tv Americas Newsroom FOX News June 26, 2013 6:00am-8:01am PDT
>> anna: breaking news, fox affiliate in massachusetts reporting aaron hernandez has been escorted from his house in handcuffs. >> steve: have a great day. see you back here tomorrow. on two definitions that could change the definition of rights in america. i'm bill hemmer. martha is on the road. how you doing, heather? heather: we could have some clear answers in just 60 inus. bill: one case. the constitutional challenge to the defense of marriage act known as doma signed into law by
president clinton. doma defines marriage as being between a man and woman and benefits go to only a man and a woman traditional couples. the challenge to california's proposition 8 approved by golden state voters in november of 2008 by a vote of 52-48%. that challenge by two california same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses under that law, they claim it violates the 14th amendment to the constitution. there is a possibility the justices do not even get to the merits of these cases. can that happen? >> reporter: it can happen. in both of these cases. prop 8 is a state measure and doma was passed by congress.
when it came time to defend these two measures in court. in both cases the government officials who would be responsible for defending them said we are not going to do it. in the prop 8 case there were supporters of prop 8 case, they took up the case. in the matter of doma house members took up defense of the law. but neither one of those parties defending those two measures don't have the proper standing to be here. it's possible the court looks at them and says those aren't the proper parties to bring the cases. it would be disappointing to folks on both sides. hundreds of them today, thousands waiting for a ruling and for it to be left unsettled would be a tough blow for both sides. bill: if they get to the core of these cases there are numerous possible outcomes. i count a total of 8. what do you have?
>> reporter: i say that times infinity. when the justices come together you just need five votes on one coalesced point. but there can be splitoff opinions, multiple dissents. they can go very narrow and taylor it just to california in the case of prop 8. in doma they can write it narrowly and say we are going to uphold it or strike it down. our most unexpected opinion would be if they say a blanket pronouncement allowing gay marriage in all 50 states. we don't think they will go that way, we think it will be a much more narrow decision. but we'll see. heather: whatever the supreme court decides today, the issue of making same-sex marriage legal, it remains divisive.
46% favor legalizing gay marriage. 47% oppose. when we asked this, should we change the definition of marriage to chiu same-sex couples. 39% say yes, 56% say no, don't change the definition of marriage. bill: 1,138 is how many federal laws use marital status as a factor in determining rights, benefits and protection. and 1,100 rights and protections provided under federal law on the basis of marital status. heather: president obama in a bit of trouble with voters. new polls show for the first time more than half of people do not approve of the job that he's
doing. his job approval rating at 43%. 51% say they disapprove of his performance. compare that to a year ago. the president's job approval rating was in positive territory. 48% approving. 43% saying they disapproved back then. all of this probably not news that will make the west wing very happy. bill: a wild scene at the texas state capitol. a senator staging a filibuster to oppose a bill that would impose new abortion restrictions. >> this bill layered upon a previous bill the legislature enacted and the further hardships on women. it's important to describe the impact of this particular bill, and that's what i'm talking about, the impact of this particular bill. i think it's perfectly
reasonable to talk about it in the context of what women in texas today will face if this provision goes in place. bill: that's wendy davis. her mission cut short by republicans in texas who tried to move forward with the vote. that's when things got out of hand in austin. >> if i can have order we'll suspend the roll call vote until we can get recorder in the chambers. we'll suspend the roll call vote. bill: this went late into the night. hundreds of protesters staging what they called a people's filibuster. they were screaming at lawmakers long enough, long enough for republicans to miss the midnight deadline to pass the bill. more on this battle over abortion and abortion rights in the state of texas.
