conservative religious lead tore the national press club for a discussion about the upcoming supreme court cases and their positions on the cases. this is about an hour and ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> i want to start right on time. we're grateful for the folks at c-span coming in and filming the discussion today so we want to be conscious of their presence. i appreciate the audience of c-span. my name is rick scarborough. myself, along with several others who are here most especially matt st. stavor are the originators of the marriage pledge. there are copies available for everybody. they were stacked outside. defend marriage.org where you can both read the pledge, see the key signers we now have as of yesterday morning over 6,000 who signed the pledge. we have been adding several hundred a day of late and all of that will be discussed in the course of the presentations today. we had two esteemed members of the press coverage who could not be here because of the -- one case being out of the country. they've both submitted a printed copy of -- of their position, one is harry jackson in the d.c. area. another by rabbi spare row, president of the caucus for america. we'll pass that around as well. [inaudible conversations] >> led me say that again in the microphone for those watching. we're passing owl two handouts, one by bishop harry jackson who is in europe. a tremendous black american leader. pastor of a local church in the d.c. area, and a champion for the cause of christ and then also there's a handout going around by rabbi sparrow, a a rabbi out of new york city. he is president of the american caucus and you'll be able to see his remarks as well. as i mentioned earlier my name is rich scarborough, our first presenter will be dr. james dobson. we'll show a video to frame the debate and then i'll be the thirst visible presenter. nods nod conversation >> i'm james dobson and i appreciate your attending the press conference. i'm unable to be there myself today but my colleagues have asked me to address you briefly by way of this video. collectively we want to express some profound concerns and beliefs about the decision the supreme court will soon render regarding the definition or re-definition of marriage. the institution of the family is one of the creator's most marvelous and enduring gifts to human kind. it's been honored in law and custom for more than 5,000 years, and every civilization in history has been built upon it. it's been the bedrock of culture in asia africa, europe, north america, south america, australia, and even antarctica. admittedly there have been periods in history where homosexuality has flourished including the biblical cities of sod dom and go morrah in ancients greece and during the roman empire. none offers these civilizations survived. only in the last few years has what has been called gay marriage been given equal status with biblical male-female unions. in fact to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. america appears to be on the verge now of being the number 19. god help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history. to put it succinctly, the institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social order. everything of value sits on that base. institutions governments prosperity, religious liberty and the welfare of children all depend on its stability. when it is weakened they're undermined. the entire superstructure can begin to wobble. and that is exactly what has happened during the last 45 years. the american people didn't demand the sea change that is occurring. in fact the populations in 31 states voted one at a time on the definition of marriage and every one of them affirmed it as being exclusively between one man and one woman. those proclamations were ensconced in their state constitutions. now, however, many of those popular elections are being overridden by imperious federal judges who are changing the course of history. in mid-2013 only 13 states had legalized same-sex marriage. now two years later, there are 37. and the supreme court seems poised to make it 50. whatever happened to abraham abraham lincoln's propronounced in the gettysburg address that ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. we make the decisions for ourselves. it's rapidly being replaced now by a government of the court,s by the courts and for the courts. let me get to the bottom line. if the u.s. supreme court re-defines marriage to include same-sex marriage we all know you and i all know that this will not be the end of the matter. and avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that we can't even imagine today. we believe or should i say i believe, that religious liberty will assaulted from every side. indeed that is has already happened. pastors, may have to officiate at same-sex marriages. and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of scripture. those who refuse to comply will likely be threatened legally and as the years go by, some will be subjected to prison sentences. christians who operate businesses will be required to dance to the government's tune. we've all seen examples of photographers and bake x-rays -- bakeries and pizza parlors being required to serve at gay weddings, whether they want to or not whether they have conviction about it or not, and they have to on penalty of closure oar bankruptcy. christian may be unable to scripture views of marriage accredit didding bodies will tell them, it's the law of the land or so say some judges. i'm most concerned about what the courts will require of parents and their children. a few weeks ago, president obama actually asked the legislators to prohibit parents from seeking professional therapy from state licensed counselors who would help their children deal with sexual identity crises. what business does this man have in telling parents how to help their confused and disoriented kids especially those who may have been abused sexually. this is outrageous. in some states, counselors have already lost their licenses for trying to help troubled children in this way. now, these and other concerns that i could list -- my time is gone -- are why we have called this press conference. the u.s. constitution does not grant the judiciary the authority to interfere with religious liberties, with parental rights and with the institutions of marriage and the family. here we stand. and we will not go where the u.s. courts seek to take us. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, dr. dobson. to all the see steamed members of the press that are here we're grateful for your taking time to cover something that is vitally important to us. we have already made you aware of the web site, defendmore than.org, the handout with the pledge on it. i'd like to make you aware that we have now had somewhere over 6,000 sign that pledge. i have brought with me just for the sake of argument or example that it is no small number of people. that's single spaced over 100 pages of signatures that we would like to draw your attention to. we believe that in time it will grow into the hours thousands if not perhaps a million or more people in this country, who will take the position that we have taken. we understand that america is a land of free thought, but in any remarks i want too address the religious aspect of this whole debate. i have made copies for those would like a copy. i will just pass these around. i want to read my remarks -- by the way, at the end of the formal presentations we'll open up a time of q & a. i want to begin by saying i'm not here to offend or hurt homosexuals. i believe the vast major it of homosexuals in this country like the vast majority of the rest of us they've want to left alone to live their life accountable to the choices they make. but for three decades there's been a concerted effort to norm normalize same-sex marriage in america, driven by propaganda campaign and promote bid activists in the homosexual community, aided and abelt bid activist judges judges who make rather than interpret that law being business bull yesterday by threats of boycott or financial loss liberty academia, liberal members of the press and sadly members of the clergy in america who have changed biblical truth for heresy in their quest for cultural relevance. now that the supreme court of the united states us about to deliberate a matter that has been settled in heaven and affirmed in both god's holy scripture and god's created order in 26 states federal judges overturned the vote of citizens who said, no, to same-sex marriage in landslides victories. in eight more states the legislators passed laws allowing same-sex marriage without allowing allowing the citizens to vote and only three states have the citizens of the state voted for same-sex marriage. we witnessed an attack on god in the voracity of his word unparalleled in american history. judges legislators and citizens who voted for same-sex marriage e haven't said in effect god and his word are incorrect or marriage. perhaps unknowingly have the cheese ton deny god's word and observable nature and created an illusion that most 0 americans approve of that which god forbids. i'm not surprised that some recent polls have shown the majority of americans now say they approve of same-sex marriage. we have heard a steady drum beet for the past decade of a one-sided national discussion on the subject. but there was also time when the majority of americans in this country are -- of separate restrooms and separate classrooms for black american citizens. the majority often gets its wrong. and who wants to be labeled a bigot for declaring what their heart believes about sod my and alternative lifestyles. marriage can no more clue same-sex couples than a rock can fall up. the court can no more redefine