebastian said to her. the first thing he said was, "i will." this is not the person that she thought. it is very clear what his thought process was. he washes ashore, sees olivia, she proposes marriage to him, and he says i am not throwing away my shot. i am not throwing away my shot. i swam to this country. i'm young, soggy, and hungry. [laughter] that is what he is thinking. [applause] >> what i don't understand is your timing. why would your client want to annul the marriage right now? i hear the tax benefits will be enormous for two wealthy people getting married in 2018. she should just hang on, don't you think? >> i'm not really sure how that whole thing is going to shake out. [laughter] i think the problem with -- just to get back to the immigration argument, and the argument is that because sebastian was protected by the deferred action against castaways act. daca. that he did not need to marry her hastily because he was protected by that. 2 problems with that. daca mightber one is not be available to sebastian at all. he is the known associate of antonio. >> but i don't really understand why would anyone want to be a citizen of illyria. you have this guy running around with yellow stockings, people are drinking and quaffing. sebastian says is everyone mad here? >> that sounds nice to me actually. >> so i want to ask you a hypothetical. this is a real hypothetical. [laughter] if judge jackson falls in love with judge griffith's yellow stockings and then she decides to marry the next strange, stout, smiling fellow who shows up in yellow stockings because he reminds her of judge griffiths, is judge griffiths really to blame if it doesn't work out? maybe olivia just has a type? [laughter] >> first of all, judge griffiths can carry off the yellow much better than malvolio can. [laughter] but the problem is not that she --ried a type will stop married a type. the problem is she married a stranger. she thought she was in love with one person and thought she was marrying that person. i will tell you, this jurisdiction has had this issue before. when lady britney spears -- duchess of fresno -- [laughter] accidentally married that guy at that drive-through thing in las vegas, this court permitted her to annul that union. her only defense was oops, i did it again. [laughter] >> so your argument seems to be look what you made me do. [laughter] >> but, miss stetson, he did identify himself as sebastian. and is that esteemed legal scholar groucho marx said, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? [laughter] right, but i think that gets back to the rose point. the idea that he identifies himself as sebastian only put her on notice that this person that she loves also went by the name sebastian. it's kind of a potato-potato thing. >> i prefer tomato-tomato. >> tomato-tomato. my mistake, i will correct the record. the issue here is not that she was marrying someone with a different name. this is not the marilyn monroe situation. this is the bart simpson situation. that is a very different situation for the person on the end of that. >> isn't our standard much higher than that? you can't go around giving annulments like oprah's favorite things. you get an annulment and you get an annulment. [laughter] [applause] >> that's a fair point. i will promise that i won't be here again asking for another annulment on behalf of anyone else for a very long time, i hope. but let me make one other point. textual point. he makes the point that because illyrian statutes use the word procure and because he did not affirmatively go get anything, therefore he could not have obtained the marriage by fraud. illyrian law is based on the shakespearean constitution, which is similar to the united states constitution, but with more scatological jokes in it. if we consulted the shakespearean constitution, when we see is that the word "procure " is repeatedly used to simply mean achieve. three times in "taming of the shrew." once in "othello." once in sonnet 67. >> that is serious research. [laughter] we don't do that here. [laughter] >> it is interesting to me that you have seemed to abandon an argument that futures on the troubling issue of the fact that he identified himself as sebastian during the wedding ceremony. in your brief, you relied on an article in "psychology today" -- remember this? to undermine the fact that olivia heard him identify himself in the wedding. has previouslyce made clear that we are not interested in sociological gobbledydook and we are not interested in psychological gobbledygook. are you abandoning that argument? yes, now i am. before i abandoned it -- >> if you could just wrap this up. you are slightly over time. >> i would be happy to, your honor. let me end with this then. i would ask you simply in the words of sir mitch mcconnell. duke of the ucky of kent, to say, yes, i believe the woman. