tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 1, 2015 8:30am-10:31am EDT
certainly given the light of developments over the last few years the financial crisis impact globalization over the last 20 years certain they have sensitized people a great deal to the concerns raised. but it's also underscored with that in the global economy. we can't afford not to show leadership and be engaged and let somebody else to find the most of the road in a way that might lead to a race to the bottom. we can't afford not to use trade agreements to shape globalization. we can sit back and note the globalization or they can be proactive and raising standards around the world and strengthening labor standards strengthen environmental protections, putting new discipline on state owned enterprises that are now competing with private firms. our view is that is the better way of dealing with globalization. not simply to express concern but also be proactive about
trying to address its impact. >> ambassador froman we're about to get the hook. your wife is executive director of kids cancer which promotes pediatric cancer research. wants to send -- jacob with a brain tumor when he was 10. what will you be doing for them after the government payroll? >> well thank you for remembering that. the most in more than thing they do is bring attention to the fact that there has been very little development of new drugs for treating pediatric cancer over the last 30 years that there has been movement in other areas and that nancy has been trying to do is make sure we created this new life-saving treatments and better treatments that have pure side effects to be shared with kids as well. >> what you imagine doing after you're out of office? >> taking a nap.
>> you have children band and sarah. tell us about ben's band. >> you have a remarkable memory are very good market assistance. he is the lead guitarist and helps contribute to the writing of original songs. these are a bunch of 13-year-olds writing about love and heartbreak. he really enjoys it and i give great credit to the boys that they've been playing now for five years together, ever since third grade. they remain dedicated to this. her great their sons are not above required love. that's a more recent development he really enjoys it and they have a good time together. >> you told me you were once a drummer. >> once a drummer. my family has physical talent. i'd done and so that's why i got to play the drums.
>> a question we'll ask each of our guests today. where are you going to watch fireworks? >> i will be down at the mall. >> ambassador froman thank you so much for coming. appreciate the conversation. i would like to welcome than woolston. thank you very much. came down from new york. evan wilson was one of the originals. he's been working on gay marriage going back 12 years ago when he founded freedom to marry. he is now president and on monday night you went to a wedding and it was a wedding. >> whose idea was that? >> what were people saying about the court decision? >> people were joyous. all the guests individually came up and congratulated me. these are close friends of my husband and mine it is a beautiful wedding.
they wanted to have the wedding on their actual 25th anniversary. it was just beautiful. people were. people were celebrating and happy and had a story about their friend, neighbor. it has been part of this ocean of love and joy that i've been a wash and in the country has been a wash and since the supreme court ruled. >> the president loved ones. but we heard around the world is what is the most poignant or creative you saw that day the supreme court decision came back. >> one of my favorites was the tweet somebody put out saying essentially now that you are done with your staff cannot hire them away and put them to work at our cause and i said we are not in one dynamic that you'd be smart to back when we actually closed down. >> when they've closed down? >> over the next several months. what do a smart, strategic wind down. the work of this campaign is
done. we've achieved the goal we set out to achieve. the work of our movement is far from over there so much work ahead in the assaulted early today we won this 32 year piece of work for me and even more for that movement i've been an op-ed in "the new york times" talking about how we build on the semantic or refer the work ahead because we are far from done. >> your op-ed in saturday's new york times which is the next pfeifer gave the next fight for gay rights he talked about federal protection from discrimination in the work place. you were people can still be fired, evicted, refuse service or humiliated because of orientation or gender identity. what is the biggest risk that still remains in america? >> people and people are still denied service. we are seeing predictable and familiar cyclical civil rights
efforts to undermine civil rights event in the form of religious freedom laws aimed at carving out rights to discriminate on the part of businesses and employers than others. this is something we've seen in every civil rights chap your in a bid to the united states. trained by people do experience discrimination in these places that are the public face in and play the so on. what is striking is unlike a marriage when we began the campaign, the american people strongly support nondiscrimination protections. our country no-space are part of protecting the ability to contribute to the democracy. the majority of americans don't realize we don't already have protections and so we made this robust conversation now to help people understand we need the federal civil rights law. we need the state and local measures not to give people
protection that help business know what the rules and guidelines are so they can function well in keep moving forward. >> those of you watching a meister land trina said they have a question for evan wilson founder of freedom to marry. we will pick it right up. how much concern do you have about the implementation and interpretation of the supreme court decision? >> very little. >> there is a little bit of acting now. it's a big country. a little bit of foot dragging and posturing but already a few days later most of that is waning as we would expect because people follow the law and the majority of the american people support the freedom to marry. they know gay will not use up all the marriage licenses. still plenty left for everybody and it's going to be a good thing and the import thing is we won the freedom to marry and the law throughout the land that the
marriage conversation which has helped move hearts and minds and help people understand who their neighbors and family members and coworkers are helpful late just arrived in earnest in many parts of the country where we still need to give people the chance to rise to fairness. the conversation will continue to be an engine of transformation to help lift president country as well. >> how did you decide to wind down freedom to marry rather than do next? >> i'm a big believer in the idea that you first have to have clarity of goal in order to achieve an important change anyone applicable out clearly in a way that inspires the people can rally in you that the work necessary in a big country like this. clarity in turn should dictate strategy. you shape your strategy based on what your goal is in the strategy in turn how you get
their dictates the structure. have you built the team. had he set up resources and shape the organization. i don't think the best form of activism for an organization to look and see what else we can do. it makes more sense for a critical mass of colleagues and leaders of movement people to say we want this gold now. let's figure out what we need to get there. that is what is happening. >> what are you personally going to do? >> i have no idea. i worked hard although as i said question to not think about it because i've been working on this for 32 years and may need to figure out who am i when i'm not mr. marriage anymore. what should my next chapter be. but i'm excited byit, how can i make contributions. hopefully job offers will come in. i didn't want to get caught up until we finish the job and now i need to get through the wind down. and hopefully hear from friends and colleagues and employers.