marriage than it can redefine gravity. neither is in the courts legitimate jurisdiction. today i declare before heaven i will not deny god nor his word to curry any man's favor. with great caution should anyone indulge the notion that one can change what god has said. we must remember who first conceived of marriage, to deny the creative order is to attack god's very nature. his word is unequivocal. so god credited human beings in his own image, in the image of god he created the male, man female woman he created them. therefore, man shall leave his father a man and his mother a woman, and shall become united and cleave to his wife, a woman, and they shall be one flesh. those passages are found in genesis 127 and genesis 224. marriage will always remain the union of a man and a woman for three reasons. rope number one. god ordained marriage as a union between a man and woman. matthew 19:46 reads haven't you read jesus christ replayed? after the beginning the create user made them male and female. and said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and so be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. so they're knocker two but one. therefore, what god has joined together, let no man separate. number two the created order verifies what god's word says. the male and female are designed to be joined together and partner with god in the creation of another human being. number three. the union of man and woman reveals a spiritual lesson. jesus is presented in the new testament as the bridegroom whys patiently waiting the marriage sun per s supper. marriage is a picture of the promise. it's said this way for this reason man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife and toe the two shall become one flesh. this mystery is very great but i speak concerning the relation of christ and his church. attempts to redefine marriages are the rejection of god and the bible. the genius of america and religious freedom is, you don't have to accept or believe any of what i have just said. you can choose to embrace that god designed men and women and that marriage illustrates spiritual truths or you can reject all of that and make your own alternative truth but you cannot change what god has spoken and verified in nature. many have tried in history documents their folly. in the past stating such position was known as practicing religious freedom. and freedom of speech, both constitutionally protected rights. rights which of necessity will be sacrificed if the court approves same-sex marriage. to the members of the supreme court i say there are tens of thousands of people of faith in fact hundreds of thousands, if not millions, whose faith and conscious will not allow them to respect any decision that fundamentally rejects their god, his word in the natural order. if a majority of the court redefines marriage, thousands of christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has any jurisdiction over their lives. in the spirit of dr. martin luther king we will view any attempt to enforce such a ruling as unjust, and our duty to the constitution, more importantly our duty tower god, will force to us disrespect it. well will obey god rather than man. our next presenter is an esteemed leal authority in this authority -- legal authority in this country matt stavor is founder and chairman of liberty council. the former head of liberty law school in lynchburg, virginia. he hayes argued to cases before the supreme court and presented briefs in more than 35. matt you come. >> thank you rick. just for those of that will come after me, i'll ask you to spell your names so that -- for the media, my name is mat staver. i'm founder and chairman of liberty council which is an international nonprofit litigation outside indication and policy organization. we have offices in florida here in washington, dc, in virginia in california, hundreds of affiliates around the country and we also have a major presence in israel. we are here because of the impending supreme court decision. this week i released an aural i wrote in the stream, and you can reads it at stream.org. stream was recently founded by james robison an international ministry and is the founder of the stream which is an online media publication,' and not article i began talking about that in 2009, to manhattan declaration was signed instituted by and inspired by the late chuck colson and co-drafted by professors robby and timothy george. and in that particular manhattan declaration, it ends with these words, i and i quote: we will fully and nongrudge leg render to cease sir what is caesar busy but under no circumstances will we render to caesar what is gods. now the future is here with the impending decision at the united states supreme court. as a result of what is about to take place before the high court and with the decision expected by the end of june deacon keying for near, a christian catholic and me, an evangelical christian, began to co-draft this document that is called the marriage pledge. and we have circulated that among different leaders. manhattan declaration has over half a million signers. this one hear has just been posted online and every day hundreds and hundreds more are signing this. but we brought leaders together first. we have leaders from a wide perspective of catholics. evangelicals. various protestant dedominations. orthodox christians, jews leaders from all around this done trip oftive from various palestine that don't agree on certain theological issues but they're unified in this one area and that is marriage is the union on a man and woman and on our watch we will not idly allow that to be doon constructed because whenever it happens we by experience and history have known that the government uses the police power to collide with religious freedom. that is what happened in our country, happened around the worlds, and it's what will happen if we cross this line. so, these leaders, as diverse as franklin graham and other orthodox pastors which clergies and priests jewish leaders have comp together, unified around this one issue, and that pledge is that defend marriage.org, that we also have a copy here to pass out. i want to just touch on a couple of thing tuesday the pledge. one thing we're unified in is this. we affirm that marriage and the family has been indescribed by the divine a into the natural created order that marriage predates every civil government. wasn't created by a legislative act. nor by a referendum of the people. it predates every civil government and civil governments throughout history have affirm he would what is obvious and part of the natural created order. marriage is a union of a man and woman. wasn't confined to any particular religion. not created by religion. not a religious belief. religion affirms that which is part of the natural created order just as civil government affirms that which is part of the natural create orders as much as it affairs gravity. you may not like gravity,out may prefer it to be able to fly if you can jump often a building or cliff. this fact is gravity is what gravity is and you can resist it but it's there. it's part of the natural created order. the fact that there is part of our natural created order, humans, male and female, coming together for not only unity but procreation and having the best initial sell, the unit on which the rest of society is built to raise children and to produce those as productive citizens that is the central structure of or humanity that transcends time generations, and geography. it's not created by any civilization. it is part of our natural created order. and as such we come to a letter from dr. martin luther king, jr. when he wrote letter from the birmingham jail. dr. king was asked a question i why do you respect some laws and other laws you don't respect. he wrote in that famous letter that there are two kinds of laws. there are just laws and just laws are laws in which the earthly law is in conformity to a higher law principle, and there's unjust lays and those are earth live laws that directly collide with higher law. laws that are just you have the obligation to obey those. laws that are unjust you have the duty to disobey those because he says i agree with st. augustine and other millenia of human history and the teach offerings the children church and -- christian church and scriptures that an unjust law is no law at all and cannot be given respect as a law there are certain small areas of life in which we encounter an uplaw. an unjust law is not law that collides with denominational doctrines or particular whims of society but it's michigan that collides with the natural created order or what we call natural law. and when we find one law like that, it really is no law at all. it is something thatting this collision with the higher law prim. neither the united states supreme court nor any civil government has the right or the authority to change the natural created order. now, as we have seen in our united states supreme court a couple of different principles. number one, the court has candidly stated that the only authority that it has is in the confidence of the people in 1992, justice justice san day day dave wrote in planned parent idaho verse casey decision, as one junks she gave for upholding roe v. wade, and that's this self-preservation of the supreme court is at stake because unlike the executive, which has the figurative power of the sword and unlike the the legislature that has the figurative power of the fours pass laws things judiciary has almost no authority to even enforce its own laws. its has to rely upon the other branches of government to do. so so the authority of the court rests not in the fact it has the power of the figurative sword or the power of the figurative purse but in the confidence of the