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. webb, i hope you have a good comeback. [laughter] >> may it please this honorable court, my name is dan webb. i would like to thank the mock trial fact committee. because this is the first time a chicago trial lawyer has actually been given facts that can establish innocence. [laughter] we have never had that happen. by the way, i think there are two reasons why i am given three minutes before you interrupt me, is that right? >> that's right, that's right. i'm counting. [laughter] [applause] >> so first of all, two reasons why you cannot annul this marriage under the law. the law of illyria -- there is a statute we are dealing with. sometimes that doesn't matter inside the beltway, but there is a statute we are dealing with, and the statute says a person who procures a marriage and then uses fraud in that procurement, then a marriage could be annulled. i use the word "procure" because if you just think about it for one minute, what is the evidence that my client procured the marriage? procured meaning i definition that he actually instituted a plan to carry out and get a certain result from her. the facts are, my guy's walking down the street in illyria. he has never met her, he doesn't know who this woman is. he is beaten up by chicago hooligans. up,hat time, olivia shows scares off the hooligans, and says to him, you must come to my house. she says it twice. "you must." here is this beautiful, gorgeous, woman with this charming personality who says you must come to my house. of course he comes to her house at that point in time. she walks in with a priest and says, "if your intentions are honorable, marry me." he says well, i fell in love with you because love at first sight and you are beautiful. she brings a priest into her room and they get married. where does the word "procure" mean that my client did anything to procure that marriage? therefore, if you follow the statute, you don't need to get near the issue of fraud, because my client didn't even procure a marriage under any circumstance. so we went under the statute. [laughter] really. if you're going to follow that law -- we don't have to if you don't want to. if you want to follow that statute, then my client prevails in this case. i say that to you as jurors, think about that when you deliberate. [laughter] here's what i don't understand. i have never understood this case in this sense. olivia's theory -- >> now i am entitled to interrupt you. [laughter] this is the part i don't understand about your argument. why did sebastian want to stay married to someone who doesn't love him? since we are quoting songs, if you love her, let her go. >> actually, that song does not apply to someone in sebastian's financial condition in life. [laughter] when he is about to marry a beautiful woman, she brought to her house this gorgeous, wonderful house. by the way, one of the fallacies of the case is sebastian clearly knew something weird was going on here. he knew something weird was going on. but he did not know what they claim in this case. they claim that because olivia was actually in love with cesario, therefore my client should have straightened out this whole mess in her mind. when in fact, my client did not know who cesario was and did not know anything about her behavior pattern over time as far as how she was dressed and deceiving other people. he knew nothing about that. how could my client have straightened out olivia's misconception when he himself did not even possess the facts? >> how could your client have married her? who in their right mind agrees to be married after only 20 lines in a shakespeare play? [laughter] >> that's a good question, your honor. although, if you think about it, according to the facts, men fall in love with this woman continually. at the drop of the hat. for no reason whatsoever. my client has testified that that happened to him. love at first sight. admittedly, he found out she was wealthy and had a station in life that might make him better off if you followed that plan. but that is not fraud. you're not going to annul a marriage because my client actually saw that he was getting some benefit out of this arrangement. there is no basis to annul the marriage. >> mr. webb, i have a question about our jurisdiction. your client -- >> i'm a trial lawyer. [laughter] [applause] >> you still have to answer my question. [laughter] >> so your client claims he is a devoted husband and a stable influence on olivia's life. but to me, sorting out this marital dispute sounds like a political question. [laughter] how, how can the courts possibly develop a judicially manageable family for successful marriage? you see the woman over there with the beautiful white hair? she and i have been happily trying to figure that out for 53 years and we still don't have an answer. i don't have an answer. [applause] >> and your honor, i don't actually have any way to answer that question. however, since that is not the law that we are supposed to follow in this case, since we're supposed to be following this pesky little statute here -- >> i was asking you a jurisdictional question. >> the chief judge said that i as a trial lawyer do not have to address that. [laughter] >> can you at least produce the long-form marriage license? [laughter] [applause] >> i cannot produce that, your honor. >> one thing that is interesting one thing that is interesting about this case is that if this high court in illyria is