>> is argued before the supreme court appeared you were married in a sober 2011. i guess 20 years. what was the moment or what was it that made the marriage possible? >> winning the freedom to marry in new york a few months earlier which was a huge victory in our journey because we want obviously in new york this very powerful resident microphone stay. we also want not only with the support of democrats that the support of republicans in the legislature. they really signify the political center of gravity has shifted in the freedom to marry cause was on the move. obviously an immense gratifying political as well as personal type to rate to be held to celebrate the wedding to the man has put up with me for 10 years in front of my family and friends in the community in a beautiful wedding a few months
later still resonates for me. i still feel the glow from that day. >> vietnam popped up an article that said chief justice of the three other dissenters suddenly realized today they would someday be portrayed as the villains in an oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. was there ever a possibility that justice roberts would be the majority? >> of course. there's always the possibility of people were constantly telling me their thoughts about the ruling. i read a beautiful haiku in "the wall street journal" essentially ran along the lines of who knows, no one knows and so on. that was really my attitude. sure enough we've now seen it cheaper justice roberts got it wrong. i was not surprised. but i was telling people beforehand was that when the surprise of the world with us or
against us and that was the truth. >> what do you think the story will be? >> that remains to be seen. obviously this is a court as you've covered huge things in the last several years some of which they got right particularly friday and some of which they've got massively wrong. obviously chief justice roberts is john of her colleagues are still young and there's a lot coming out of it is a real change. whoever gets elected next will help us write the story and what the robert quartz looks like because we'll see a lot of change. >> someone told me the president first term for. >> several justices are getting up there and have been there a long time. it is very important who is president for many reasons. one of the reasons is because the president does choose the judges and justices of the supreme court and we often see the power the supreme court has
rightly so in our system. it's just they get it right. >> you mentioned were talking about the tweaked the fact that lots of social justice campaigns what your secret sauce. they want to know how to win a campaign like this in an era of divided government climate gun violence, they all want to know how you did it what can be learned from what you achieve that could apply to the movements. >> of course the freedom to marry campaign dallas held up as a model of success. for many years it is more of a model. trying to figure out how to get it right. many losses and stumbles and we didn't get everything right. we worked hard to capture the less than we think we can offer on our website, freedom to marry.work in a section called lessons. i do encourage people to go there and i've been sharing them with other colleagues. some of the last sentence i
mentioned earlier the clarity of the bowl strategy of the clarity of the vehicle is the way you work to fulfill your strategy. we knew we needed to build a critical mass of states and support to create the climate for the litigation to succeed. litigation was central to the strategy but we do a pleasant enough. clarity action status. what are we asking people to do. we got it right and did a good job in making it a truly bipartisan nonpartisan campaign. we welcome new voices, surprising voices republicans democrats. we work hard to put an emphasis on the personal to help the american people push past their discomfort, stereotypes, uncertainties by engaging them is true and real stories of real people getting them to know gay people are. prior to friday in the supreme court ruling supreme court ruling to one at least 67 court ruling in favor of freedom to
marry. my favorite was the one in which we brought the freedom to marry to utah because the judge said in that case it's not the constitution that has changed. it is our knowledge of what it means to be gay. the passage captures the strategy our movement followed which was to help people understand not the legal arguments. those are clear enough for a 26 euro lawsuit to write those but to understand the command of the constitution applies to gay people. we had to work to make sure. it turns out it is not only knowing someone that is the engine of change. it is conversation with someone that is the engine of change and we worked hard over years to start those conversations that have indeed allow people to rise to fairness. >> or number two freedom to marry has a book out. when a marriage is a quote on the frontier for bob woodward and on the lessons learned on
your website number three with focus on values and emotions. this was a course correction for you earlier. one of your strategies is more focused on the laundry list of benefits. >> prior to 2009, we had built a fragile majority. back in the 1990s we were at 27% of the american people. by 2009 bloomberg roughly 50%. the mix of arguments and explanations and stories they were giving people have moved people, but we see also the next group of people who were quite getting it. they wanted to be fair but they didn't understand why do gay people want to get married. the emphasis on the true and real benefits and protections and legal obstruction of justice and the constitution were
blocking them from connecting emotionally with the values of love and commitment and family. we shifted the emphasis to another equally true part of the case for the freedom to marry and that is how we went from the roughly fragile 50% to 63% because we picked up the next group of americans who connected with the horror. >> your book why marriage matters reminds us "time" magazine calls it one of the 100 most powerful and influential people in the world. what took president obama so long to be for gay marriage. >> the president is on a journey like the people at america were. >> come on. >> no, i think it's true. he's even more powerful and influential. but president obama even before he came out in support, his administration took very important and courageous steps to just renouncing the defense
of the indefensible defense of marriage act and calling for heightened scrutiny of orientation discrimination. he also came out in support of the freedom to marry not after his reelection but before his reelection. he didn't run away. he ran on the freedom to marry and not a lack day. the other thing enormously important and has signaled legacy here was the way he explained his support for the freedom to marry to the american people was a very powerful moment they gave people a real permission to think anew. he didn't talk as a lawyer or commander-in-chief. he talked of the data and somebody who had values and restraint to share values with his daughter and that resonated with the american people and we saw a bill shift after the president came out in support. he's been a staunch champion ever since. >> and all of american history there have been 1% on a national
ticket who have been openly for gay marriage. who was that? >> dick cheney. >> why was president obama now for? >> the reason he was not for them and you said this and said that he thought it wasn't the politically safe thing to do. that is an important lesson to social change advocates like me. our job is not to help politicians do what they want. our job is to help them do what we want them to help them do the right thing. the way we hope that it's not going where they are the pico way here so they can rise. it is our job to create the space and pay the pathway and help them get there. from day one freedom to marry engage with the administration and encourage them and work with dad and her argument was always help us help you help us. sure enough that is what happened and the president has been an important.
>> the boy scouts and their ban on members. the former defense secretary now president of the boy scout of the boy scout as that they need to face reality. he's called for an end to the band by scout leaders. >> he has called for an end to the ban. the steps they've taken on the right direction was to renounce the discrimination they vigorously defended against gay young people in the scouts. the policy as of today as we welcome gay kids and participation until a scout turns 18 and that is horrible and has to be thrown out. secretary gates has rightly said that is untenable. the right answer is not partial discrimination or some discrimination. the right answer is no discrimination like the 4-h club in the campfire boys and girls and i hope the boy scouts look
at where their members are and where the parents are in the young people are in realize when you say you were there to provide important and good support to all kids you can ride it to all kids. >> one institution in america is most gay hot? >> generally speaking there are parts the religious infrastructure that remain hostile and send messages of exclusion and unwelcoming demonization and dehumanization. many religious voices in more and more on the other side and the majority of the american people who continue to identify as religious have moved in figured out a way to tune out some of what they hear from some of their hierarchy and go to their true deep values like the golden rule of treating others as you would want to be treated
and so on. that gives me tremendous help because what we see from a lot of hostile religious leaders as they realize they are losing their own flock. they are losing their own people because the people understand the true religious values argue in favor of love and loving your neighbor as yourself and treating people with respect and shedding stereotypes and prejudice about people and understand us as many who are religious as we are. >> we think our live stream audience for their twitter questions of hash tag playbook breakfast. question for adam warner from ivan wilson. what do you make of the backlash saying the decision will create an applied to religious liberty. >> first of all i stand with martin luther king and saying i hate the word backlash. backlash dr. king said falsely conveys the idea that somehow
those of us who favor it just tasted something wrong or went too far and now there's a reaction. as i was campaigning to the freedom to marry is their backlash began before we even lashed. the discrimination and oppression and isolation and we work to change that. there is a struggle between what country we should have and our vision is prevailing the american people have embraced it. what we saw over the last two days was a few isolated examples of posturing and acting out and so on and i think most of those come of those, even though saying the most horrible things really hope this goes away because they know they're out of step with the american people but in the case of the republican candidates they're out of step with republican federation of tr. >> as we say goodbye you're an authority in his on the job market.
you are in the supreme court. you're an authority on marriage and assorted social justice movements, an authority on travel broadway shows and an authority on diners. what is the best writer in america not in new york city? >> one of the things i have bad at is remembering restaurants. that's what i always go to diners. i've got good stuff on 14th street in the west village. they know my name. >> that's a great quality in a diner. >> what to look forward a diner? >> healthy greek salads and delicious chocolate egg creams. >> what is one where diner you recommend? >> the one in my office which is my other default diner is on 23rd street in new york as the malibu diner. >> maybe you'll be in a diner business. >> i am looking at all my options right now. >> where you're going to watch
fireworks? >> that's a great question. from the berth deck of my building for my husband with one more moment of calm after this extraordinary wonderful week. >> we are about to hear from dr. russell moore of the baptist convention from nashville. they met backstage. a quick conversation. you might conversation. you might ask your doctor more question out. >> sure. do you want it away? >> thank you are joining us. appreciate it. [applause] you will each ask each other questions. >> thank you for saying that. >> i will say what i said to you backstage which is not that we have won this case in the country has signaled that it's time to end the exclusion of gay people of color would you be worried to join with me in other colleagues ensign dialogues with
your people, your flock and no one so together we can help people move forward together and even if we disagree get to what is important in the country and not because we divided. >> that is one of the things i've been doing for several years and hopes to do more. i think we have to do that come into the table is who we are without either of us putting convictions into a blind trust on these issues. if we can have a good reasonable honest conversation where we can understand one another and agree to disagree, but it's good and healthy for american democracy. >> i would just say are you now in this world that we have in terms of marriage going to be committed to understanding religious and dictations, roman catholic eastern orthodox orthodox jewish, muslim institutions who do not believe marriage can be defined in all the ways the court has to find
it. are you going to use the power of the state in order to coerce those institutions not to their convictions. >> one thing i was his marriage nodded defined by who denies it. now they have the freedom to marry, nothing has changed in the definition of areas. your marriage is the same with your wife is illustrative to go. my marriage with a has-been is not respected by the law. you are entitled to think whatever you want to never defend that absolutely. a lush atreides equally which now happily it has moved towards doing. the other pointed to talk about religious institutions that the vast majority of people of faith within those institutions and many of them actually have come to support the freedom to marry. 63% of catholics. >> not want to start looking at who goes to church. if you did polling data this way, do you consider yourself a republican but you never about
you'll never get accurate data. >> we would be better off if each of us tended to our own soul and all while building and spent less time telling other people they are bad at their religion let alone bad as americans. but to get to where i think you are going with the question, i believe the law should defend is the first amendment does the freedom of religion and freedom of the leaf and freedom to preach. you and others like me are free to say preacher put forward whatever we believe. what we are not free to do is use the government as a weapon to impose our beliefs on others. i really believe our country decade after decade has gotten the balance right. we have figured out how to support and guard religious freedom while also supporting civil rights for nondiscrimination and the opportunity of every person to participate fully in society. that's a wonderful thing in our democracy and we shouldn't be undermining it.