heather: a live look at the court room in sanford, florida where george zimmerman's murder trial is about to get underway. yesterday jurors heard testimony from a neighbor who described what she saw outside her home. >> did you also hear some kind of movement outside the back of your residence? >> yes. >> can you describe that to the jury, please? >> it sounded like running from left to right in the rear pathway. >> the defense not happy about that left to right description. heather: phil keating live at the justice center in sanford, florida. >> reporter: this jury of six people now is a panel of 9 people. the judge announcing this panel has been reduced by one person. juror b72, the young hispanic male known for his army of arm
wrestling, he has been dismissed and the judge said it has nothing do at all with his case. matters outside of this courtroom. regardless we now have 9 people listening to the evidence that 6 jurors and 3 alternates. the judge ruling the previous 911 phone calls george zimmerman made to police about suspicious prime minister walking through his neighborhood. those will be allowed into this trial. she says those are relevant. denying the defense motions. this enables the prosecution to build up their allegation that the reason zimmerman followed, pursued and shot trayvon martin was out of anger and frustration because previous suspicious people had in his words always gotten away. back to that witness from late yesterday afternoon that caused a bit of a storm inside the courtroom. the neighbor essentially contradicting the alibi of
george zimmerman in a way she never had before in any of her depositions. that witness described look out her window and seeing two figures standing and flailg stam nailing thei --and seeing them r arms. she claimed the sound of running came from the bottom of the screen first. a hot mark o'mara had her read her own facebook page. >> tell me what that says on your facebook front page. >> prosecute the color of our son. sign the petition. >> reporter: on the stand is one of the other neighbors in the gated community where george
zimmerman lived and where trayvon martin died. >> you want to get back inside. we'll check back in with you. phil keating live. bill: mark rich who was famously pardoned during president clinton's final hours in office has died. if he was known as the king of commodities. he was indicted on 50 counts of fraud and racketeering and tax evasion. good morning, stuart. news on mark rich? undercover in greece for years. >> his life story is the story of the vigorous per sui -- pursf money. it goes back to the 1970s. he had a relationship with iran. traded oil for iran just as american diplomats were held hostage in iran.
he made billions. he fled to switzerland as a fugitive. his wife denise approaches the clinton administration. she wants a pardon for her husband. she gives big money to the clinton library. pulls in eric holder who was a deputy to the attorney general. he says he was favorably up kleined. outraged that mr. rich never came back to america because of that outrage. all of that is history but his death brings back the whole story and with it the name eric holder and bill clinton who was involved in that. bill: i'm sure you have more to say about this on your show at 9:15. talk about the gdp number, too. breaking news out of north attleboro, massachusetts. new england patriots tight end aaron hernandez age 23 has been
taken into police custody from inside of his home moment ago. questions surrounding the death of a semi pro football player found dead 10 days ago in an industrial park less than a mile from his home. this is hernandez in the white t-shirt being led out of his home into a police car in his driveway. odin lloyd was shot in the head 9 days ago. was dating a woman whose sister is hernandez' fiance. officials ruled the death a homicide but did not say how he died. other reports say he was shot almost execution style in the head at the industrial park. it is not known why hernandez was taken into custody on this wednesday morning and put in the back of that police car. no word from police what the
charges could be. police searched in and around his home several times. reports he obliterated his cell phone. erased the surveillance video inside his home. all those questions about hernandez who was taken away in a police car moment ago. heather: all kinds of things happened today. we are just getting started so you want to stay tuned. the senate on top of everything else expected to pass immigration reform. the house is maybe another story. what would it take to get a deal done that a majority can support? we'll talk with one of the bill's biggest supporters, florida senator marco rubio. bill: stories of questionable credit card use. heather: russia refusing to hand over nsa leaker edward snowden. >> hillary clinton and barack
that's pretty big. how bout you? 10. ok...how bout you? infinity! can you top that? infinity and one! actually, we are looking for infinity plus infinity. sorry. what about infinity times infinity?! oh! [ imitates explosion ] [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. bigger is better. and at&t has the nation's largest 4g network. ♪
bill: back to the breaking news. in massachusetts in the town of attleboro and the neighborhood of north attleboro. that's new england paitd patriots tight end aaron hernandez being taken into custody a moment ago. he's taken away in the back of a police car. it's been a mystery how 27-year-old odin lloyd was shot and killed in an industrial park less than a mile from hernandez' home. they talked to hernandez inside the home but there was no move made by police, and many
wondered when and if that move would be made. in addition to hernandez we are told there were four men together, including hernandez and lloyd, the dead man, and two other individuals, two men who were out on a sunday night into a monday morning, seen together on a surveillance tape. different images captured of the four men. the morning after when police arrived at hernandez' home they saw a car pulling out with at least two of the four men inside. we don't note identities of them or if they have been questioned or if they have any role in this. you there is a mystery, how and why was odin lloyd killed. good morning, joe. are you in north attleboro? >> reporter: we are rushing to the attleborough district court
where we believe her man dezz will be arraigned in any moment. bill: were you at the home? >> i wasn't. we have been there every day. he was cuffed, brought out and he will be facing serious charges we are told. bill: you don't know what the charges are? >> reporter: not yet. we are being told some things. the new england pai -- the new s said they may comment later quote after we confirm some things. this is the day we have been waiting for to see what do police have on aaron hernandez. bill: the other two men. is there news on them this morning or is it just surrounding hernandez? >> reporter: yesterday hernandez hired an expert in criminal law. a criminal defense attorney.