people, and if they lose cost the people they lose their authority, and therefore she said we took such a drastic shift in 1973 on abortion, if we now say we were wrong the people will wonder, what are you doing? how can we trust you to make these major social shifts? and if we can't trust you we then do not accord your decisions the weight they ought to give a decision. and therefore she says as a means of self-preservation even if roe v. wade is wrong we can't deviate because we will lose the trust of the people and lose our own authority. that's a candid assessment but it's an accurate assessment by sandra day o'connor. the only authority this court or any court has is the fact that the people trust that it is doing its job consistent with the rule of law and interpreting the constitution, the text and being adhering to the documents they are intending to interpret. not that they're ideological individuals trying to push social engineering on to sow site based on their own personal beliefs. now, the supreme court is not always been right and in about 230 cases it's overruled itself, said its prefer decisions were wrong. let me look at two decisions that no one today will debate in the 1800s the supreme court justice tany a racist bigoted judge of the supreme court, collided with lincoln over the issue of slavery, and dread scott asked for his right sayses a citizen as a black american. he was denice those rights. and when the case went to this racist jurorrist justice taney said there's no justice for you at this high court because we believe that quote, blacks are inferior human beings, close. company how bigoted and raysy and wrong was that decision nos. one today will defend it. it's not the rule of law now. it's repudiatessed in everybodies are mind today and it was not the rule of law the moment that the justice pends pen end that digs. a second digs, buck verse bell outer of the commonwealth of virginia carriy buck was a victim of the eugenics movements taking place in the country. three previous generations of her family had low iqs and so the commonwealth of virginia took carriy buck into a facility and forcibly sterilized her. she south justice and she got -- no justice for you here at this high court carey because quote, three generations of imbess sells are enough. closed quote. because she had low iq in her generation, it was okay for the commonwealth of virginia to forcibly remove the undesirables among them. well, unfortunately that decision then spread like wildfire across the country and the eugenics laws took place all over the yacht and it was picked up by a man named adolph hitler and became the platform for his mom. and during the neuralburg trial when this nazis were put on trial, what case did they cite? you're doing the same thing in america. it's called bucks verse bell. how shameful that history is nos. one today no one, will justify that decision as consistent with the rule of law. and if it was not the rule are law in everyone's mind now if you were ask them and if wasn't the rule of law then. ... we cannot and we will not give it the respect of the rule of law. that goes too far. that is a line that we cannot cross. not because we want to controversy but the last thing we want to do is fight over this issue. we did not pick this. we know from history and experience once a government seeks to redefine the natural creative order of marriage the first is we are lillibridgeous freedom. this is the zero something game and an issue of religious freedom under attack. if the chick-fil-a founder says, i believe in marriage as a union as a man or woman. mayor of d.c. and district of columbia you cannot have that here in the city or district. they are getting kicked off of the college campuses for the found near plaintiffs in the marriage of a man or a woman. and for example, if a photographer says i don't discriminate against somebody because they are day or lesbian. i photograph all kinds of client and people. i can't photograph an event anymore than i don't discriminate against people that are caucasian. but if they put on hoods and start to burn crosses, i cannot photograph that event either. she has been told no. if you don't photograph the event of same-sex marriage there is no participation or promote it. you cannot do photography. and arleen's flowers and florists out west. 70-year-old lady friends with her clients for 9 years. baked them. did not diskrm nature against him because is he day. but one day he comes and says i want for to you cater my wedding with another man and she says i am sorry. that is contrary to my religious beliefs. and there is another florist down the street to do a good job for you. would you think that the nine-year relationship would he develop into respect and the person would say understand your conviction. i will go down there. and thank you very much. continuing to patronize that particular florist. new york the civil complaint would be filed and the attorney general has come after her to bankrupt her personally. and financially with her business as well. this is a zero something game. and the reason why we cannot comply is because we know that it will collide we are lillibridgeous freedom. there are certain things that we cannot and therefore will not render to the state when they collide directly and unequivocal with what god requires of each and every one of us. we stand united together and in this unity. i want to read the last sentence of this pledge. we stand united together and in defense of marriage. make no mistake about our resolve. while there are many things to endure redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural and creative order and the common good that this is the line that we have to draw and one that question we cannot and will not cross. i want to bring up keith and jan. and ew jackson. fournier. founder of common good foundation and common good alliance much and the catholic cherjy men. i am on the path to theology in the church it is mayon to to be apart this pledge. in fact pastor rick. i do not know if dropping it was intentional it. is good optics. i am standing with thousands. in fact with millions and standing in a 2000-year history of the christian church and reaching beyond that going all the way back to the beginning of creation itself. in defending marriage. to use the philosophical term. between one man and one woman intended for life. and open to life. and informative of family. and family is the first society but the school. the first church. the first government it's the first economy. the first mediating association. the entire social order is built on the family. i stand fully within the tradition of my church and in fact the classical christian tradition in saying that this is not just a religious position that i am spouzing but the written natural moral law as pointed out a law that was written on the human heart and could be known through the he can size of reason. and we know it. cross culturally. and across civilization. yet we do stand at a point in our history. where nine black robe justices made decide that the natural and moral law no longer has a standing in the juris prude ends of the united states. once again as matt pointed out. they have been wrong before. they would be wrong now. if they did such a thing. i would only add to buck verses bell. the infamous decision of "roe vs wade" with 60 million youngest neighbors now not with us. i am honored to be apart this pledge and to stay with the other christians other jews and people of faith and people of good will and making clear we will stand for marriage. we will do all that we can to make sure that the marriage will continue as what it is. i was add one thing said so far. there is in fact a 2000 year history. i stan in these names and the shoulders of giants and this is not the first time in history that we have entered into occult you are that has rejected moral law. turn against god. what do we dos have christians. we do what christians do. we infuse like levin in a loaf. the truth, the elevates all humanity. no matter what their religious belief so should the court make the wrong decision? not only adjust law. but it will be one that we cannot obey just as the early apostles cannot stop preaching. what will it mean? i don't know this. i don't know this. god will triumph and truth will triumph. and in gratitude to my evangelical protestant friends and catholic friends and orthodox christian friends, and jewish friends for having the courage to stand together. you know, there is a silver lining in this cloud. this dark cloud. we are being brought together. not just to protect ourselves. this is not about protecting ourselves, but we love this nation. not only am i a member of the clergy. next year i would have been married 40 years and have i five grown children. i have the privilege of baptizing my 7th grandchild. i want the american experiment in order for liberty to continue and it was rooted by our founders in the cyst ago christian tradition. recognition that comes from the creator. endowed and cannot be taken away. by a civil government be that judiciary. and legislative branch or executive. thank you very much. >> hello everyone. my name is janet boines. i have a ministry to help men and women lead alive of homosexuality. i am based in minneapolis and now i live in texas. i also enjoy helping churches to have a better understanding how we work with those that are in our churches that struggle. i believe in compassion without compromise. we are going to have compassion. we are not going to compromise the gospel. i think that far better than anyone that has lived the life of homosexuality have an understanding of why the day community do not want someone like myself around. we have the opportunity to debunk everything they are saying