the lead plaintiff in a landmark same-sex marriage case joins me tonight. he with begin tonight with a theme that, by now, may be familiar to viewers of this show. repeal the 20th century. the notion that, for many on the far right, the good ole days start with 17 and 18, as in hundreds. the era where men were men and is womener property. and the 20th century, the american century, was literally the ruin of this country as a christian nation the onset of workers rights and social safety net and income taxes and voting rights for women and black people and liberalized immigration and acceptance of lgbtq people and dangerous cultural things, like jazz, hip-hop, you know, rock and roll. and legalized contraception and apportion. believe it or not, there are people and el with-funded groups in this country who have dedicated their lives to repealing it all. but right now, i hate to say it, they are kind of winning. conservative organizations like the heritage foundation had in
senator, thanks for being back with me. i want to pick up where ariane left off. do you believe genuinely that this court will overturn, let s say, loving v. virginia, and outlaw interracial marriage. do you believe that s possible in this court? thank you, victor, it s great to be with you again, and i think the question that everyone is asking themselves and the reason why people are so angry right now is that the fundamentals of how we thought about the supreme court seem to be a bit thrown out by the window that the draft opinion that justice alito has written. as we just heard, if abortion isn t mentioned in the constitution, then it isn t a fundamental right. it isn t guaranteed by the constitution, but you could say that about a lot of what we deal with and live with in modern life. there s certainly nothing in the constitution that says, you know, has anything to say about whether people of different races can marry one another. the thing about it is that this is a story that
opinion, he tries to wall off overruling roe from other decisions that may share some of the same legal reasonings, may be based in privacy, base instead liberty. as alito says roe is different because abortion has to do with taking potential life, but the experts that i ve talked to, they say that you can t wall it off reading this draft opinion, and they think that other opinions are? y jeopardy, opinions, for instance, having to do with the right to contraception, the right to marry somebody of a different race, the right to marry a same-sex partner. they think that those decisions would be in jeopardy with this draft opinion, and they point to what alito says because at one point he says, look, abortion isn t in the constitution, roe v. wade, that s one reason it has to be overturned, and at another point, he puts through this kind of test to suggest that for a right to be sustained, it has to be rooted in text or history.