he went from just having two high-powered lawyers to adding a criminal lawyer. so things are moving. bill: he was with his lawyer at least one of them over the weekend and was pretty much out of sight. >> reporter: yesterday he was visited again by what pea pared to b -- by whatappeared to be p. and his home was searched where they took out a lot of evidence. bill: he went to the team's practice facility and the reporting that you told us is the team told him to leave. have the patriots kept him at arm's length through all this? >> reporter: yes, have much so. that's clear. especially today with them saying we may comment later in the day. they are in the loop to some degree. they have kept him away, they are not commenting.
you haven't heard from bill belichik. they are keeping this tight end at arm's length. bill: the sources and the police department you have spoken with, have they confirmed the cell phone was destroyed and the home surveillance system was scrubbed? >> reporter: no. that's what we'll find out momentarily. what charges he faces. is it the obstruction charge or is it more than that. bill: if the cell phone and recording system is an issue, that could be obstruction of justice. >> reporter: there is a lot flowing out there. but well find out momentarily because they have to file with the court. bill: has odin lloyd's family spoken publicly in the last several days? >> reporter: they have spoken almost daily and they are upset
bill: a growing number of republican lawmakers demanding president obama confront vladimir putin. lindsey graham, quote. putin is an autocratic dictator. this man snowden has been charged. you have physical control of the body. we want him back. michele bachmann is on the house intelligence committee. she is my guest.
good morning to you. what do you think about your colleagues talking this way? >> i think it's a recognition of the frustration president obama has us in a situation where the united states is weak on the national stage. very different. the president inherited the most powerful nation in the world with the most powerful national security, the most powerful military. in the president's term in office we have seen him reduce the size of our military, reduce our economy, and unfortunately reduce the united states presence on the national stage such that both china and feel that without any impunity or backlash they can snub the united states. this is a real downfall as the expense of president obama. bill: senatorrer o bill: nor orin hatch said the same thing.
there is a poll out. 61% disapprove of the way this is going down. the government ecuador, the foreign minister said edward snowden would not get a pretrial in the united states. he was speaking from vietnam. putin says the accusations against russia are rubbish. he says the security agents are not working with snowden. he says it's like sheering a pig. lots of screams but little wool. >> it many humiliating to the united states. that's the impact china, russia, and ecuador want on the united states. it's coalition of communist countries. it's saying the united states doesn't have leverage and we are going to milk this for all it can. this is a result of the policies president obama has embraced.
bill: which policies? >> he weakened our economy so china has leverage over the united states and he weakened us militarily. he said he wanted to unilaterally disarm our nuclear power by 30%. that's while we have third world nations like iran heavily involved in their nuclear weaponry. president obama's actions on the world stage are laughable at our expense. bill: ed snowden we believe is still eating airport food in moscow. michele bachmann we thank you for your time. we were short today because we have all this breaking news. heather: we'll have more on aaron hernandez, the new england patriot taken from his home in handcuffs and put into a police car. marco riewsh ohio a member of
the so-called gang of 8 on immigration says immigration reform will look a whole lot different in the house. what dose mean by that and what does he think of the chances we'll see legislation pass this summer. we ask the senator ourselves right here on "america's newsroom." every day we're working to be an even better company - and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.
upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's
gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now!
heather: a fox news alert. new england patriots tight end aaron hernandez taken from his home in handcuffs and placed into a police cruiser. molly lane joins us. >> reporter: the bristol county district attorney's office which has bent lead agency during this case has dwroat release what's happening here or what he's being arrested for. what this means. we don't have a clue on what the charges may be after being put into the back of that north attleboro police car and taken away. it happened early this morning. 8:45. it's unusual in the sense this is a high profile individual. the media has been camped out outside his home for days and days but he does have high-profile attorneys. many times in the case where you
$see a client like this who is so successful and has big-name attorneys he quietly comes into custody. but that's not the case here where he was taken out front door and put into the back of this cruiser. this is the police department where it's likely he will be taken next. perhaps they are questioning him. we don't know what's going on and the bristol county district attorney temperatures office has yet to the release information on this. aaron hernandez attorneys have released a statement trying to tamp down some of the rumors that have come about and false reports over the course of this developing investigation. they say these include the repeated publication of supposed confirmed reports that an arrest warrant was issued for aaron. but this morning we see him being taken away in handcuffs. we'll keep you posted as we get
more information. heather: we know he destroyed property related to the case, so possibly obstruction of justice charges could be one of the things he's facing. molly line reporting live for us. bill: hernandez will be booked at the attleboro police station and brought to the district court for arraignment. one is a town, one is a city on the new england border. 7 house republicans signaling the immigration bill could face issues. senator marco rubio supports the bill. i'll get the prediction on the table first. what happens in senate with this bill. >> because of the border security amendment that was added to the bill. 120 pages of border security that includes 700 miles of fence and, 20,000 border agents.
because of that i think we'll see a vote that approximates 66, 67, maybe even 68 senators including 14 republicans which is a dramatic improvement from last week. the house will have their own bill and we respect that there they have a right to do that. bill: have you had conversations with your republican colleagues in the house on this? >> we have. the lack of trust in government is at a all-time high. people believe whatever we write in this law the government won't enforce that. it's hard to disagree with that when you see headlines about benghazi and reporters being persecuted by the justice department. when you see all that of course distrust in government will grow. but on the other hand look at what we have in place. if we don't do anything, here is what's going to stay. 11 million people are here
illega fence, no e verify. we have to figure out a way -- bill: take that aspect of your argument. can you convince some of the fence sitter's to support your ideas? >> i think part of the problem is people have been burned by these bills in the past. so this scepticism is real. i share a lot of it. on the other hand i understand this problem is complex and comprehensive. if we don't do something. my argument is we'll get stuck with what we have now for the next five or six years. bill: senator rand paul says he can't support this bill because the border security is not where he wants it. i think he speaks on behalf of a lot of house republicans who are sceptical, too. >> i think the measures we have taken on the border are unprecedented. we are doubling the size of the border patrol. we are mandating.
they can't waive this. you have to build 700 miles of fencing that's real. an e verify system. exit and entry tracking system. drones and land sensors and cameras. it's an unprecedented surge in border security unlike anything that's ever happened. bill: i think when you look at the list you are impressed by it. but chuck grassily will come out and say we did this in 1986 and we lied to the american people. we did not do what we said we would do in 1986 now we are going to do it all over again. when senator paul argues. set some benchmarks. make sure border security hits his mark this year and this mark next year. then we can proceed with the legislation. what's wrong with that idea? >> the 1986 law granted people
status in this country but it didn't condition it on anything. future congresses didn't fund and future administrations didn't prioritize it. these folks cannot become permanent residents of this country if these measures don't happen. all five of them have to happen. the border agents, the e verify, the fencing. in '86 it wasn't conditions and that's why it didn't happen. bill: let's say the bill doesn't get signed into law in the end and all you do is cause a spat within the republican party. what are you left with? >> i came up here to try to fix problems. i wasn't going to leave the issue for democrats to solve. the choice was conservatives get involved and try to move it in the right direction.