why don't you see me on today, msnbc or good morning america? they have all of the days and lesbians on the show. if i come on the show i will tear down their belief system that is our goal to the debunk everything that they are saying. to be true i know whether it is a lie. we have tragically watched our nation cave in to homosexuality and propaganda. more and more people are falling for a lie that homosexuals are born that way. we know that is a lie anyway. homosexuals have made in roads into hollywood, and television. our children public schools, universities. the government. president of the united states and now our churches. homosexual marriage is growing in america. reality, which is currently being litigated in our nation's supreme court as a potential federal civil right. we know this is not a civil rights issue. the color of my skin is an unchangable characteristic. i can't change from black to black. i did live a homosexual life for 14 years. have i been out 17. we know change is possible through the power of jesus christ. if same-sex marriage becomes law of the land no one can even imagine or predict ramification that's the decision will have. i know from the personal experience that homosexuality is a false identity that is rooted in sexual or emotional brokenness and same-sex marriage is a rejection of god's design for how to raise our children. when we reject reality. we harm our children. and see i grew up in the family of seven kids and four different fathers. i understand what it is like to have not a dad because of all of those four fathers. none of them were around. every child deserves and wants a father and a mother. this is critically important to their sexual development. in the 14 years that i lived as a lesbian i saw firsthand that there is no subs tuition for the role of a father and mother that they play in a child's life. and each parent offers a unique contribution to the health and the well-being of our children. i know this to be true because when i was in a homosexual life with a woman with two children i tried to fulfill the role of a daddy. at that time i realized i was not equipped or capable of being a father to these girls. more and more children family members and friends. those who were never predisposed to the homosexuals before are now experimenting sexually or and trying out homosexuality and becoming hooked. those that seek help to lead the life of homosexuality will soon discover there is no longer any help out there. homosexual activists and attorneys are pushing to ban any type of ministries such azerbaijan eight boines ministries which helps people to exit homosexuality. their goal is to indoctrinate our kids. and to silence us, the greatest fear is that men and women like myself who have walked away from that life. soon it may become illegal to even have this kind of ministry. who knows how much longer we will have to do what we are doing today unless we act now. we must be bold and allow ourselves. we must be bold and not allow ourselves to be forced out. we cannot lay down our religious freedom. you won't believe the inaugural speech. you may not have vote for? but i will be your president. really mr. president? you have allowed days and lesbians into the white house. you have sat down with them. you vl had din we are them. you heard their voices. not once have you allowed those of us that walks out of alive of homosexuality to come into the oval office and the white house to hear our stories. i challenge today, to allow us to come and you listen what we have to say. i pray that our courts will uphold traditional marriage so that god will continue to bless this great nation. the united states of america. thank you. first of all. i am honored to be here. and the opportunity. with all of you a stand for marriage as we believe god or daned it. i stand here broken hearted frankly, i never thought that i would see the day when in my beloved count reeshg the united states of america merely holding to a biblical world view would subject to ridicule fines, punishment yet that is where we have come. and we have come not only to reaffirm our commitment to marriage because the union between one man and one woman. we are here to defend the religious liberty of christians and others all over the country that are trying to stand up for what we believe in. it is important that christians did not have marriage an a response for the day rights movement. i believe this long before there was any such thing as a day rights movement. the idea that this is something that is motivated by hatred. who are we with hating before. we believed that marriage of the union between one man and one woman long before there was any such thing as a day rights movement. so you know, it breaks my heart that our country is going into the direction it is going in. and it breaks my heart that no matter how loving we will try to be. and how reasonable we try to be no matter how much we express as one woman did when a day customer came in and demanded that she provide i think a floral arrangement for the day wedding and she put her hands on his hands and said i love you. you have been coming here for years. i can't do that she was his friend. and loved him. but he was asking for her to break her commitment to our lord and savior jesus christ. christians have died for our faith in him. died for commitment for the word of god and the idea that those of us that believe are going to roll over because of social pressure. we know that we follow a long line of heroes of faith who have surrendered everything including the 158 children that just died not too longing a in kenya. kids really that would not deannounce that under threat of beheading. unthread of merchandised. we are not going to back up because people are upset with us. we are not upset with them. we love them. we pray for them. and we will continue to fight the good fight of faith. two quick points i want to make. one is. frankly. i am frustrated by this. this idea that homosexuality is like enand anal guyed by the black civil rights movement. first of all. i will look around the room and some of you i know. i don't know other than than those i know personally. and who is day. who is not. you know who is black in here. and when some be walks up to a hotel and says i need an overnight stay. and you look at the person because of the color of their skin you say no whether somebody goes up to get a drink of water and says you cannot use that water fountain rut wrong color that is different than coming into the store to do business. come on in. i don't care if you are a homosexual or heterosexual you want me to make a floral arrangement. and photographs of your graduation. and family reunion. no problem. don't ask me to do something that violates my faith. that is very different than what people face in the area of segregation. this is not like ended to interracial marriage. there is no biblical basis for denying two people of the same race the right to marry or right to be together. that is concocted to justify the subgas station of people on the basis of the color of their skin to the keep them in their place. you will not find adds i have pointed out to you. a 2000 year history of pro hibition of people the same race getting of different races getting married. and it is to continue to use that analogy. people say i do not want to be like that. i do not want to be a discriminate or. these are two very different situations and i would say this. we are facing and undermining the very foundation of the country because it is founded in truth that we hold truths. to be self evident. jesus. faced upon muches pilot. jesus says i have come to bear witness to the church of all of those who are of the church hear my voice. what is truth. i think that we are sewing the seeds of internal destruction. if there is no overriding moral truths and everything is up for grabs. might makes right and the only thing that determines who is right and who is wrong is force. that is not the condemnation that we have been. we answered to the higher authority. and truth that's nobody could change. and marriage is one of those truth that's cannot be changed. people can talk about redefine tchlth i will always believe there is only one definition of a marriage and no matter how they label a union it will never be a marriage. and it will never be a valid marriage. marriage was or daned by god. and it can only be one thing a union with one man and one woman. you know. truth forever on the scaffold. many long forever on the thrown. the future. and behind god within the shadows. keeping watch over. i do not know what will happen with the stand that we are taking but i think that i can say for every one of us. that we will give our lives and standing for the truth. which will do it with love. compassion and be couragous about it. we will never back down. >> we will bring the people back up here that were spoken. janet, rick and keith if you can come up. and if there is any aw jackson. my name for those is rick scarborough. and those could be found in the vision america.org. and if there are any questions. and things i wanted to point out. and the first thing. is not very much of a question and same-sex marriage says two men and two men are equivalent of mom and dad did he priefz children of ever having an opportunity of an i mother and a father. heather wrote and i think the article is in federalist.or good. she was raised in a home with two moms and is married to a man has children and her heartached when he was in her moms she was not speaking evil against her mom but deprived of a father and was never able to have the tune sxichlt now married and sees her own husband interacting with children she realized exactly what she missed that is what janet was talking about. and what