concerned about whether there is any equity or lack of equity in this case, if you think about it, both sides to this bargain actually got the benefit they were seeking. number one, there is no question that olivia wanted to end up having the male version of viola, which happened to be sebastian, who was her brother. she got exactly what she wanted in this bargain. >> it's interesting that you should talk about gender. i have been trying to figure out what it has to do with this. the record is clear that the lower court judges who ruled in "allclient's favor were male." ,hat were their names again judges lauer, weinstein, so what do we take away from that? [laughter] >> we did like the choice of the trial judges. we were very pleased with that although we are confident that this panel here -- by the way, i don't know. i try to to read this myself several times over. i don't know what the role of gender has to do with this case. i'm very confused about that. by the way, did my client get some benefit out of this bargain? the facts say, well, he fell in love with her, it was love at first sight, yes but he got a benefit. in his station of life, through a rash decision, when you could judge and say why would anybody make such a rash decision in 30 minutes to marry anybody? >> have you seen "the bachelor"? [laughter] >> yes. although, by the way, he actually had a motive to increase his station in life by marrying a beautiful woman, a magnetic personality, very wealthy, does that mean he committed fraud just because he wanted -- that that fell into his lap that they? -- that day? and by the way, under the facts of the case, he felt confused that night. he actually felt confused. he had no idea that there was anything in her mind that he could straighten out. he did not know about these facts. under fraud, under the law of fraud -- >> so he thought that she just loved him at first sight, too? >> i don't -- he testified to -- he was confused -- >> seriously? [laughter] and in the play itself, it says he is confused. he wasn't quite sure why she was doing this. >> we saw the videotape about two weeks ago in this very area. this guy is no ryan gosling. [laughter] what makes him think that anyone would fall in love with him? >> let's just assume that's correct. your honor, that is correct. the -- he would have had no reason to believe a woman with that station in life would have anything to do with him. where is the fraud? he announced himself as named sebastian. >> now, wait. as aaron burr would say, none of us were in the room when it happened. [laughter] the transcript by mr. shakespeare does not include that fact. i understand you have been provided that, but since we are not on the wire, we do not actually know what was said. why should we believe that he actually said sebastian? actually, that is because your group here gave me those facts and told me that i was sworn under duty to follow those facts. >> mr. webb, i hate to do this, but i have a serious question for you. [laughter] maybe i will never get invited back, but here's my serious question. you say that sebastian is not in the marriage for money, nobility, or favorable immigration status. two-part question. why in the world does he want to remain in the marriage? and more important, here is a serious question, wouldn't there be some serious constitutional questions if we compelled olivia to stay in a marriage against her will? >> no. [laughter] serious answerun to a serious question. you cannot hide behind being a trial judge. even trial courts have to act under the constitution. >> really? [laughter] [applause] >> i'm actually not familiar with that doctrine that you just told. although, illyria has a law that is presumably constitutional. that law says olivia must prove fraud by my client, meaning he made a false statement to her in which he did it to procure the marriage. >> not necessarily. omissions can be an act of fraud as well. in your view, are there any omissions that establish fraud? how about failure to mention a one's age ore or that you still live with your mom? [laughter] >> actually, he disclosed all of that. he acted like who he was. he did not go into disguise. he was just sebastian. 100% correct, there could be fraud by concealment of a material matter. what olivia is alleging is that material matter is that she mistook sebastian and thought that he was cesario. my client did not know who cesario was. he could not conceal something he did not know. >> what was he doing in illyria in the first place? their ecm, as we know from henry elysium, as we know, is the domain of gods and heroes. it is a great place. he left it to go to illyria? you admit it is a lot like illinois. [laughter] i just don't get it. can you help me? >> i can't help you. >> ok. [laughter] >> how much time do i have left? [laughter] >> you can still take your time if you want. >> do i just -- let me just say one thing -- to answer your question about concealment, there is no question that the theory might be fraud by concealment, but my client can't possibly conceal something he doesn't know. he could not possibly have explained to olivia this mistaken issue that she