>> thank you so much for coming. congratulations. happy weekend. i really appreciate it. dr. warner had wrecked this a couple weeks ago here in fact. i was struck by the very practical approach that you take and that's why we invited you here. you are not someone who just instructing pastors of the southern baptist convention about what to say, what to do. this must've been kind of the dark sunday for some of them. what did you tell them to say? >> we've been working for years in terms of equipping pastors and leaders to say this isn't some things simply relegated to coastal elites. there are many pastors and evangelicals, roman catholics and others in this country who assume if they live in a red
not americans first. when we have a sense of understanding of who we are in terms of our distinctiveness. now our distinctiveness. now that time to see. for a long time for a lot of american christians who idealized some golden age of the past, the 1950s or the 1980s, which is not a christian vision a reality. our vision of reality says everything fell apart not with the counterculture of the 1960s but with the garden of eden. so we have an understanding of how we are. >> dr. moore's position as president of the ethnic and religious liberty commission of the southern baptist convention. a lot of you know richard land job he had before. you're the southern baptist convention extension evangelical ambassador to washington. >> right. >> dr. moore put out a one page message point for his allies. number four was the pro-life model can be a model for the way
forward. >> because if you were to go back in a time machine to 1973 and say to the national organization for women or the national abortion rights league, what with the pro-life movement look like in 2015? most of them probably would have said that will not be a pro-life movement in 2015. this issue is over. it's been decided by the supreme court. what happened? you have a vibrant active pro-life movement every january the march for life this to both younger and younger people, energized and engaged in the pro-life movement. the other part is the pro-life movement could not be an angry reactionary movement. because what were we doing? we were trying to work not only politically but also culturally in order to persuade women not to abort their children, to persuade men not to pressure women to abort their children to of ministry to women who are in crisis pregnancies. so it have to be this sort of movement that was persuasive and
other directed. the same thing as happened with marriage. have to have a long-term view. this is not going to be settled by a presidential election or to our congressional election or do. this is a generations long argument that we have to make and we have to be the sort of people who understand why the people who disagree with us disagree with us. we can't prevent outrage at the. >> you had a piece in the "washington post" on the website listed the church should be -- should neither cable nor panic as a result of aerobic let's start with panic. why should the church panic? >> when we talk you are clear eyed about what the sprinklers up to. he said the choice of public between bad, catastrophic. >> that's a week. we got catastrophic but i keep falling back on the old grateful dead lyric it's even worse than it appears but it's all right. what i mean by that is i think
delegations here will be far-reaching it i think it's going to have implications that many people are not even seeing right now but as he christian i have a long-term view of history that is a hopeful view of history, and i think marriage is resilient. i think that marriage is something that god embedded in the natural order and it can't simply be expanded away or redefined away. so i think marriage will be back back. >> i can't stop you there. marriage will be back. go on. >> the way this is working think about the way justice kennedy is arguing in his majority opinion. this as a matter of individual autonomy, individual dignity. i think chief justice is right. how do you keep the balance on that in the way that the court did? or is this going to be what happened with griswold were you
unleash a previously unknown constitutional right that is going to almost endless permutations because what did you think specifically when you said you believe marriage will be back speak with i think what we'll see is that we're not going to see a booming expansion of marriage in america society. we will in the short term with the exuberance of it but it we can look what's happened in europe you see a decline in marriage culture i think that has bad consequences just as the divorce revolution did for children, for families, for society to for civilizations. i think people will be disappointed in this. they are going to put this is going to fix all all of the problems and going at the end of the day say what is there other than this? i think we need to have a church that still has a light lit to the old path to be able to say there's another way. >> something fascinating you pointed out in a "washington post" piece is that if you look over the millennia that church
has thrived in the minority. >> yes. because when the church sees itself as part of a moral majorities on the majority, what happens is we stop emphasizing the things that are distinctively christian in order to attempt to become more normal in whatever society in which we exist. that's the reason why so much of christian political activism over the last generation really hasn't been theologically defined at all. it's been in terms of values in terms of traditional family values and principles. we don't need me buried in order to thrive. christianity didn't start in a very. it started in a very hostile greco-roman empire -- me buried. this gives us the opportunity to reclaim effortlessness of christianity that the new testament tells us is what causes christian to try. i was talking to a lesbian activist a few years ago and we had a very a conversation that
we're talking about a few minutes ago, and she said i sort of find what you people really. she's asking a series of questions about office and she said you just have to know that what you were saying about marriage and sexuality sound so strange to me. she said adding she knew someone who she knew someone who had been on more than two or three dates without having sex she would assume there some sort of psychological abuse in the past, not that this was some with moral conviction. she said i don't know anybody in my group who believes the things you believe that it sounds strange. i said i think i get that by what you do know what you do we believe it even stranger things than that. we believe a previously dead man is going to show up in the sky on a horse. that's pretty strange and freakish from a natural mindset, and it was a strange and freakish in a.d. 40. we need to reclaim that and maintain our confidence as we go forward spent what they mean that churches should not cave? >> i think a lot of people who
assume especially secular progressives assume if we just apply some pressure, some cultural pressure, political pressure in the catholic church is going to give them the evangelicals will cave to the mormons will cave and they will just say forget what was said before about marriage and sexuality. that's not going to happen. because it can't happen. this isn't something that is incidental to what we believe. we believe that marriage and sexuality are covenantal pictures of the union of christ and his church. we believe that it has eternal consequences for the well being and soul of the people who participate in this thing. we are not going to be able to get me those things without getting rid of biblical text and ultimately without getting rid of jesus. >> something you have said for a long time and ministers who have worked with and have edited have said is that christians in the church need to work on their own marriage. >> yes. absolutely.