does the are sift ans look like that is a common question. of the line that we will not cross mean? and i think that it will be manifested like the civil rights movement. it may be arose a parks that refused to get off of the a bus or someone that sits at a counter segregated and a white only water fountain. catholic charities that were in the ministry for many decades and moms and a dad. and they were told that you no longer can do that have you to put them in the same-sex couples. and christian beliefs and dock rain of the church that would you cease. i say then and now. number one they should pursue a call to place children with moms and dads whether it is photographer and whatever it may be. and that they should not voluntarily cease. and stand their ground. if the police use the state and the power. the state will choose. we will not voluntarily cease and we will not voluntarily compromise the calling and the commitment this. is align that we cannot and will not cross. so if there are any questions. state your name please. america united for church and state. a bunch of questions. i will stick with one. namely that i keep hearing not just today but it has been increasingly a popular talking point that same-sex marriage is legalize in june that the past yorz will be forced to officiate same-sex wedding and forbid friend the certain topics and will be in jail. and lgbt rights organization. and what basis do you have for it. and legally with respect to same-sex unions. and so let me extrapolate that. they cannot hire white only catholics or back baptists. the church may have arrest room. it cannot say a white only restroom. sorry sir this is white only drinking fountain. bob jones university had a policy they later abandoned. it was a policy they never longer do. and they correct in abandoning the policy. and banded interracial dating. there was no law to ban the interest racial dating and college campuses what it was was a civil rights act to ban discrimination on the basis of race some the irs came to bob jones university and change the policy. and the biblical beliefs and they went to the united states supreme court. they lost that case. therefore they lost their tax exempt status. whether and when it will reach to the point what have a pastor can say. i do not know. bellwether of marriage for the world is denmark, norway and sweden. from those that study family law to europe and the united states of america. nether land. and 1989. and the first time in world history. we know that the pastor in the nether lands was jailed for preach inging pastors in europe have been targeted for preaching on the and we know that for example in canada you cannot have critical and home owe sexuality. denmark. norway and sweden. we are. where europe was in terms of the issues and targeting people. that are faith-based. we now are. i would like to add to that not only as a constitutional clergyman. and case protected somewhat. some of the challenge that's we are facing already firing and hiring the catholic church. and we recognize that every single person human rights including those of self pro fessed day or lesbian. and there is going to be no changing what we have stood for 2000 years concerning marriage. relate now we are dealing with struggles employing those in a reported marriage. men with men and women and women. and we cannot hire them. they are in fact violating the fundamental teaching of the catholic church. there is some protection but there is no question that matters are correct and the police power of the state will follow any ruling that are says that we must give an equal treatment legally to homosexual couples or to couples as we do to marriage and if we do not do so we will suffer the punitive implications. this is not a scare tech tactic. we are witnessing it. i am a clergyman. and i witness and do so as civil authority. registered in virginia and as a cleric. in australia and other nations the church is beginning to look twice. will they be able to do that any longer? we may not be able to do that any longer. we face the genuine spector of the state invading the church. and telling us what we can and cannot preach and what our sackrament are about. we are about to lose our c-span audience. i want to encouraging everybody that has watch this had broadcast first place. thank you c-span and number two to go to defend marriage.org. let us know what you think about this pledge. had you make this a federal law than implications are profound. churches do not only preach they have bookstores. daycare programs and do a series of other things. now. if you start applying the law to these things that they do that you may not consider to be worship or strictly religious, then you will impin not on the church's ability to do what it does. if the standard is that why you are a discriminate or why wouldn't that be an implication. maybe you should stop from the pulpit. and that things are discriminating and that the moment there is a sort of court order. a court case of which an order is given we will not because it is discriminatory. that is a violation of religious liberty and christian convictions. what happens when you violate a court order? there are practical up cages to this that do not require that we go to the point where there is a law that says that a pastor may not preach this particular truth. other questions. yes ma'am. microphone. i am jasmine with the news service. what was your response to the support of day marriage or rights that doesn't automatically mean that you would agree with homosexuality in the support equality and humanity. what was your response going to be to that? i can begin. i am sure that everybody else has a -- along cal statement. reality of it is that is not the agenda of this particular movement. the agenda is not just to make me silent and to have my own particular view point and discuss this among the people of my community. the agenda is to make me participate affirm and to promote it. for example, why was there a big backlash against the founder of chick-fil-a? now what they want to do is for the business out. this large software company that was forced to resign as chairman of the board. because he gave about a thousand dollars contribution or so to the proposition 8 campaign. multiple years before this. this agenda is a very intoll rant agenda that is not content with the silence of those that have object the agenda is. an agenda that wants to you participate and to an affirm. and have you known i am day. and i understand your heart. the agenda is. i want to you participate in my ceremony, and to participate in my kkk rally though they do not discriminate against white people. they want to you participate in a public affirmation of it. that crossing the line is different than "roe vs wade" in the sense of that you could have "roe vs wade" as horrible as it is to have genocide of that massive nature. this is not a decision by the supreme court, where we stand on the sidelines and grown about it and complain about it and have our own view. when it crosses that line it will change the landscape. changes the culture and there is a coercive come point of the state that targets anyone who objects. and in answer to the previous question there was an order nancy that was passed in fayetteville arkansas. and gathered enough to repeal 2014. it was the first order nancy of the country. that actually had the criminal penalties against churches. same-sex and sexual orientation. and the hiring. with the people they go into criminal prosecution. shop shocking. so and that is the issue. in the question a distinction of recognizing equal rights and human rights. and for day persons and lesbian persons and they move on day marriage. that is the shall here. that is an okayy more on between day couples to live together. and it cannot be changed. and caller on. i will say as a catholic. the matter. for the sacrament of marriage there needs to be a man and a woman. who pledge their consent for life. and are open to life. if in fact we are moving to the redefinition of marriage and police power of the state behind it will there be come pulse for priests and daekons in the catholic church. to preside over services. and trends of history, the police power follows the federal decisions. incredibly important that we will recognize the imcages of this and we have a wonderful document by 1990s with the care of homosexual persons. we will not and cannot recognize any such thing as marriage between anyone but a man and a woman. if the state tries to compel us to do so we must and we will resist. denied me the right to would. right to live. work. to have housing. we respect the dignity of every human being. we do not hate anybody. but we believe what is really at work here. something far worse with the would be the heart. and come into line if you want to be acceptable and if you do not want to be a bigot and day rights it sounds great. but my understand something that every american has rights. i am not sure what day rights means. and beat up or harassed. and fine me calling a person that i know to be day a name. and the nature of the behavior. and that is what we are asked to do many of the culture is asked to bow to this. and this is right. and good. and appropriate and it is not. is pregnant with all kinds of political and social ill imcage that's we cannot agree with. the reason we are not here is not to win an argument and not to hurt people. but. this stecht supreme court is the first of the series of the steps to be attended in the two lawyers of articulated how it works. we are here to preach a right of a truth and defend right of all biblical create towers speak to the issue of sin and more importantly for the offer of the vehicle of salvation. so this is a heart matter for us and driven by the