had in her mind's eye. could not possibly do that because he did not know anything about it. he thought his sister was dead. he had no way of knowing that by viola had become cesario. olivial of a sudden falls in love with cesario -- he could not possibly straighten out that confusion. >> can you speak to the petitioner's argument about the immigration status as a reason? i'm trying to understand your point about why sebastian would have wanted to marry her. it seems to me -- petitioner says that immigration benefits are the reason. you don't speak to it in your brief. i can think of other reasons, maybe he just wanted access to her fleet of private jets and helicopters. that seems to be all the rage these days. it gets you places faster than you otherwise would. can you speak to that? yes, your honor, i completely agree with you. there are other reasons. men fell in love with her at the drop of a hat. she was charming and wealthy. those are all good reasons to want to marry somebody. way beyond immigration benefits. [laughter] but your client acknowledged his own doubts. this could be some error. and he went along with the wedding anyway. >> so? [laughter] >> it seems to me that this is more than just some error. it's a complete comedy of errors. [laughter] >> actually, respectfully, your honor, that is a little unfair. he clearly knew something weird was going on. this woman came to him broke up that -- came up to him on the street, broke up a fight, asked him to come to her home, and he is getting there trying to figure out what to do but he does not know anything at all about cesario and she says if you will marry me, but there is -- let's do it right now, and he made the decision. there is no fraud in that. you may say you take advantage, but -- >> you have a fallback argument? even if we find fraud to my getting quite catch with an argument -- even if we find fraud, i didn't quite catch what that argument -- >> that's what i'm worried about. >> what's the waiver about? >> i was trying not to go to that argument. [laughter] it's actually a good argument. it's really a good argument. >> your argument is even if we find the fraud, we should still keep the marriage together. is that right? >> because of the waiver. >> even the illyrian olympics do not allow that rule anymore. why should we follow that rule now? if someone is a cheater, you are out of the olympics. it's a new thing, but it is still the rule in illyria. >> reading the case lock you have written here, which i am sworn to follow as a lawyer, if you discover you have been cheated and defrauded, you have to immediately abandon the transaction immediately. what happened here is that when olivia found out about this entire fraud, and that she was mistaken, what did she do? she didn't abandon the marriage whatsoever. she wanted to make sure that the sister, viola, could join her in the ranks of royalty. because she had married sebastian. sebastian and she are now part of the royalty of the nation. but she wanted the sister, who would be a nobody unless she became part of the royalty -- she wanted the sister to marry the duke of illyria so that all four of them could be part of royalty. >> that is just way too complicated. why can't you acknowledge that olivia married the wrong person? so what? isn't that the most harmless error? did you know that the most popular "new york times" article was "why you will marry the wrong person"? >> i did not know that, your honor, but it makes sense to me. the statute prevents you from doing -- >> that argument might work in chicago, but this is illyria. [laughter] >> which argument are you talking about? >> actually, all of your arguments. [laughter] >> fair enough. >> it hadn't occurred to me that she is royalty. are they absolutely in control? can they do something to us if we rule against her? i'm sorry, your time is up. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to answer mr. webb's hypothetical question and point you to the question he didn't answer and then sum up. mr. webb concedes that sebastian in his words clearly knew something weird was going on. but he didn't know who cesario was. he says how could his client have straighten this out? here's how, dan. ma'am, i am not cesario. [laughter] that is how he straightens it out. that leads to the question that mr. webb did not answer. the quote that i read to you at the beginning of the argument. when olivia, right before the marriage, says to him, plight me the full assurance of your faith that my most jealous and ever doubtful soul will live at peace. he says, having sworn truth, i ever shall be true. now mr. webb says truth telling is really important. i was telling the truth. polonius, who is like the sg of denmark, says to thine own self be true. but the next part of his quote is the kicker -- anst be false to any man. well, sebastian wasn't false to any man. he was false to a woman. boom. [laughter] [applause] now, sebastian's counsel also spoke of a waiver. we hold that claim in equally ill favor. sebastian says, but look, olivia called viola sister. well, yeah, she thought sebastian was her mister. remember that while this whole scene played