one of the most controversial thing i ever have to say anywhere is not anything i say in washington. it's when i tell a couple who come to me to get married and want me to officiate at the marriage, and i will let them write their own vows. they become very upset. why won't you let us write our own vows? my response is this is a because this marriage isn't about you. dissuading isn't about you. you don't even know yet what to make vows about that you're not keeping in mind what it means to stay with one another for alzheimer's disease and be with one another through the death of a child. you need the rest of the community of the church, this gathering of witnesses to do that for you. so i think that church for a long time has adopted cultural understandings that really sees marriage as being about romantic fulfillment, principally. rather than seeing marriage into big a sense of what marriage is. >> a twitter question refers to to a piece would pick up the
playbook the other day written by jeffrey toobin in "the new yorker." why don't you think the parallel drawn by lgbt groups between interracial marriage ban and gay marriage ban is accurate? >> because first of all accurate? >> because first of don't think of a gay marriage ban. i think what you have is a state that is recognizing there is something distinctive about the union of a man and woman. they at least ideally can produce children. the state has an interest to guard this particular union and the way the state doesn't have an interest in guarding all sorts of other relationships. i don't think it's a ban. i think with the interracial issue the reason these things are different know what it is interracial bands that came into place because of slavery and jim crow into united states of america, no one is arguing these are not marriages. they're arguing we want to stop these marriages and happening. people who object to same-sex marriage on us and we wish ill
will toward gay and lesbian people. we are saying that something unique about the union of a man and a woman that we can see through millennia of human history that if we simply undo and expand to the point that it becomes irrelevant we are going to have lost something. >> you talk about engaging the culture industry you had a tweet that says due to the national airport singing in the voice of bob dylan, bless his heart. >> it was great. bless his heart kind of a sudden and saying they can be in different contexts. bless his heart could be a compliment, that day, bless your heart but usually it's not that usually it means man, you're an idiot. but it's a nice polite way to say you're an idiot. >> dr. moore has a book coming out august 1 and he kind of gives us a peek called onward,
gauging the cold without losing the gospel. the cover is by johnny cash and a something unusual about this book. >> the blue is from an old johnny cash britt and then on the inside the publisher did kind of posters with different quotes from the book. i think they did five or six of them. >> of five different covers. >> so this one says kindness does not avoid conflict kindness engages conflict but with the goal of reconciliation. >> you've written about adoption. you have four children -- >> five. >> five children. tell us about adoption. >> we adopted our first two sons, benjamin and timothy, from a russian orphanage when they were a year old. they just turned 14 and it's kind of been a priority and concern for me because we have children all over the foster care system into united states
of america and an orphanage and group homes around the world who need families. and we have families in the united states who have room for another stocking on the mantle this christmas. i'm really calling for people to really consider is god calling us to welcome children into their homes. >> your children are ages three to 14 what is your number one child raising to? >> my number one child raising tip is not to panic to recognize that children are going to do stupid things sometimes and stupid does not mean disobedient necessary. so learned that kind of a tranquility about that and to spend time with him one on one. the best thing i can do, especially with multiple kids, to take each one of them with you say on a trip where you're able to talk to them and they find out what's really going on in their lives we do not just in the hubbub of what's happening. >> dr. moore, you're a mississippi native, a descendent of confederate veterans.
two days after the church shooting in charleston you wrote it's time to take down the confederate flag, it makes me wince. a symbol used to enslave the little brothers and sisters of jesus. why does it take so long? >> for stuff to want to take down the flag? i think because you had this argument going on for long time that this isn't a matter of hate. this is a matter of heritage. and i think people are starting to recognize now as they're having genuine conversations across racial and ethnic categories of heritage is part of the problem is you have a flag that is used for an army fighting to enslave people. and then beyond that show the flag that that is being used by terrorist groups and their state sponsors throughout the 20th century in order to terrorize african-american people come to burn crosses on front lawns. and i think it's time for us to recognize that. the interesting thing for me is when i wrote that piece i was
expecting a lot of blowback from my fellow southerners and i received almost none. all of the hate mail i received came from yankees you know people in idaho and montana people from alaska, things like that. but almost none from southerners southerners have none at all from south carolinians. southerners, black and white, we know what that's like means. i think it's going to take a while in mississippi. >> where are you going to watch fireworks because we are going to an army fireworks on child pashtuns on july the third because i could be on on july the fourth i will see the real fireworks from the plane spent i think you can make is possible. thank you so much for coming in. thank you for a great conversation. thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] >> and now jim messina.
[inaudible] >> you saw the same on a whole bunch of issues guns is another issue. all of those things are issue with the democratic party on the same side as the majority of americans and that is change our politics. >> there's a little bit of the actress and go but we are the good sense of what the eight years may look like. what did you look like compared to what you imagined a duty to? >> that's a great question. remember coming in to the white house and you could see the economy falling off the table. whether not we would have a second great depression and in both president bush and president obama took huge steps to avoid that. and begin the recovery.
i remember very early on we got day after day of the terrible economic news and finally david axelrod leaned over and said hey, is it too late to ask for a recount? you know, it was a brutal time and i think if you were to look forward and said in seven years you can have all these things, we would've taken that in a heartbeat. >> and the biggest unfinished piece of this is climate. we'll talk about climate. like what else did you think would be done or do you wish what happened on? >> i think the preeminent issue of our time is going to be income inequality. the president talked about the the other day. easy to democratic likely nominate secretary clinton talking about that every single day. >> are you calling her a likely -- >> i am. >> not by the likely.
what you think a is her percentage chance to speak with 99 in i've been in politics and i never assume baby. >> on climate, what do you think can still be done, what can be learned from the lessons the last few weeks about maybe how to get more action on that and people helping? >> look at yesterday the united states and brazil announced a historic agreement that is the kind of bilateral agreement that will continue to change the country. in november, december to the paris route of climate negotiations which is an absolutely crucial moment to get a worldwide climate accord that could be another mammoth step. president has taken several huge steps in the car rolls, truck rules from the clean power rules that will be finalized this summer for all of those things are major defining moments in the fight to combat climate change. but i think paris would be an absolutely crucial moment this fall. >> you hear about the president
is free, obama is reproducing the president in all moods, all states, all places. we talk about obama is free. is that because he's figured it out already has experience or his work is bearing fruit with why is he suddenly hitting his stride no? >> i think it's always been more free than any present of his lifetime. spent but hasn't acted. >> that's not true. the first week of the white house we set out and that this knockdown drag-out fight intro about which issues to work on. people were pushing let's go education because it's an easy win. he stood up and said hey every single one of you know health care is right thing to do but you are all afraid of it politically because it was a very big problem for president clinton's first term, and presidents in a row have tried and he looked around and to some of you didn't even think i could win. 's what we're gight and we will start with health care. figure it out. he stood up and walked out.
i guess we're doing health care. >> and to you since the president's freedom to? >> i think he knows exactly what he wants to do with his remaining time to move this country forward. i think he feels focused on using every single moment of the next month until his successor comes in. i'm really proud of the work is done. look at this week. you had a historic week with all these things and in the middle of it yes to launching a minimum wage increase for over 5 million americans. is wrapping up a bilateral deal with brazil. this is a guy who's going to work every single moment and in his usual basketball and elegies, never stop shooting until the clock runs out. >> what they dissent from what you hear and what you see, what do you said about his mood or his psyche at the? >> he is a guy who doesn't like it up or down that much.
he had a great week last week. he showed that all of it at the press conference yesterday, but i've been with them in the toughest times and in the best of times, and he still is a pretty calm cool and collected guy. i told you this before but five times rahm emanuel and i walked into the oval office and told him a health care bill was dead. five times. all five times the present look at us and said that's unacceptable. article in the room and i will fix it again. this is a guy who could easily given up or make it smaller and he continued to swing for the fences. the way you do that the way you take on those challenges is by just focusing on the job and that's what he's done. >> attendees are all 2016 hungry for it you are the world's authority on electoral strategy. do you think the states to watch our virginia and colorado. why more so than florida while? >> you have seen a change in the
electoral college in the past 15 years. driven by demographic changes and driven by president obama. think about is whether democrats have now carried 240 electoral votes in the last five presidential elections. republicans have carried 191. if you add to that new mexico and nevada which are two states that i think both sides democrats have a huge chance that puts it at 253. they are at 191. look at the states most likely to tip us from 253 to 270 come colorado and virginia our states you would look at. i'm not saying he wouldn't look at florida and ohio but in 2012 florida was always a would be great to have for us but we don't take agency in virginia, ohio and colorado. demographically for democrats, virginia and colorado are coming to us because the demographic changes in ways ohio just
doesn't. >> what is your emerging electoral battleground will you be watching for 2020 but you cannot say texas speak with arizona. arizona's coming very, very this. it doesn't make sense if you do not agree that new mexico moved five or 10 years ago. george bush tied to both times basically in new mexico and barack obama won big both times it wasn't a battleground state for us. for the nevada is doing the same thing. estate carried the most. what is a statewide in the middle of those two ?-que?-que x it is arizona. the demographic changes 15 years ago change california and went to new mexico and then went to nevada, are coming right to arizona. >> you have daydreams about georgia. >> i still have dreams about georgia. and i think george is another state like north carolina to come back on the map. >> how is this election shaping up? >> you would rather be at the. it does mean we are real challenges by just talking about the electoral college. we haven't talked about the exciting thing i call republican
primary for president. [laughter] every single day it's like they send me gifts of crazy stuff that they say. you think about the primaries ended argued that mitt romney probably lost the presidential race in the georgia debate when he came out so against immigration reform and came out and endorsed self deportation. made it really impossible to probably get to 270 electoral votes. if you are a young voter in this country or a swing voter you're watching republicans every single day campaign against issues you feel strongly about against climate change can against education reform against gay marriage can, against health care reform. those are going to really damage and to think about it one of the way. ronald reagan 30 years ago from 35 years ago move young voters to the republican side and a senior voters are still leaning republican. that's what you are saying with
barack obama and young voters in the democratic party. republicans are making that worse. we currently lead registration in the battleground states with young voters by 35 points. if that stays true to the next 20 years it will change politics forever. >> of the i think voting republicans with two more coming next month who do you think is playing their cards smart as? >> i think today you to save it will be up is off to a good start. you have to look at governor bush and say -- he would have to say marco rubio. i think marco rubio has had a good start to the campaign. we will see whether he can keep it going but i think he is doing okay. >> "new york times" front page story, the most dangerous republican nominee for secretary clinton because of the contrast would be transcendent or do you agree to speak with i think it's way too early for all those of the eight years ago -- look i
think eight years ago he would have individuality that in the seat and said no question barack obama was having a terrible summer and was going to be the democratic nominee for president. six months later he was. so it's way too girly. they haven't had a debate yet so let's give them time to continue to say crazy stuff. >> what is rubio to write? why does you look strong? >> i think he is consolidating itself, out of hundred talk about bigger issues and events out of their not making mistakes which is always a big deal. but we will see. there's a lot of time. >> what has governor bush done wrong? >> i think governor bush, i stick a tube with a reason for his candidacy is. and i think that is a pretty dangerous place to be. and i think he has continued to move around. he's on his second campaign manager and he hasn't announced spirit who is the smartest republican operative working for a? >> i think matt rhodes.
