discriminatory measures in states dating back to the 2007-08 race when he opposed prop 8. and these other discriminatory measures which could roll back equal rights for gays and lesbians. the campaign was on the record on that fronts, we had spoken out. many of our supporters got involved in trying to defeat that measure. >> and my last on the timing. you say or the president and the white house messaging has said that the president was going to make this announcement at the democratic national convention later this summer. when we talk about the optics of this a lot of folks said that this was political calculation. don't you seem it would have been more transparently political if he made this announcement at the convention? >> you know, this has been a long trajectory for the president. it's a long trajectory for the vice president. it's a long trajectory for the country which has evolved on this issue over the past couple of decades. the president has been consistent about that he's always fought for equality. this is an administration that allowed hospital visitation rights and medical decision making for gay partners. the president kept his promise to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." these are the sorts of things he has been fighting for for years but decided civil unions were not sufficient after hearing from friends, parents, sasha and malia's friends parents and hearing from service members who could fight and die but not get married and he thought it was important for him personally to take the next step. >> thanks, ben. i want to open this to the panel. we'll keep you there and keep asking you questions. folk, this is i think it is a line in the sand for american history and having the first american president come out in support of marriage equality. it has not been lost on the white house that this is obviously a political opportunity as well. there is a new ad out by team obama criticizing mitt romney for his position on gay marriage. let's take a look at that. >> i indicated my view which is i do not favor marriage between people of the same gender and i don't favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. >> the last couple days, you know, i think folks on the right and left saying the president's position or lack of you know, a clear position on gay marriage was a political liability. has it now become a political liability for mitt romney? >> i'm not sure because i don't know what this means in the long term for the republicans or the democrats. i'm not actually sure what it means for the president. i know it's historic obviously, but he didn't say he was going to come out and push an amendment for it. he didn't say he was going to try to fight for these things. he said i'm for it personally but i'm going to let the states decide. i don't think that's a revelation to anybody who thought he was evolving on this over time. i think that's where we thought he was the beginning of the election. so i'm not sure what this does to forward this idea. >> you don't think that the president sort of embracing the notion of marriage equality, regardless of whether there is actually policy in place puts the heat on mitt romney to take a firm stand one way or the other? he has said i believe marriage is between a man and woman but this is going to abtalking point in terms of civil rights issue, i think, that's going to be batted around. >> i think couching it in terms of civil rights is questionable as it relates to the african american community. i heard this time and time again from my friends in the community say this is not the same thing to us. it's offensive to us that they use this in the same terms as they did in the 60s. we do not have the same struggles. we're not in the same dog fight. i think there is going to absplit in the african-american community. it doesn't mean they are going to now not support the president. it mean this is could keep them home, suppress some of that vote and also just make them a little angry at the president. >> when hogan said he didn't know the short-term versus the long term effect for the republicans or the democrats, i think that's right about the short-term. i think the politics that you galvanize some of obama's base, some of the republican base. who knows how that will play out. long term i think there is no question how it plays out. long term you see the last 15 years, the support in all of the polls for gay marriage going from 2-to-1 against to around 50/50. that's not going to stop that people under 40 support it by two thirds so. the arc of history is pretty clear here. it's not going to suddenly people 30-year-olds are not going to suddenly say i was wrong about that. i don't want gay people to get married. >> i agree with that. i think the short-term political question is how close the election is going to be otherwise. i think that's when it starts to matter. as curt said, the long term vectors among the youth population are clear. where it could matter is if the race is very close in swing states and among conservative -- socially conservative democrats in the midwest and the south. >> we have a little bit of data on that, a gallup poll from may 8 in terms of same-sex -- support for sax sex marriage among independents. >> almost like democrats. >> 40% say it should be legal. ben, i want to bring you in, in terms of this being an issue on the campaign trail, i got an e-mail from the obama campaign in my inbox after the president made his announcement. a fundraising e-mail. one in six of the president's top donors are gay. how has fundraising been in the last 24 hours for team obama? >> the president didn't do this based on politics, he did it because it was the right thing to do. we've gotten notes from people saying that his decision to speak out affirmed their own family and that it was important for them and they were more motivated to work on his behalf. but you talked about how this will play out on the campaign trail. and i think it will as a policy matter in terms of gay rights more broadly, not just same-sex marriage. the fact is that mitt romney is to the right of where george bush was in 2004, mitt romney is against civil unions. mitt romney yesterday refused to say he supports at a federal level hospital visitation rights for gay partners. that's a policy the president put into place. hisp 6 to civil unions could have an effect on benefits for gays and lesbians across the country, so the question is why he's to the right of where george bush was in 2004 after he said in 1994 he would do more for gay rights than ted kennedy would. >> somehow i think i'm going to be hearing to the right of where george bush was a lot between now and election day. >> this is a candidate who labeled himself as severely conservative and the ideal tea party candidate. >> that's the other thing i think. severely conservative. sir, thank you for your time. great to see you. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll look at the practical implications of the president's remarks and what it means for gay couples at the state level. [ male announcer ] the inspiring story of how a shipping giant can befriend a forest may seem like the stuff of fairy tales. but if you take away the faces on the trees... take away the pixie dust. take away the singing animals, and the storybook narrator... [ man ] you're left with more electric trucks. more recycled shipping materials... and a growing number of lower emissions planes... which still makes for a pretty enchanted tale. ♪ la la la [ man ] whoops, forgot one... [ male announcer ] sustainable solutions. fedex. solutions that matter. the calcium they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption. it's so great to see you. you, too! oh, cloudy glasses. you didn't have to come over! actually, honey, i think i did... oh? you did? whoa, ladies, easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. we can help avoid this with cascade complete pacs. over time, the other premium pac can leave cloudy, hard water deposits, but cascade complete pacs help leave glasses sparkling. shiny! too bad it doesn't work on windows. okay, i'm outta here. more dishwasher brands in north america recommend cascade. that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8. different states are coming to different conclusions. i think it's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. >> in an interview with "good morning america's" robin roberts the president clarified his position but said that states should ultimately decide if they want to legalize it. that's what's happening. on tuesday north carolina became the 31st state to ban marriage equality. six states plus d.c. per fit gay and lesbian couples to wed. we were talking whether this is an issue that fires up voters. you said you seem to think no. >> look, no offense to ben who is doing an excellent job of trying to be the spokesperson who says this was all emotion. no one believes that politics did not play a role in the unveiling of this announcement. of course it did. but the strategy i don't think is for votes. because as you say, people who were not going to vote for obama are still not going to vote for obama. and people who were you know, now have even more reason to. so i think this was more about dollars than it was about votes. i think obama wants some hollywood money, he wants money from the gay and lesbian community saying we're with holding until and unless he makes a statement on this. i think by even white house admission, in saying that they were going to do this at the convention, reveals that this was a political calculation. that's okay. as soon who has always supported gay rights i'm happy to have him on our side now. but no one believes that he woke up -- >> i would dare say not the republican party position. >> but no one believes that yesterday was the day that he woke up in his evolution on this issue was complete. >> i think two things. one, certainly dollars are a bonus, i'm sure part of the calculation. let's not underestimate the courage that it takes to do this at this point in time. on the day after black voters in north carolina, a swing state that the president absolutely wants to and needs to win, overwhelmingly support an amendment -- >> wouldn't it be more courageous the day before as you asked ben? >> i'm not talking about the timing. he did it. he is risking, i don't think he is risking african-american voters not going. >> i don't know that they are going to vote for mitt romney but could stay home. >> if you jump in north carolina before hand then you really get charged with politicizing it and nationalizing it and in his talk on "good morning america" he was very states rightsy saying not only the states can decide to legalize marriage but the states can outlaw gay marriage on their own. he was pretty clear about that. >> when we talk, though, about ginning up the base i think that we are underestimating how much this exciting young voters. this is i think with issues like immigration reform, and the environment, gay rights, it's a civil rights issue for a lot of young voters. this does get out 18-24-year-olds who i think have been fairly unenthusiastic. >> to the cultural impact of this which goes beyond votes and dollars and the cultural seizing on this cultural moment will help inject the campaign with some new life and energy. >> there is nothing wrong with dollars. i agree it was courageous but the bankers are gone, the people that gave a lot of money last time are in retreat so i think he does have a money issue. this is a good thing. >> hogan, you brought up what this means practically in terms of the implication because the president has kicked it back to the states. two competing editorials from "the wall street journal" and new york times. "the new york times" says that position restricts the right to marry to the 20 states that have not adopted the kind of constitutional prohibitions north carolina voters approved on tuesday. mr. obama should remember that in 1967, the supreme court said no state could prohibit mixed race marriage because marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. those rights are too precious and too fragile to be left up to the whim of states and the tearing winds of modern partisan politics. "the wall street journal" saying in support of kicking it to the states saying this has the advantage of not turning gay rights into another abortion debate whose preemption produced little but cultural discord. this time let's put an issue with sincerely held beliefs where such matters can be settled over time -- in the state legislatures. this is an interesting question. is the subject of marriage equality better handled at a state level or at the supreme court level? >> that's a very good question. you know, i think this is one of those issues where long time ago when the issue was slave, states don't have the right to legalize moral wrongs, then it was slavery. the right would argue this is a moral wrong and should not be left to the states and we can't have 50 different definitions of life, we can't have 50 different definitions of marriage, and if you're a gay couple and you move into a state that doesn't allow for gay marriage, what happens there. there are all kinds ever implications and ramifications of kicking this back to the states. and you know, that's one ever the things that romney is going to have to decide, too. yes, he is for marriage between one man and woman. is he going to be as states rightsy or come out and say i'm going to go for a federal marriage amendment and try to amend the constitution to say that. that's going to be a bigger question, i think, this cycle. >> in terms of resolving the issue, it's a big question. with the issue of interracial marriage, sort of the supreme court handed down its ruling and it was law and it's no long area controversial thing. abortion, supreme court made a decision and it continues to be an incredible topic 40 years later. >> there's that and just as if we were to write an alternate history it might be better for those pro choice people among us if the supreme court had not issued roe v. wade and had worked its way through the legislature. i'm inclined to agree with "the wall street journal" here, that the more that you get the people through their legislatures to agree to this the better. at a certain point perhaps the supreme court in an ideal world would step in. remember, with civil rights, we had you know, several hundred years. certainly 100 years before they came in and said in love v virginia that black and white people should be able to get married. give the people a chance to get used to it i would argue. >> s.e.? >> yes. but this goes back to something that hogan said earlier. i'm not really sure what the president just accomplished here. other than giving it his sort of rhetorical he is not suggesting that he would go state to state and you know, seek amendments or something on the federal level. i mean, i don't know, if i'm in the gay community or the gay rights community, am i really happy that this is a president who just said well, i finally decided to like you guys. i've decided i accept you people. i don't know. it feels political. and it feels a little self aggrandizing. >> i will leave our viewers on this note from andrew sullivan writing i think one of the more moving pieces i read on this decision. he says just this. the interview changes no law, it has no tangible effect. but it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the white house. the reason this was a big problem for president obama is because it is the first time i think a vast majority of the american public really questioned his character. and i think he responded very strongly yesterday. that is my opinion of course. we'll leave you with that. into the break, some key members of congress are offering anything but an endorsement of same-sex marriage. will they wind up being on the wrong side of history? we'll discuss that next. they employ hundreds of high school and college age employees. and they learned managing this generation means you have to speak their language. for more watch your business. [ male announcer ] it's simple physics... a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. and celebrex is not a narcotic. when it comes to relieving your arthritis pain, you and your doctor need to balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen, and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you've had an asthma attack, hives, or other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. to help protect your eye health as you age... would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin totally dedicated to your eyes, from the eye-care experts at bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. [ male announcer ] ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. now, that's a pill worth taking. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. after president obama announced his support for same-sex marriage house republicans approved a bill that would ban the justice department from using taxpayer money to oppose the defense of marriage act. one step forward, two steps back. let's you know, we know what our elected leader president obama has said. john boehner, speaker of the house said today i believe marriage is between a man and woman. the democrats can talk about all this they want but the fact is the american people are asking where are the jobs. pivoting back to the economy. home runry reed, a powerful man in democratic politics says my personal belief is that marriage is between a man and woman but in a civil society i believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want. he went on to say various things about it's no business of his whether two men want to get married, two women want to get married. when it comes down to congress and legislation, if there were to be real legislation moving the ball forward on gay marriage, it looks like it's rather stuck. >> i'm interested in boehner's comments and the pivot back to the economy. at the end of this day this is only