fit was up to them there wouldn't be any border security, they say the border is already secure. if it was up to them there wouldn't be an e-verify and we wouldn't have a border security debate fit was up to them. i wasn't going to leave it just to them. i have done the best i can and i understand people and why they disagree with plea. we'll continue to work hard to solve this problem. bill: once you put immigration behind you can work on bigger issues like the economy. we'll be in touch with you and your office. we have a lot of breaking news this morning but through. heather: the irs is beginning to make a name for itself for the way it spends taxpayer dollars. you will not believe the new item that your tax dollars use were used to buy.
my new hearing aids instantly changed my life - i feel so much younger. my husband has his confidence back. and he can enjoy the laughter of our grandkids again. i can have fun with my friends again. feeling isolated? ready to reconnect? the aarp hearing care program provided by hearusa can help. call hearusa at ... for a free hearing check-up. plus, receive a free $50 dining card when you get your free hearing check up.
aarp members receive a 20% discount on breakthrough hearing aids. call now, and you'll even get a free 3-year supply of hearing aid batteries with your hearing aid purchase- a $100 value. the aarp hearing care program provided by hearusa comes with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. call hearusa at ... and start loving life again, today. heather: the bad news just keeps on coming forth irs. the agency in hot water over its spending habits and an inspector general's report claims employees used government credit cards for purchases made for wine to porn.
it shows employees, they swiped agency credit cards 273,000 times. the grand total for their purchases exceeding more than $108 million. and the report notes most of the purchases were legitimate. not all of them were. more than $3,100 spent on entertainment at an employee event. they rented a popcorn event. gave out prizes. al diamato is a former senator from new york. what is a stove pipe hat? >> what about the diet pills you didn't mention. the porn, somebody stole our credit cards. that's nonsense. the american taxpayer has been
defraud by the very people who when you put in your expense reports, they want to see them. they want to know what was this money for. they should be held to the same standards with expense reports that are required to be put in. so the irs should be held to the same standards that they hold the american taxpayer. it is an organization that has some real problems. heather: i went through this report. this was the initial assessment and plan of action report from the irs that they did on themselves because of the targeting that was going on. and in this on page 41 it actually talks about -- and we can put this up on the full screen. in travel and training they say they are going to limit that. this is one of the things they are going to do to themselves. travel costs reduced by $83 million. alternatives for in-person
meetings and travel. they say they will cut the training costs by 83%. but then we see the numbers where they are going to training conferences and buying prize for people. dinners, $14. >40 per person.$126,000 just tos international conference. doesn't sounds like they are cutting back. >> it sounds like a lot of fun and they are doing it at america's expense. they come down on you and want to see all the receipts. they knock out god knows how many legitimate expenses because you can't prove it. so they should be held to the same standard. heather: more oversight. and none of the people involved in this latest incident are apparently being held accountable in any way. >> it's a dual standard and it's
about time that we held them again to the same standard that they hold the american taxpayer, too. they are not a privileged group. they operate like they are. people are in fear. when they come in to do an audit, it's a question of how much will you pay and people don't fight it because you can't fight it. it cost you too much money. >> it's fun to talk about. we can laugh about. it's funny to say you are personning money on porn and wine and stuffed animals. but moving forward. make fun of it all you want. this is the same agency that is going to be in charge of obama-care. coming up. and they are going to get more money to order to do that. a 14% raise in their budget. but yet they can't spend the money that they have now appropriately. >> i think it's a frightening thing that we are going have irs
agents checking over medical expenditures. let me tell you not only for the individual taxpayer but for the healthcare providers. the hospitals, doctors, et cetera, you are going to have big brother scrutinizing -- heather: we'll see what happens fan more comes out. thank you for joining us. good to be with you. bill: a big story out of atlanta. heather, thank you. president obama saying he's close to a decision on the keystone oil pipeline. but one of his biggest concerns is stemming from one of his billion dollar donors. air hernandez taken away in handcuffs. he's headed for court in attleboro, massachusetts. the latest when we continue in
bill: in massachusetts, aaron hernandez has been taken into custody. he will be arraigned in attleboro district court. after the arraignment the d.a. from the district of brings tolls he will meet with the press and issue a statement. we'll have that covered for you live when it happens out of massachusetts, breaking news this morning. heather: president obama laying out his energy and climate change policy and suggesting that he could be close to a decision on the keystone xl pipeline. it would carry oil from canada to refineries in texas. but there are new questions about a billionaire donor to the
president who has conflicting interests with the keystone project. john roberts is live in atlanta with more on this. report hedge fund manager and vocal opponents of the pipeline launched a social media campaign to kill it. he started and still has investments with a company that has substantial interests with oil including kinder morgan that wants to start a competing pipeline. critics accuse him of standing to gain from killing the pipeline. >> he has billions of dollars of investment through his hedge fund in fossil fuel. now he's launching this campaign against key stones when his holdings will benefit from the killing of keystone.