foundation of god's holy word. you may reject god's word. you may feel a purpose in my calling. that is quite all right. don't deny a first amendment right to prop gate the gospel and force to you cut off what we believe is the type of answer to change a young lady whose life was tormented by janet boynes offer them the solution of jesus christ that is the foundation that under pins why i am here today and why i will die if have i to for what i do believe. you know, this is really funny that we stand here. and we talk about the day community and marriage. did you know as many support marriage for the days and lifestyles there are many in a day lifestyle that do not support day marriage? i have many that e-mail me or privately, telling me to continue to make a stand. that they do not support it. but if they do voice their opinion they will be black bald. there is many in hollywood, that do not believe in marriage marriage. the designers. they shut it down. the day marriage. agua dulce and ellen and everybody came after them and shot them down and said we will not buy your clothes that is what we are facing. this is what i say to you. we are going to make a stand. we are not going back to slavely. that was many years ago. we have a voice today. we will uphold what we believe is what the lord lad said that marriage is between a man and a woman. i received death threats from the day community. and nasty e-mails. but they are saying i am not a cyst am. i have not targeted them. you can google my name and you will not find one bad thing that i said about the community. why do they continue to come after me? we can debunk their belief system. i believe in the last phase. i believe of that christ will return. and i am not surprised by what is happening out here. and matter of fact i am excited. i believe that we will see jesus soon. so we will continue our walk with christ. we are going to continue to make a stand. and i am bless that had we have all of these folks behind me standing with us. i am an example of the people that can change. i live the lesbian life for 14 years. i have been out 17. i still believe in god for a husband. i have not dismissed that the day that i get married. i will shout that from the mountaintops. i am so excited for now the lord has me single but before i die i know i will be married. and i will be ready to show people that you can have a nice marriage. a successful marriage. now god has healed me from the inside out. changed did not happen overnight. it has been a process. but change is possible. through the power of jesus christ. amen. we are going to close the formal part of you are press conference. none of us are in a hurry to leave. we are glad to entertain that. and i thank you all to come here to cover this important information. god bless you all. that evening our staff is approximately a thousand team members in the hotel and online banquet that is 700 staff on-site and 2200 bank wet servers and 50 managers that serve as human greeters throughout the building and get everybody to where they need to go. and fairly often in the last couple of years. tell us a little bit it them this. is the 111th dinner that he would be serving and he actually began with a 11 years ago. and in the first night working was for the white house correspondent dinner so we broke him in well. and also we have charmy who is our longest serving team member that served 50 years with the hotel. all 47 dinners. you say there is a process of choosing it. what is it this year? the menu is very unique every year. we are looking to source the local ingredients as much as possible 150 mieflz the hotel. honestly. we are really interested in what is going to serve well for 2600 people in the ballroom. knowing the time constraints. and secret service timing and the show typing of the event. and all of that. so this is all about what will hold well. move quickly to the table. what will be fresh and hot when it is in front guess. how early will the kitchen staff start preparing? . >> it will begin to prepare a day or so in advance there. is some. ingredients we are working on a few days in advance. stocks and things like that. the day of. they are on-site. 4:00 am. they are beginning the final preparation process. live coverage of the white house correspondence dinner 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. neck the preview of the tuesday's supreme court oral argument on same-sex marriage. the court will consider whether the 14th amendment will require the states to license marriages between two people of the same-sex and if the license the out of state marriages must be recognized. paul smith argued lawrence verses technology. and texas sodomy law. this is an hour and 20 minutes. welcome every. i would like to welcome to you the briefing of the marriage equality casing. president of the american constitution society. i want to start by thanking general block for hosting us today. the firm had as come to support and promote lgbt the commit ment commitment and not desk for over ten years. if you and congratulations force being a force of justice in the united states. for those of that you are not familiar with the american constitution society, we are a national network of lawyers and law students. judges and policymakers. by shaping the debate and the legal and constitutional questions. it is our mission to ensure dignity, rights. and liberties to enjoy their rightful and central place in american law. many view the fight for equality is one of the generation's most pressing and important civil rights struggles. they have work today bring the reality of inequality to the forefront national dialogue, we will continue the work now with our focus on marriage equality. in the fight for marriage equality, we have seen the remarkable success as a nation. 37 states and the district of columbia now recognizes same-sex marriage in the supreme court is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the remaining bans on same-sex marriage by the end of this term. this of course is the issue that bring us here today. experts we have gathered here have discussed the history of the fight for marriage equality from bowers verses hardwick to lawrence verses texas to the united states verses wins or and finally to hodges which will be argued in the supreme court on tuesday. what are the ways of which the court could decide this monumental case? josh: what will the potential outcomes mean for rights and other could not teksz. here to lead the discussion on these and other important questions is amy howe. aparter in with the gold steep and russell here in dc. she serves as council or co-council and merits and cases in the supreme court. she is also editor of the blog. in award-winning website that is covering the supreme court. and author of the regular column about the court. and of course she is a good friend to acs. so please join me in welcoming amy. [applause] thanks caroline. would i start by introducing the panel of experts, we will spend one hour talking with them. then we try to leave plenty of time. between 25 to 30 minutes for questions. and i will keep the introductions of the panel. it is accomplished and it will give us plenty of time to basque in their accumulated wisdom. professor from the university school of law. and he teaches among other things constitutional law there. in this round of cases he was among the council on behalf of over 200,000 people people's brief. thank you so much for joining us. and this is aparter in here. appellate practice. group. and first a menment. and voting rights. and on the clean air act. and talking pointsmm owe i encouraging you all to check out. the lawyer that set the stage for marriage equality with his victory and 2003. and in texas. so it is great to have you all here today. we will start with paul, we will start by looking back and we will talk about the cases and then we will look forward at what the cases might mean for the future. so we will start with paul. he will take us all the way back to 1972 and baker verses nelson and talk a little bit about that case and how we got from baker verses nelson to the defense of marriage act during the clinton administration. that is along road. the possibility so quickly. and working very hard for a very long time. and one place that if you want to have a starting point is the case and which the court was asked the first time to recognize the constitutional right of the same-sex couple to mayory. and the appeal of saying that this is the time when we were not in the stone age and a menment. there was no extra discrimination. and protection clause. and recognition of a fundamental right to marry. and nobody thought it would be relevant. frankly. and most states in the days criminal lies any sort of same-sex relationship. so this was not a surprising outcome. it was along step-by-step struggle to get from here to there. and it focused not only on the recognition of the relationship and marriage. and simply getting rid of the law that's were a barrier to indeed that of leading out and open lives in the open community. and so the first effort to get rid of those that went to the supreme court. and know. i this that i. rejected by the court. in fairly harsh opinion said that to claim that the constitution protected two men from having engaged in sexual intimacy in the privacy of a home. so the next phase of the movement was to deal with step-by-step and going state by state to try to make the progress eliminating these laws. which is reasonable case that i was in the right to be able to argue. working hard to lay the groundwork. and 2003. with the sodomy problem. that you know. the argument that nonger could be made. you cannot argue and be in jail this much is the case and did this in an important way for marriage equality. and