out, malvolio was mad, unshaven, tortured by the plot maria cooked up. in the orchard. p is that iambic entameter? >> yes. [applause] >> say olivia somehow waived her grievance. we find that claim unworthy of believance. [laughter] amid all this, sebastian did deceive her. we ask that you judicious few believe her. [laughter] [applause] and last, before i take my seat, i ought to give great thanks to my wing man, sean marotta. [applause] >> all rise, the honorable bench will now deliberate. please be seated. while the honorable bench deliberates, you the jury will also cast your vote. there will be tokens that you have. the question is should sebastian and olivia's marriage be annulled. if you believe it should be, use the blue token. if you believe it should be binding, use the red. the question again is should the marriage be annulled. blue if it should be, read if it -- red if it should be binding. vote just once. [laughter] [crowd noise] >> please welcome back abbe lowell for tonight's discussion. [applause] >> while we wait for two chairs to come, this is the great part where i get to fill while we let the judges deliberate. perfect. and as to the voting, even though dan is here, this is not illinois rules. you only vote once. [laughter] really it is my great, great pleasure again, and i'm thrilled to have david stacy here. [applause] david is the government director of the human rights campaign. the leeds efficacy of the agencies of the federal government and has an extensive federal career and legislative career. let's start. what do we know about same-sex couples living as common-law spouses in the elizabethan perio d? >> one of the things we know is that people did not identify around sexual orientation. it is a really modern concept. but we do know is they did live together and clearly had sexual relations of, clearly had long-lasting commitments in elizabethan time. especially in the theater. >> and in the theater, speaking of the theater, thinking about night" isy, "12th being performed in elizabethan times and now. you had only men actors, portraying the roles of men and women, where in this play one of the actors playing a woman then turns back to be playing a man. what does that additional layer of cross-dressing add to the already blurred lines? how does that apply across what you looked at across the history of theater? >> other than a lot of fusion, really, in elizabethan england, women could not be on the stage. they really have no choice. one of the things it shows is it provided a forum to be able to express feelings, ideas, identities that they could not express in their daily lives. i think the confusion that that creates, the questions that creates, challenges to the status quo that that creates was something that skilled playwrights like shakespeare were able to take advantage of. >> that is true even now, right? we explore the contours of relationships sometimes first on the stage and then it works its way back into the rest of society, and you found out that that was true in elizabethan time as well. shows see it every day in with gay and lesbian people like "will and grace." and shows like "transparent" and "orange is the new black." cutting edge is the theater and performance, and then society begins to have a different understanding of what is possible and what can happen. >> we go from the year 1600 to the year 2017. bring us up-to-date. what is the status after the supreme court's rulings today? the supreme court of the united states as well as the supreme court of illyria -- into the new situation of law. everybody thought the issues were solved and resolved and the law of the land was. protected group of having a sexual preference in terms of relationships. is that right, where are we today? >> i think we are halfway through. it was only 2003 that the supreme court outlawed sodomy prohibitions. we have a little more than a decade where we have gone from that to same-sex marriage. in every state in the country, every territory in the united states, you can get married if you are gay or lesbian. but at the same time, we don't have employment protections. only about half of the states have employment protection. we have challenges to that, like the recent case that the supreme court heard about the baker in colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. so we are halfway through this development. the law has caught up in some places, reflects peoples realize, provides real protections, but even just today the supreme court refused to hear the evans case on sexual orientation and whether the 11th circuit sexual discrimination protects people on the basis of sexual orientation or not. and -- a circuit split we are seeing a circuit split, and the court chose not to see that case. >> in the united states and around the world today, in the been13 years, there have what the law says and what people do. i want to go back with you again based on the research you are so happy to do for us. what do we know about the societies going backwards and looking, if you will, away, more than neutral when it came to relationships among same-sex all the way back starting with the elizabethan