jimmie d. peter alexander buy felt. william g. biggert. brian eugene bill shirr. carl vincent binny. my nehf nephew. joined by his mother two years ago. i stood there that night and saw the wreckage and knew i would never see you alive again and something came to me, this voice i could hear him saying uncle joe, that s awesome. i thought how much he loved me and i asked why. the answer came, that i have to live the life and be the man that he loved so much and that s what our loved ones leave us with. god bless. [applause] my uncle, edward james wright the third. uncle teddy, with each year that goes by we love and mills you more and more. we re so proud of you and you are truly an american hero. bill: morning, america. it is that day again, 9/11. in new york city families mark 22 years since america came under attack. has it really been 22 years? good morning, everyone. welcome on this monday morning in new york city. i m bill hemmer. dana: i m dana perino.
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
bride, the church, marriage is a picture of the promise. ephesians number five 31-32 says for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined and the two shall become one flesh. you don t have to dash buchanan s choose to embrace, god designed men and women were you can reject all of that and you can make your own alternative truth, but you cannot exchange what god has spoken and verified in nature, many have tried and history documents that folly. in the past, stating such a position was known as practicing religious freedom and freedom of speech. and thousands if not millions whose faith and conscience will not allow them to respect any decision that fundamentally rejects god his word and the natural order. if majority redefines marriage thousands of christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has any jurisdiction over their lives. in the spirit of martin luther king we will do any attempt to enforce such a ruling isn t just. mor
whatever happened to abraham lincoln s pronouncement in the gettysburg address at hours that the government of the people, by the people and for the people. we make the decisions for ourselves. it is rapidly being replaced now by a government of the courts, by the courts and for the courts. let me get to the bottom line. if the u.s. supreme court redefines marriage to an good same-sex marriage, we all know you and i all know that this will not be the end of the matter. an avalanche of court cases will be filed unrelated issues that we can even imagine today. we believe or should i say i believe that religious liberty will be insolvent from every side. indeed, that authority happened. pastors may have to officiate same-sex marriages and they could he prohibited from 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 as mrs. will be required to dance to th
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.