macros was wrong as campaign manager. i paddled in every single day for 18 months. document they could campaign. he and i got to do stuff the olympic bid together and i was really impressed. >> and to working directly in 16 which if you're going up against if he were to run against? >> you mean on the republican side or democrat -- >> republican side. >> i'm really glad matt is not coming back. we will have to see. >> who is the next speak the truth is i don't know. i don't know them very well. >> and what demographic group is going to matter most? >> latinos. latino voters are going to continue to be a therapy group and here's why. president bush got 44% of the latino vote in 2000, 42 in 2004. mitt romney just got 20%. if they can't move that number there's no electoral college that works for them.
i continue to think women voters will be an absolutely crucial part of the democratic electorate but democrats have challenges. we have turnout issues and we are getting historically small amount of white voters, something we've got to fix in 2016. >> i would think after 2012 the idea of targeting swing voters would sort of be out of fashion. you still hear democrats talking about it now. you are down on swing voters spent cannot count on swing voters get what it is that the american electorate is the most polarized of our time and our historic small amount of swing voters. i think in the old days, and i had to do two things. you to turn your boat out and you have to persuade swing voters. i think there's been a lot of articles in your wonderful paper about the choice between those two the i don't think it's a choice. i think i to do both but you
can't just focus on turning out your base. you got to talk to swing voters and you've still got to turnout your base. both of those are important. >> you are helping secretary clinton if you're spending a lot of time raising money, a validator for her. spent i don't agree. i think she is a really great leader who has an incredibly track record and has a vision for moving this country forward. and i think will do very very well in the battleground states. i've said this defendant has been the single most important thing in any presidential election is the definition of who can define the future. and i think if you look at the public and party right now, they do not have intended to build in heavily that any plans to do that. what is the one thing that defines the republican party today, mike? is the opposition of barack obama. if you look every single day what they're saying, it is just about how they disagree with barack obama. you cannot win a presidential campaign in opposition to a person or an idea.
>> is that working? are you agreeing expect you think you're smart for doing that? >> no, i don't i think they got to figure out a plan for the future. you have seen five months of campaigns and you and i were tested and you know cheat on them. if you want to pay me today i couldn't tell you three i guess they have laid out. having that is a problem. >> if we could please get a microphone to the individual does not events political agenda setting but we have a twitter question. she says can you address questions about the authenticity of hillary's support of progressive caucus? >> i think hillary clinton has spent the lifetime. she was campaigning for universal access to health care 30 years ago. she spent her life advocating for the betterment of children around thearound the world and is made up a centerpiece of her life. asset estate she did a bunch of things to move forward -- asset
estate, women's, gay rights, minority. i think the record is second to none and i think going forward i think progressives can be extremely proud to support as i have. >> how worried is the clinton camp about the success and excitement around senator sanders? >> look, there's going to be ups and downs with every presidential candidate. >> this is a pretty big -- >> no, it's not. the day-to-day of campaigns i know you guys have to publish every 10 minutes, you love publisher. that's great but nothing has changed. hillary clinton is in the high '70s and the democratic primary nationally. she's going to be the democratic nominee and she's going to win the white house. >> what is their excitement around events more than certainly we expect to come to expect a? >> look, i think he has a great track record.
he's a great speaker but i love watching bernie sanders speaker doesn't mean i'm going to vote for them in the primary. >> you don't seem as a real threat speak was no. >> last question as you look ahead to the fall of actually get to the general election, you are part of secretary clinton 15. what do you worry about? >> look, i worry that is united has changed politics forever. president bush spent $186 million to win. we had to spend $1.1 billion to stop the onslaught of negative ads. i think citizens united is going to probably allow the republicans drastically outspent hillary in the election and i think that's a real challenge. i continue to want to make sure we focus on swing voters and turning out our base. >> county when the thing about the 2016 environment, landscape that will make me sound smart. >> technology will continue to
change everything a majority of young voters now communicate on snapchat more than they do texting, more than the e-mails. that evolution in how people communicate, how people watch news how people validate their political and consumer decision is changing by the nanosecond and it's going to be an amazingly different campaign than even 2012. >> what do you think of snapchat? >> i love. i use it everyday. i think it's a great deal and a wonderful way for me to cuss a lot and not get in trouble. >> how do you think it applies to campaigns because people are kind of figure that out. i enter i spent a lot time spent a lot time kind of your this out. i'm going to tell the republicans. >> your firm does the bright work on international work nonprofit work. one thing to do is help corporations know how you use data analytics and 2012 for customer outreach but was the
biggest thing that american business can learn from obama 2012? >> that you can individually target consumers in a very smart way. one of our clients is allegedly pictures and sco has been a leader on taking some of those things and building and the building to roll out movies and an unprecedented way to do much better than hollywood expected those movies to do because they're using data and socially in a way that no one else is. >> something else your group does is nonprofits about how to run themselves more efficiently. >> one of our passions is helping the first five years fund as a nationwide bill to create pre-k education. we spent a lot of time working on that and i think you are saying that campaign run by this amazing here chris barickman is one of the litigants of the supreme court case on gay marriage. she's governing that camping and doing an unbelievable job spent you a universe of montana graduate, a different person in your in montana.