period. >> the catholic church has long had prohibition against same-sex activity. henry viii outlawed homosexuality and it was punishable by death. we certainly have examples of that happening and even worse examples outside of england where the catholic church was still in charge of torturous depths -- deaths. burning at the stake, etc. at the same time, you see people living their lives in a different way. there were certainly people who lived together. people like christopher marlowe, the poet, who was well thought to have same-sex partners, same-sex lovers, and so that is something you saw happening quietly in many cases. people did it under the radar. there are lots of stories about women who chose to live as men in order to be able to earn a living, to express their gender identity in a way that was more comfortable, be able to have greater opportunity then women in society. >> and you mentioned earlier, i want to come back to the concept, then as well is even close to now, has it been in your looking back that the acceptance or the turning the other way or having the law that says one thing, but the practice that says others, was basically something in which theater was carved out? >> there was a greater degree of tolerance for sure. authorities thought, oh, that is the theater, so they look the other way. theater people are a little strange, but it is ok. there was a greater space that the theater carved out in a way that was different and was putting a mirror to society, but also than warping the picture. people were more able to easily accept that. >> image and the supreme court's decision today to not take the case. -- you mentioned to the supreme court's decisions they cannot take the case. what is on the way up in terms of issues about marriage or relationships or the other issues -- what is coming up that we will pay attention to this term or in the lower courts? >> this term is the masterpiece cake, the colorado case, and we will see a decision sometime before the end of june. it is whether the public accommodations law that is law in colorado will apply in the case of this providing a cake. is it artistic expression or is it you are open for business and you provide a service to the public and you cannot take a group of people protected under law and not provide them service because you are open to the public. in the case of race, where it was a race-based case. the owner of piggy park did not want to serve the mixed-race group and refuse to serve them. they won that case. public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who comes in the door without discriminating on one on the prohibited bases. we hope that case will come down in a positive way, that the baker should have provided the cake. we will also see the cases around nondiscrimination on whether sexual discrimination identity are forms of discrimination under the discrimination law. civil rights act, fair housing act, etc. >> last question. will you as the case works its way up to the supreme court surprised as some were about the tactic to try to rebut the court's decision as to what is allowed as a protected right with trying to find another constitutional right? free speech, the creativity of cake making? >> i was a little surprised, but not so surprised because they really talking -- tacking from directly challenging lgbq rights. there were protesters on both sides. it is such a robust endorsement of artistic expression from the far right was startling. [laughter] i have heard that the supreme court of illyria has reached its decision, as you have reached yours. please join me in thanking david for not just being here but helping us to know about something we didn't know about. [applause] [gavel] >> all rise. [laughter] >> my umbrella. >> please be seated. >> well, we are prepared to announce our judgment. although there was a chief justice of the supreme court who was able to persuade his colleagues to just let him talk by himself and not have additional comments, i am totally unable to do that with respect to this unruly group. [laughter] i will announce mine and then in seniority order, we will continue to do that and then i will explain what the consequences are. [laughter] so, two weeks ago we saw on this very stage a virtual-reality videotape. in that videotape, we saw -- now, perhaps it was for budgetary reasons -- the priest who performed the wedding ceremony was actually feste the fool. and as it turns out, any fool cannot marry someone in illyria. there is no marriage, and therefore no harm and no injury and therefore no standing. therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this case. [laughter] >> yes, well, i disagree vehemently with this. because i think we don't have jurisdiction, but for completely different reasons. [laughter] so, we have heard two excellent arguments tonight. although they sound in fraud -- that is the way that lawyers atched their case tonight, its core, this is a question about marriage. and who are we to judge the love or lack thereof between olivia and sebastian? in a completely different case, william shakespeare declared marriage is a matter of more worth than to be dealt in by attorneyship. [laughter] >> justice griffin. >> i, too, agree there is no jurisdiction. [laughter] >> this truly is the d c circuit. [laughter] >> i want to follow-up on something my colleague said. you may not have recognized this, but the argument that he gave finding no jurisdiction is one with which i agree. i have another reason for not having jurisdiction, but i agree with his as well, because what he identified as this is a political question. i think everything is a political question. [laughter] i was right, and the supreme court was wrong. 