did two useful thing that you cannot argue that discriminal north is justified. and from now on. and not up to the government to did he sigh. and will get to make. and that the other movement. court made is that you will important life-long relationship as everybody el. and they deserve respect. and if you do not believe me. at the same time. and essentially waiting 2003 the other shoe to drop but it was not an easy process either. and with the movement at the point did. go back to the state by state strategy to chip away at the sodomy laws. and that came just a few months after. and quite a remarkable focus on the marriage issue out of the blue. i think foremost people. to move forward on that. the next state of which success was in terms of recognizing the right of same is he couples was not in 2008. somes lying 25 states. and constitutional amendment to prevent marriage equality. and washington and maryland. and supreme court level. and you will start to month of on marriage. iowa. california. that of over turned. prop 8. and to go to the supreme court and challenge the defense of marriage act and not ask for the right to marry so in 2009 we filed the challenge against the act. a law that said. a federal government will treat you as a couple and constitutional arguments were felt to be very strong. and so indeed conservative. they involve the state's rights to be protect the against the federal and interferance. and and in that case. a while to get to filing 2009. and and and during the same period prop 8 that was filed by ted olson in california. and so the cases wound their way up and culminating the argument two years ago and the did he significants of two years ago. 1972 2013. and you mention eded and decision is made not to report on that and not necessarily well received throughout the movement. did you think that it was too soon? the groups had been working every six months for 20 years at that point. aclu. and and two states. marriage equality. and nationalize it. the california supreme court. meant that with people there was no option rather than to go for the federal claim. and it was the dilemma of everybody faced in 2009 after the 2008 election. and there was disagreements pretty strong disagreements. i will go ahead and ask the supreme court to recognize equality in that year. so the movement afterall was still a cutely aware of the generation to overcome the decision that almost won in 1986. and it took until 17 years later to have that decision. so when you lose in the court. it will make it worse if you had never gone there in the first place. that is was apart of the disagreement and i would say that the disagreement over the issue and pretty much the experts that had been done. prepared in the state cases. and traditional day rights groups. and an as soon as now that john davidson had said this that somebody was going to bring that challenging proposition. at least it was did not by the high quality legal team that was put together at the time. so those issues are behind us, fortunately.:. we have things were putting in place. the only time where we have prohibited a ban was in minnesota in 2012 and that was the same people who voted in maryland and washington state. we always knew the supreme court would have to come to this decision. >> the decision was what they thought was the next right move. they were talking about states rights and ruled on the 14th amendment. the kind of disrespect that was showed was intolerable the fear is that people had in the hopes they had about this case, none of those came to be because the court said there was never pellet or jurisdiction in the case. the reason being is because the california attorney general and california governor refused to and proposition eight in the amendment. ultimately the decision of the supreme court was that private individuals who had campaigned on the ballot didn't have standing to represent the state of california and didn't have standing in their own right and therefore there was nobody for the court who had none to decide. it's not to create any new law, it did however since there is no valid appeal, appeal, and meant that proposition eight was no more and we had marriage equality in the state of california. it was the largest state in the country that added a lot to the movement in that outcome. the federal courts had gotten very much involved before and people started filing federal lawsuits all over the country. everybody decided well, we know what the next step will be. it will be a decision on marriage equality in two or three years people. the federal coat courts thought the same thing. they figured out where this was going or where they thought it was going and so we had a remarkable string of victories in the federal courts starting in 2013 and through 2014. something like 21 decisions in a row. it looked like we might have to wait for a supreme court case for a long time. things could eventually change. >> were you involved in that? >> we encourage attending attorney generals to defend the lawsuits that were being brought in their case. >> we made the argument that they did not have to defend a lawsuit where the long question is a clear violation of the federal constitution and a handful of attorney generals -- it was a surprising election and what democrats swept the lieutenant governor and attorney general seed and they won by a very small number of votes. they were in a position to really analyze what would happen. each of the atty. gen.'s really had to dig in and make an assessment about what would happen if they refused to defend. the laws from state to state can vary dramatically. some have clear mechanism for who gets to defend a lawsuit. others are absolutely silent on the matter. it really drew attention from the general populace. they started to pay attention to attorney generals for the first time ever in a new way. they saw what type of power those position had. >> there were 21 or 22 decisions in a row on same-sex marriage. the strip pre-mccourt comes back with all these decision asking it to weigh-in and be surprised -- >> i may be missing some but those three, i was on the phone with the reporter, hopefully not somebody in the room what a dumb question i said i couldn't believe anybody would -- it just seemed like all of these were holding the reports on the state law of the constitution and that is almost always a prescription for a grand court. it seemed to us like they would have to weigh in and for whatever reason they decided they would wait. it it turns out they didn't have to wait very long but it was an interesting moment because the entire movement was in the bag. >> there are questions. >> the court, when it finally did get around to granting it in january immediately raised a few eyebrows when it rewrote questions and asked parties to pose questions. what's been forgotten or underplayed in this whole issue, the second question they asked is does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage that has been licensed and performed in another state. if they answer yes on the first question the second question is irrelevant. if they can't deny it on the first and they can't deny it on the second. but second. but they might say no on the first question and then have to decide the second question. i didn't advocate this idea but there might be a possibility that this has something to do with some sort of conniving and that would be a modest approach. a federalism compromise that might appeal to more states can -- it could be that before cases coming out of the circuit, two of them just involved couples seeking recognition and some are seeking. we'll see how that plays out. in every one of these cases there are constitutional questions presented an equal protection clause is that same-sex couples should have the appropriate level of protection and what is the due process clause argument. is it a fundamental right and if so how does it apply to same-sex couples? is it a different fundamental right or is it just that there are fundamental rights to marriage and who gets access to those fundamental rights and who doesn't. those are the issues that the parties in one way or another addressed. i've read all the briefs, i have to say i think the quality of the briefing by varies. these are not briefs that were written by law professors and so that may be a good thing but they're not as rigorous as we would like to have one more teaching our were teaching our students but it's also fair to say that in many cases they weren't written by or meet the standards of the supreme court briefs. that's not to say there badly done it's just to say they somewhat vary. the petitioners in their briefs all emphasize a mix of doctrine, other cases in due process and equal protection. personal stories about their clients and their parties, appeals to justice kennedy which are an inevitable feature in any case like this and preemptive strikes making their response brief. the respondents briefs, the state briefs emphasize a mix of responses about going slow and it's legitimate for a state not a state not to plunge ahead into the unknown consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage and all that means for children and other unknown factors. there are several federalism arguments. windsor was really a federalism decision. everything was premised on the idea that it's the states that choose whether or not to confirm that. that. there's arguments about direct democracies that all these date bands came about through votes of people. i think that's a problematic argument because these amendments were really intended to shut off the debate and prevent future legislative action from revisiting the action. then the argument about responsible procreation. states have learned they really can't make