you were headed there. spent my wife and i will spend the entire month of august fishing. >> newlyweds? >> i am. she is a much better fisher that i am. i hope to catch up a little bit, catch fish and be in the most wonderful place in the world. >> what do you catch a? >> big trout. >> jim mann eyes big fishermen catching a few fish right now. what a short fishing tip? >> tell him not to come to montana. especially not the yellowstone river in august. that you don't need tackle, in the end being very simple about trying to be the water is the most important thing. and the almost module to be is when you watch the water rushed upon your blog and others a trout right below it if that's the moment of calm spent jim messina can, were you going to watch fireworks? >> were after my wife tells me last night. >> excellent answer. 1 p.m. today we hope you will
join us live stream for political probe event about the health care part of this discussion the supreme court's decision on king v. burwell. >> thank you very much and thank you mike for this great conversation and twitter but loves your spot. spent a great entrepreneur. >> fantastic to thank you for this great event to grab another one coming up today at 1:00. live stream, looking at the fallout of a king v. burwell decision come what it means for health care policy going forward and the politics of it but the next potential battles around the affordable care act, obamacare will be amicable to the museum. they will live will live stream and it's up to help prevent hashtag is pro-hz. would look forward to your questions about policy experts and some of the political
thinkers from both the conservative and liberal sides at that event. so thank you very much spent thank you. thank all of you in live stream land and twitter land for watching this event. thank our political colleagues for pulling off this amazing event. thank all of you for coming out. thank bankamerica for making these amazing conversations possible, and jim messina thanks. happy fourth. >> thanks. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of his discussion of the president's agenda you can watch these images later today on our website, go to c-span.org. as you heard we will be back identified this afternoon just after 1:00, a discussion of last
week's supreme court decision on the nation's health care law and the political and legal challenges that may lie ahead. that would be like on c-span3. cuba's public health minister will be speaking at the national press club today marking the first time and member of the castro government has spoken to the crew. he will be doctor cuba's efforts to fight aids. live coverage on c-span gets underway in about half an hour. more on cuba from the hills website. the train into the breach the agreement to open embassies in washington and havana to a senior admissions officials said on tuesday president obama's acoustic john kerry will be speaking about the plan. the two nations have agreed to reestablish former -- formal diplomatic relations.
>> live coverage starts at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. the future of civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender americans. is the first -- his remarks focus on the future of civil rights debates for lgbt americans. university district of columbia's law school is the host of this event. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to the school of law at university of the district of
columbia, and the civil and human rights seminar. tonight we have a special program to do with the recent decision by the united states supreme court in marriage equality. viable turn it over to my co-professor, wade henderson committed against the introduction. i am john brittain, and together with professor henderson we teach seminar on civil and human rights in the 21st century. professor? >> thank you. good evening everyone. as john said i am wade henderson, i am the joseph junior professor of public interest law here at the david a. clarke school of law, university of the district of columbia and also the president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. the nations leading civil and human rights coalition with over 200 national organizations
working to build an america as good as its ideals. on behalf of john and myself i'd like to welcome you to our seminar on civil and human rights in the 21st century. without question the supreme court decision last friday in the case of obergefell versus hodges which recognize marriage equality for gay and lesbian americans as a fundamental constitutional right, as well as the important decisions of the century and one of the most important supreme court decisions in american civil and human rights jurisprudence. the court acknowledged the full dignity of lgbt americans to love and to build a family as equals in our society and ushered in a new era of acceptance and family security for lgbt americans. but, of course there is still so much work that we must do as
a nation to in the second class citizenship of lgbt americans and to ensure that lgbt americans have the same protections already established for the majority of americans including people of color, women, religious minorities and persons with disabilities. so we've asked a good friend of both john and mine come at the law school here at the university of british columbia, our colleague to be tonight's featured lecturer and to discuss the applications and importance of the decision, as well as the ongoing work our nation must do to secure the full rights of lgbt people in the united states. now, he is a well-respected and distinguished public servant who has spent her entire career working for civil and human rights. she's a graduate of harvard law school and shoot clerked for
justice blackmun on the supreme court. she was confirmed in 2010 by the senate to serve as a u.s. commission on equal employment opportunity and is currently in her second term as the commissioner. she is the first openly lesbian person to serve on the commission. she is also a professor of law at georgetown university law center where she has taught since 1991 at the law center she founded the federal legislation and administrative law clinic which represents clients such as african charities u.s.a., a national disability rights network, and the center for mental health law. she also founded and codirected workplace flexibility 2010, a policy enterprise focus on finding common ground between employers and employees on workplace flexibility issues. as legislative counsel at the american civil liberties union
from 1988-1991, a period during which she and my tenure of the left, she played a leading role in helping to draft and negotiate a groundbreaking americans with disabilities act 1990 and i have also adapted to work with her in my role as president of the leadership conference when we're working to get congress to pass the americans with disabilities act amendments in 2008 which overturn supreme court decisions that had reduced protections for certain people with disabilities including people with diabetes epilepsy, heart disease, mental disabilities and cancer who were originally intended to be covered by the ada. in addition, chai helped to draft the employment non-discrimination act to a bill which is still being considered in congress that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity, and this after the civil rights act of 1964. now, john know i could think of a better person to be tonight's lecture, so without further ado please join us in welcoming commissioner chai feldblum to the podium. chai? [applause] >> commissioner feldman -- felt somewhat different and enough questions and answers. got to students in the class will pass out cards to do anything have a question just write it down and when she finishes or so before then they will come about and collect it. will you raised your hand? there's one hit and one in the rear. just as your card to import to her and to present them to me. we will focus some of them and i will read your question for the commissioner, wade or i do enter. please begin.
>> thank you so much. so as you heard -- and nation heard from this microphone -- pardon me. okay. and i gather -- that's the c-span wanted to become your fine with me talking not writing to them, right? >> correct. >> so as you heard from, going to talk about the decision that the supreme court handed down this past friday obergefell versus hodges. and as you heard in that case the court ruled that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry guaranteed by the federal constitution as to opposite sex couples. and by that ruling, the court invalidated any state law that kept the gay couples out of the civil institution of marriage.
so as a guy and i'm sure many of you know the decision was written by justice kennedy and dissent were written by chief justice roberts as well as by justice scalia thomas and alito. there were no concurrences in the majority opinion. there was one majority opinion and then for the sense. i'm going to talk about the opinion in two ways. and go to talk about the legal reasoning that justice kennedy used in his majority opinion and ago to talk about the social and moral message that was conveyed by the court's opinion by not only the result but also the legal reasoning that justice kennedy used. now, for those who have read the decision already i hope that this talk will provide you with yet additional insight.
for those of you who have not read the opinion, i hope this lecture, this talk will serve the same purpose as a book review often serves. how many times have you heard i haven't read the book but have read the book review cracks even if you don't write the opinion that if you don't read the opinion, hopefully this talk will serve as the book review. so i think one way and perhaps the best way to understand both the legal reasoning that the court used and the social message it sent is to compare the court decision last friday in june 2015 that states may not deny same-sex couples access to the civil institution of marriage through the courts opinion in loving v. virginia, handed down in june 1967 that a state could not criminalize the marriage between a black person
and a white person. now, both of those decisions grounded their results in the 14th amendment of the constitution. so both of those opinions said these laws violate the 14th amendment of the constitution, violate both the due process clause of the 14th commitment and equal protection clause. but now we are going to see how they use those in slightly different ways, with the loving case really leading with equal protection and then adding a dose of due process and obergefell pleading with due process and adding a dose of equal protection. so let's look at the works of the 14th amendment. no state shall, quote deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, order, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. sulfurous clause, no state shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law. well, as you can see this as nothing about what the right to liberty includes. like there's no definition of liberty, right? for example, it doesn't set a person has a fundamental right to raise children in a particular way. or fundamental right to procreate, or fundamental right to use contraception or to get an abortion, or for that matter of fundamental right to marry. it just says no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. same thing with the equal protection clause. the equal protection clause does not say well public schools may not segregate on the basis of race, or public universities may
not refuse to admit women. it just says no state shall deny a person the equal protection of the law. so over time judges have two approaches of the giving this language meaning of interpreting these words. so one way is to focus on the content of those who drafted and ratified the 14th amendment, right? what did those people think the right to liberty meant? what did those people think a right to equal protection it? this is called an originalist view of the constitution. the meaning of the constitution should be primarily, if not solely, determined based on the original intent of those who drafted and ratified that portion of the constitution.