8-1 -- i am still upset about it. [laughter] anyway, there is another reason that is more fundamental as to why we don't have jurisdiction. the wedding ceremony was --formed with such haste check the record on this -- that the couple never cut the wedding .ake this was just overlooked in the arguments. i never -- they never cut the wedding cake. i believe we must hold this case until we know whether a wedding cake is fundamental to the rights of marriage. [laughter] and on until we resolve that issue can we take up this. no jurisdiction. , i don't know how to follow that. [laughter] counsel for olivia's brief livia wasut that o kind of like a woman whose name escapes me who was courted by jerry maguire in the movie, that famous philosopher, who was raptured by his speech and the whole "you had me at hello" thing. but i think that really, the key phrase from "jerry maguire" that applies to this case is "show me the money." [laughter] after all, follow the money, that is where you always get the answers, and so he married her for the money. we annul this thing. >> justice jackson? >> well, i'm a district court judge, so i don't know anything my jurisdiction. [laughter] >> so just to summarize -- [laughter] [applause] 3 votes for no jurisdiction, which means they have to remain married. one for annulment. you guys are stuck with each other. [laughter] out?id the jury come no one knows. well -- , >> and now we deliver the jury's verdict. [laughter] oh, i have -- this has been the mock trial we have done since the 1990's, two decades. but this is the moment i've been waiting for. [laughter] if you remember, for all of you in the jury, red tokens represent no, the marriage remains binding. the blue tokens are yes, the marriage should be anniled. -- annuled. [laughter] [applause] >> announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern, new york city mayor bill de blasio. >> i will tell you something very simple -- a progressive democratic candidate with a ,lear, strong economic message with a populist approach, who will go to the grassroots, that is a republican's worst nightmare. announcer: wednesday night, a debate on hate speech in philadelphia. >> it is important for the students to learn how to defend her ideas and criticize people and so forth. a really important part of what the university teaches is civility. it is not just to be -- you can defend your ideas, defend it in a way that doesn't make people angry. when people get angry at each other they become unable to have the kind of debate we value. announcer: thursday at 8:00 p.m. .astern, celebrity activists >> they sit their babies in front of the television and i have seen it over and over again across this country. and the child quietly goes to sleep inside their mind. announcer: friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, tech sector trends and -- >> think of it as the starship enterprise goal. if you have ever watched "star an ambiente's computer that understands your idioms come it knows everything. honest to god, they all want to watch it. this is all they are gunning for. announcer: all this week in prime time on c-span. hi, i'm a producer. this year we visited 24 cities. history and literary life of different communities. right now we're going to show you several programs from kansas city, missouri. it was settled in the 1850's as a spot where the kansas and missouri rivers meet. city is --ly, kansas people spread across us 318 square miles for a density of about 1400 and 60 per square mile which is pretty sparse when you get down to it. we're roughly 29%, 30% african-american, 11% latino, 5% various mixes of immigrants and various cultures. the rest, caucasian. kansas city has a variety of neighborhoods. it has an extremely sophisticated purpose and culture. things people may not expect. we have tremendous sports teams, we had great art. it is a place a variety and it is a place of music and barbecue. one thing i can tell you as a mayor is that all cities have similar problems. we have issues that we have to deal with with crime, just like everybody else. too many guns on the street, too much gun violence. too many homicides. one thing we know is that seldom the have phd's shooting each other on street corners. you have people who are undereducated and have fewer options that feel hopeless and when you feel hopeless, you feel angry. and when you feel angry, you lash out. and if you happen to have easy access to guns, oftentimes that is with a gun. the things that i remember and to things that hold me close to kansas city are the times in high school when i was growing up