arguments based on morality or tradition for its own sake. there's no indication any of these things the states are saying like gays make bad parents in some way but they want to encourage straight people that have the possibility of accidentally getting pregnant and paste producing babies to get married. it's reserving marriage for that purpose and encouraging responsible procreation but there's no evidence of these arguments ever having been made. it really emerged in 1990 and the writings of people when religious conservative oppositions had to come up with something that sounded reasonable and plausible to the state interest that didn't seem to be disparaging people or making moral judgment about gay people. i think i'll leave it at that and take specific questions. >> you might want to weigh-in on the windsor argument. another case they rely on is whether it could stand affirmative action at a public university. >> very often you see in cases people who want to overturn state decisions. there is a great deal of discussion in the briefs and the decision below about whether or not this issue is best tied by the states one by one as laboratories come out or by reference to the 14th amendment. the windsor case does give particular ammunition. there's a whole section about family law is reserved for states and federal government. the federal government should accept whatever decisions the state has made. there's a great deal of language that can be pointed to in the other case !-e-point to to ban affirmative action in education and michigan which was held unconstitutional by the lower courts but constitutional by the supreme court. that was a case where they join the majority. >> there's a 650 word passage of the kennedy purple prose of democracy and citizens coming together to think about and resolve issues together and that is being quoted back to him and some of those briefs and commentary about this issue. i think a couple things to remember is justice kennedy is still the same person who in 1996 had no difficulty smacking that amendment after people came together. in one way or another because it was decided through the democratic process doesn't mean that we give it a pass or look at it any less critically. i've always thought of that passage in him wrestling with his attitudes about race. >> he thought there should be standing on the components of the referendum to appeal because otherwise the officials of california, the california, the very people who are supposed to be bypassed by this popular vote have the power by not appealing. he was happy but it seems to be the popular vote argument is weak in the situation where the majority vote say we can keep getting more varied and you can't. >> they don't want to make law for the moment the examples in these four states are constitutional amendments to lock it up to prevent others from dealing with the issues if people change their mind in five years they have to go through extremely long and extensive process so this is really not about true democracy just because people voted. voted. they voted in a way that was intended to settle the issue and not come back. >> to give you a little more on the other argument the argument that the reason it's okay to limit marriage is because they are the only one that can become accidentally pregnant. there's hundreds of thousands of people being raised by same-sex couples that are not married and can't get married but the only ones that can become accidentally pregnant so we have to have marriage to channel them into it. this argument doesn't work for a whole variety of reasons. the devise to force people to get married isn't what marriage is about. marriage is about commitment and mutual support and love and a lot of other things. the idea that marriage is just about this is wrong and the second thing is children are children regardless of how their conceived and the route if you're concerned about having unmarried parents why would you let everybody get married? they're hinting at but never quite say is that the problem with same-sex marriage is that the other people are worried about the institution that they're getting married in. and they think other people are gonna start getting married. the only people that seem to want to get married in this country are gay people. i think this also gets to a standard of review. the states go to great lengths to say yes this may be overinclusive's out or under an elusive it may leave something out or may not be completely coherent but after a rational review, doesn't have to be perfect but just something the legislator could review and so i think as long of states are pressing for a most deferential process of review, review, they can't come up with the flimsiest rationale for their review but i don't think that will happen. if you look at the kind of analysis the court did even if you put a label on it the court has never applied the economic on a rational basis. we demand to know what the relationship is. >> align is being drawn and it's hard to think of any other kind of law where you can discriminate in that type of rational way. it doesn't lend itself to the economic regulation. >> the proponents of the amendment in the perry case the natural argument and the things that got the attorney justice appeased, and they made a joke about it. they weren't taking this argument particularly seriously. >> there's been a lot of focus on the supreme court decisions but there's a real history that the court has had in addressing access to marriage that includes permitting people who don't pay child support to be able to marry, permitting individuals who are prison to be able to marry while they are in prison. there is this really huge issue that the supreme court has viewed marriage over 40 times over a couple hundred years. the court has consistently found that we have to give huge to individuals who are willing to marry. they're not interested in picking out who should and should not have access to the institution. >> the other piece of this aside from the child welfare piece is the notion that children are better off with a mom and dad. a lot of people still believe that. it doesn't have support by the social sciences but the more fundamental problem with that argument is that kids are there any way. same-sex couples have the same right to reproduce regardless of marriage or not and are in fact doing that. even if you thought that they are not ideal parents, and there's no evidence of that if you thought that married parents were better than unmarried parents, you still don't have an argument for why they shouldn't get married. there are 400,000 children in foster care still waiting foster care and more waiting adoption. even if you think or believe the idea that the optimal situation might be a mother and father why would you not want to deny these children a mother and father. does a place in michigan where they have four or five special needs children that they have adopted. they're all living in the same household together and that is okay with the state but they still won't let them get married. what is the reason for that? it's a difficult road once you can no longer argue that same-sex is a bad thing and that people shouldn't be gay from a moral sense. these arguments are just really torturous that they've been making for the past several years. >> assuming that the court agrees with you all are they going to put a label on it this time? >> if it's a justice kennedy opened in let's not forget that the court has not identified any new categories for heightened scrutiny for a long time. there's been a fair number of justice in academic commentators that said people disagree whether it's a good thing or bad thing but there is one equal protection cause clause. it may vary from case to case on how it's applied, but consciously or unconsciously that seems to be justice kennedy's attitude. it looks like intermediate scrutiny and all the other gay right cases. i think were likely to see equal protection clauses and due process. the best read say they are together and this is something that law professors have written about. the equal protection and due process clause are complementary and they interact and i think the best way of thinking about that is that there is a fundamental right to marry. then we might have the right to say that the burden shifts to the state cannot deny this fundamental right to this particular group of people. >> it would be desirable if the court would articulate. we had a long time to think about things with the court adoption band and people involved in same-sex relationships and there seems to be a lot of scrutiny of these things. there will be cases going forward where it would be nice to know what the constitutional standard is. >> where the law was defended in the indiana case by some vigorous representative of the attorney general's office, even they can see that there was no other situation where the government was involved in this individual other than marriage or that discrimination was appropriate. >> can you think of any other way where the government is allowed to discriminate against people

Related Keywords

Norway , New York , United States , Canada , Australia , Azerbaijan , Texas , Antarctica , Florida , Minnesota , California , Indiana , Virginia , Lynchburg , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Reunion , Agua Dulce , Kenya , Denmark , Israel , Idaho , Iowa , Hollywood , Sweden , Maryland , Greece , Americans , America , American , Ted Olson , John Davidson , Roe V Wade , Martin Luther King , Chuck Colson , Asia Africa , James Dobson , Timothy George , Trick Scarborough , Amy Howe , Martin Luther King Jr , Adolph Hitler , Franklin Graham , Jesus Christ , Paul Smith , Harry Jackson , Christian Catholic , Abraham Lincoln ,