now, an alternative approach to interpretation is to say that the drafters of the constitution, including the 14th amendment, intentionally, specifically used general open into terms so that over time the constitutional protection would encompass whatever that country then understood to be included in liberty or equal protection. this is called a theory of the constitution as a living document the living constitution. now, this latitude of interpretation is the one test is kennedy used in his opinion. and here's a quote that i have not heard already in a speech tv, since it's an important quote i'm going to quote it, too. quote, the nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own time. for generations that wrote and ratified the bill of rights in
the 14th amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimension, end quote. and that is why justice kennedy explains the provisions were written in an open-ended way that would encompass new understanding of liberty and equality and, in fact, it is precisely the responsibility of the supreme court of the united states to discern and apply these understandings. now, over the past 100 years supreme court opinions have been decided based on this approach to the constitution, as a living, growing document, not interpret it just by what the original intent was. so despite the alarming reactions come in number of the dissents newsflash, i'm telling you, the obergefell case is not
the first time the court has used this approach. pretty standard way of interpreting the constitution. okay, but even if one acknowledges that interpretations of the 14th amendment must encompass new meanings and understanding, does it mean that the 14th amendment prohibits the state from enacting, from enforcing a democratically enacted law that prohibits persons of different races from getting married? or does it prohibit the state from enforcing a democratically enacted law that prohibits people of the same sex from entering the civil institution of marriage? the supreme court has not answered both of these questions in the affirmative. so let's compare how they got there. in each of those cases.
in the loving case, just remind you the state of virginia had criminalized the act of opposite race couples getting married. challenged under both the equal protection clause and the due process clause. estate respond in terms of the equal protection clause with two arguments. first they said no equal protection problem because we are criminalizing and penalizing black and white people equally. a black person marries a white person goes to jail for person goes to joe put it away person made a black person can go to jail, equal treatment. the court did not buy that argument. like to know the law is using a racial classification. that means you are taking race into account that brings the equal protection clause into place. so the states next argument saying if you don't buy our first one, they say you know there's no violation of the clause because our state has a
rational reason for acting this provision. and the reason that they gave at least at the court level was that the scientific evidence of the impact of interracial marriages were still as they called it substantially in doubt and, therefore, was rational for the state to prohibit such marriages. court didn't buy that argument either. number one, pointed out when there's a distinction based on race the court has adapted and less deferential attitude to democratically enacted laws. the whole point of the constitution is to make sure that there's a backstop to civil rights backstop to mature carrying you. so they said no, there has to be some legitimate overriding are best for the law is not simply a desire to treat one race more poorly. now, that states own
justification for the law would look more into the record was as the court described the, quote, to maintain white supremacy. that was the goal. they said they do what makes you a racist, they want to keep the racist fewer. and the court said that's not okay. that's a violation of equal protection, to have that be your reason. so law invalidated under the equal protection. now, the court then if you're in a dose of due process. it ruled into short paragraphs that virginia's law also violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. it explained that quote marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. and, therefore the court said to deny this fundamental freedom, fundamental right to marry, on so unsupportable a basis as to the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all of the states it is in within liberty without due process of law. so it is also in violation of the constitution also must be struck down as a violation of due process. now, i believe there were important ramifications to the fact that the court in loving used primarily equal protection law and rhetoric of the terms of the legal ramifications and the social message it imported. when you use equal protection you are not just your fundamental right to there are persimmon a lot of things people want to do without having to encounter racial bias. maybe they wanted to buy some item, from the military
commissary store without being told the store doesn't serve blocks -- blacks. there's no fundamental right to go shopping. but there is no fundamental right to go shopping. and to be served in a store. i did a military so store so it would be covered under the constitution but it would be an equal right to be served. there's a legitimate overriding purpose cannot serve someone. equal protection has a broader scope, but i think the second by deciding the constitution violation primer on equal protection grounds, the court sent a very strong, moral and social message. because the message was that the ideology of white supremacy could not justify unequal treatment. and that was the message that came very clear through the equal protection analysis. ..
of marriage is additional under the 14th amendment. the court decided yet, it is some cause additional. so how did the court get there in this decision? remember the 14th amendment does not say anything about a person has been a fundamental right to marry. for years the supreme court had ruled certain substantive right were included in the liberty. not just been put in prison but other substantive for a the court had concluded these right included the right to bring up one wish including if you want them to learn chairman. it concluded that the fundamental right to procreate
in 1942 and validated a lot that requires sterilization of some criminal. a fundamental right to marry which was explicated in the loving case. and then in the late 60s and early 70s, the fundamental right to use contraception or to have an abortion. so in these cases, the court had interpreted the due process clause as protecting certain fundamental rights under the rubric of liberty from abridgment by the state absent a strong justification. that was how they interpreted the due process part. absent a strong justification. all of these cases than child-rearing, procreation contraception and abortion were on the books when the u.s. supreme court in 1986 was faced with the question whether a
state that criminalized between two consenting adult violated the liberty interest -- the liberty rights of those individuals. many of us thought it surely did based on the logic of the previous cases. but in barrows versus hardwick written by justice white here's how they started out the analysis. explaining the relationship between the cases we think it evident that none of the right announced in those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of to engage in acts of. no connection between family merits are procreation on one hand husband demonstrated.
no connection between family, marriage are procreation and activity on the other has been done in jaded. i was clerking or the judge on the first or at in 1986 when the case was scheduled to come down. i was also committed to working as a law clerk to justice harry blackmun by next year. i called the court every day to find out whether the case had come down and how the justices had voted. there was a number you could call. it was a tape recorder. you could find out was decided, who is in the majority. they speculate what the court had affirmed.
so i was very relieved when i got the tape recorded message that side justice black men. i was clearly upset we lost the case, but thankfully i'm voting -- clerking and he had written what was seen as a very strong defense on the half of gay people. you know two weeks after i started at the court i walked into the elevator and justice white was standing there. today i'm in the elevator with justice white in my stomach clenched and i thought this man does not think there is any connection between the relationship i have another relationships the family. and my eyes stung.
well, my eyes stung again in containers later for a different reason when i was sitting in the court room in 2003 hearing justice kennedy hand down a decision in lawrence versus texas overruling eric versus hardwick. here is what justice kennedy said. here was his legal reasoning. future when the language of cases that it found fundamental rights to use contraception or have an abortion and in most cases justice kennedy explained the court had to find the liberty to include the right to make certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy. that liberty included the right to make certain personal choices central to individual dignity
and autonomy and he applied the right to the personal choices that gay people make. he stated that those choices are often one part of what he called a personal bond between two persons that can be enduring and then display it had to allow transport people to engage in such a dignity without fear of criminal prosecution. i actually cried. the relief have been the case over role of in the previous 17 years. i was also because it was the first time the highest court have described relationships in a respect for manner.
in the way in which a similarity between the intimacy of gay relationships in straight relationships could he imagined. justice kennedy was also very clear in the lawrence decision that he was not saying gay relationships deserve the same legal recognition by state s. office said sex relationships received. here's how he put it. stay laws seek to control a personal relationship that whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law end quote, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. without ever saying the word marriage, he made it clear the opinion did not say anything about the right of gay couples
to access marriage. it is holding state could not make a relationship a crime. in 2003, joseph kennedy was not based at the question of whether states had to give couples access to settle a tradition of marriage. even two years ago in 2013 in the 5-4 decision justice kennedy writing for the court the only thing they decide is the section of the law not to recognize marriages validly entered into by couples in various states. the court decided it did violate the process clause cannot section of delma was invalid dated. in the cases that came to the supreme court this term the
court did have to decide the ultimate question of whether the denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples violated the liberty interest of those individuals. and as all of those watching new comment that meant justice kennedy would have to answer the question for himself. justice kennedy described confirming the dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engagement in association with criminal liability, it does not follow freedom stops there. how lots of outcasts may be a step forward but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty. justice canady absolutely sees this ruling as a means of moving gay couples to be an outcast to
be in full members of society. i think a lot of us as gay people have not viewed ourselves as outcast for some time. we have been out and proud for a while. but there is no doubt that this decision stating that no one certain terms that gay couples deserve the same access to civil marriage as straight couples is a statement unlike any other about the dignity and worth of gay people. the way they got to this place was simply to apply everything he said before and carried to its logical conclusion. he started of course at the cases that dealt directly with the right to marry is the fundamental liberty right than include prey rarely the 1967 loving versus virginia as well as a case that invalidated state law that prohibited fathers the hind on child support from
getting married and another one that invalidated regulations that limit the privilege of inmates to marry. justice kennedy has to acknowledge all of these cases had resumed the relationship involving opposite sex partners. the court like many institutions has made assumptions to find by the time on which it is the pyre. so to answer the question now whether as he describes the fourth rationale of the past cases should apply to same-sex couples justice kennedy said well we need to war and respect the basic reason why the right to marry has been long protected. we have to figure out the reasons why this is a fundamental right and based on those reasons see how that
applies to gay couples. so his first reason was to say is a fundamental right to marry because the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. this has been a major theme for justice kennedy. liberty includes being able to make personal choices and not. he says in the opinion two men or two women have the same right to make a profound choice as a man and a woman. justice kennedy could have stopped right there in terms of a due process analysis. the liberty interest in making a profound choice whether to get married estate may not restrict
that. no overriding purpose restricting a profound choice in that way. die e-mail, for those of you who have never been to a passover seder, one of the main songs that we saying is if god had taken outside of the jet it would have been enough. so he could've just done the due process violation. but he didn't. he went on an part of why she went on with this case was a hard case for justice kennedy. he had evolved in his understanding of this issue and he wanted to explain why. he wanted to explain why the logic of cases applied in a fundamental to marry applied equally to gay couples. another reason bothers the fundamental right to marry was that he helped safeguard
children and families. marriage safeguards children and families in the state has an interest in that. justice kennedy for some time has been affected by the research showing 100000 children are currently being raised by same-sex couples. research done by the williams institute. as he explained in this opinion allowing those couples to marry will be incredibly important to this children not just because of the material benefits they look at but because it will reduce the stigma that attaches to their families. those are the two reasons there is a fundamental right to marry. he had two more reasons he put out. the right to marry is fundamental because it is a unique relationship. it supports a two-person union
unlike any other in its importance to the committed individual. here is one of the things he says. marriage response to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. it offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while those live there will be someone to care for the other. i don't know about you but i actually know a lot of unmarried people who are not normally and you have very good friends will actually be there to offer companionship and care. i believe for justice kennedy in many previous supreme court there is a fundamental right to marry not only because it's an important personal choice but because marriage is so is so important and is so exalted. a lot of the rhetoric captures
that. an additional reason put forward is a fundamental right to marry because marriage is a keystone of our social order. that is why justice canady explained it was appropriate for a state to place the status of marriage right at the center of the legal and social order. precisely because of what he called the precious status of marriage excluding gay man and lesbian have the effective teaching the gay and lesbian in equal respect the means the state to lock them out at an institution of the nation society. so after the long explication on due process justice kennedy then there's to equal protection and notes the right to marry is
derived also is also derived from the amendment guarantee of equal protection. he talks a lot about the two clauses speed interlocking and reinforce the end clearly he knows he has to address the equal protection clause. he has to crowd his conclusion in the equal protection clause as well not only because it's argued so much because you could find it on one clause. the other four justices in order to ensure they will not write concurrences about it will protection negotiated this section with justice kennedy. what is interesting about that i say lots of stuff interlocking but he does ultimately say it must be further acknowledged the
challenge laws abridge essential precepts of the quality. the marriage laws in force by the respondent rms and unequal. same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite sex couples. nothing about how fundamental the ride is that they are denied although that's a lot of other senses. here it is clearly a violation of equal protection. so what are the legal ramifications of justice kennedy using the due process clause what is the social implication of that? the legal ramifications justice kennedy thinks he was trying to achieve by not grounding that primarily in the equal protection cabinet because you don't have a fundamental right
to go shopping. you don't have a fundamental right to get a job. to the extent to gay people experience in a quality in areas that are not a fundamental right, the way to get protection in this situation is under the equal protection clause pacific government maxtor were through statute that the congress passes requiring equality. obviously a statement with violation of equal protection to treat gay people differently is certainly abuse for the analysis with regard to other government actions and also a boost in terms of the quality under existing laws. for example, the argument discrimination on the basis of orientation is actually a know it discrimination based on sex is an argument beginning to play out in the court in the
commission which i'm on has engaged with has said to foreign sex discrimination is not dismissed by the court. it's not even addressed because it says it is a form that violates the equal protection clause, not telling us why. justice roberts oral argument isn't it your sex discrimination. if sue loves joe and tom wants joe, sue can marry and tom came. so i actually think the statement that there has been an equal protection violation with these laws even not explicated will end up having significant effect. the legal ramifications could be narrow but i don't necessarily think they will.
but i think one of the main reasons why justice canady grounded his argument in the due process clause and not the equal protection clause was because there was a particular social moral message that he wanted the court's opinion to convey. ruling on the fact the state must treat gay the same because there's no rational basis for the distinction. instead, the exalted language about marriage allows justice kennedy to make the point that men and lesbian did not about to be demeaned and giving them access to civil marriage sends the message loud and clear that they will not need.
so it was not enough to provide only a few reasons for why a gay person has the right to marry. he wanted to provide all of them. he wanted to explain the exalted status of marriage even though the rhetoric understandably makes some people uncomfortable. to him the overriding is precisely why gay couples cannot be excluded from the similar situation. that is the exact opposite of what the court said where there was no connection that could be seen between activity and family. and this opinion by using a fundamental right to marry the fundamental right to a civil institution that is exalted and valorized in our society, that
is how he made the point that there is similarity and there is goodness and there is respect that goes to all of those relationships. thank you for your attention and i am looking forward to your questions. [applause] >> which he now passed or written over to the monitors. i will kick it off with one little one or do you want to go first? [inaudible] the three dissenters saw done to basically two kinds of issues. one, none of the senators say they are again same-sex marriage. they simply say the wrong party and our government decided here
to that of the court that should've been the legislature. the second argument is they pick apart a liberty interest and as you stated, there is no express right to liberty and thomas as liberty will constrain you from doing some and a nothingness constraining gay the way blacks were in america but i was through jim crow segregation. how do you think kennedy doubt what those arguments because he didn't address them. >> they make a lot out of the decision. there have been a lot of 5-for decisions. citizens united, bush v. gore. the bottom line is sometimes the decisions are six, three and sometimes five, four. and sometimes seven, two. that does not make a difference.
this is the supreme court in the nine justices given the responsibility of interpreting the constitution. of the defendant, chief justice roberts dissent is quite different than the other three. that is he does like the others say this was not the right entity to decide this question but he did it for different reasons. the other dissent by reciting the question of whether the court should put any substantive right into the word liberty. justice thomas entire opinion is about liberty means you can't be shut in prison. liberty means that government can do something to you and it doesn't even mention the cases of an affirmative right to
educate your child as they wish an affirmative right to use contraception. these are right that necessarily interact with government. the reason people were criminalized in the contraception area is trying to use contraception. that is a very public right. a lot of those were just essentially fighting the site for not explaining why should be different now for a liberty interest for couples versus any of the previous cases. justice roberts was somewhat different. he did not say it's completely inappropriate for the court as a general matter to deduce what is in the liberty interest. he didn't argue there isn't a fundamental right to marry and it was wrong for the court to have found in 1923 the court did
a whole list of fundamental rights even though the case was about the right to bring up your child as you wish. the right to marry had been listed. the first time it was used in a strong way. there is no such fundamental right. it is beyond the authority of the supreme court to decide same-sex couples have the same fundamental right. why would it be beyond the authority of the court. he did that by basically saying there's a thing called right to marry and then something called right to gay marriage. that is like another species. on the right to marry you have things like you can't stop people of opposite races marrying. you can't say a father who's
behind in child support can't marry. that is the species but you don't have the authority to create this entire new species of marriage called a gay marriage. the gay community has said we don't want gay marriage. we want marriage. they want access to the exact same institutions. in a way, justice roberts was just saying it is a different animal. it is a different species. he didn't have to engage with all the reasons justice kennedy put forward because as far as he was concerned that couples were asking for fundamental right for gay marriage and that was somehow completely different. >> will do a