those are just the facts. >> reporter: he says he's greening his portfolio, divesting himself of oil and gas. his spokesman says this divestment has place consistent with the applicable legal requirements. heather: how could keystone help stihe. -- steyer. report rrp there are three pipe lines. the transmountain pipeline is the one steyer has investment in. if keystone is built it will be able to carry oil for export to asia. bill: on the steps of the supreme court any moment now we
the u.s. supreme court expected to rule on two historic decisions. one on california's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. proposition 8. the other on the federal defense of marriage act known as doma which denies benefits. more breaking news. the bristol county d.a. in massachusetts confirming new england patriots tight end aaron hernandez is under arrest. he will be arraigned later today. there will be developments on this coming up this hour. a brand-new hour starts right now. i'm bill hemmer. heather: i'm heather childress. hernandez taken from his house and placed in the back seat of a
police cruiser. bill: he is at the of an investigation into the murder of a semi pro player, his body found 9 days ago 3/4 mile away from hernandez' home. what are rehearing about the arrest, molly? >> reporter: we are get something information this morning. it's unusual to not get information about the charges. but they are not releasing that at this point in time. the massachusetts state police released a series of tweets informing the media what is going on. he was taken out of his home shortly after 9:00 this morning. he was put in the back of a north attleboro police cruiser. later on today he's expected to be in the district court in attleboro. no word on what those charges actually are according to the massachusetts state police. that will be presented in court today. this from the bristol county
district attorney's office samuel sutter. they say he will be arraigned at the district court and following that arraignment, the attorney says he will meet with the press and issue a statement. no word on timing when he will be in court. we don't know what time he will be able to offer us more information. it has been 10 days since the body of odin lloyd, this 27-year-old man was found down the street less than a mile away from aaron hernandez' home. found in the afternoon by a jogger there in that industrial park. there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered as to how his body ended up there. and a lot of answers wanted by his family. this is just the beginning, his first step getting closer to justice and getting closer to answers as well. it will be interesting to hear
from the district attorney, what they can say about the case. they kept things very, very close to the vest in the course of this week long investigation. bill: there were two men apparently with them on that sunday night into monday morning. do we know who they are. if they are cooperating, if they are considers suspicious? >> reporter: we don't have information on their identities. our affiliate in boston has gotten some information on the time line. that aaron hernandez and lloyd had been together during the course of the prior evening into the early morning hours and two other men were with them. they had been out in a bar in boston and had been seen on a street where lloyd lived in dorchester. the district attorney's office said they were looking for a car part, a mirror that had come off the vehicle somewhere between the boston area and north
attleborough. bill: molly, apologize for that. in the meantime. there has been a decision handed down at least one of the two cases regarding gay marriage in america that we expected today from the u.s. supreme court. apparently that decision is in regard to the defense of marriage act. it was signed into law passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996. it has been challenged and the u.s. supreme court was asked to question whether or not it was within the constitutional rights or not as to whether certain americans could be denied federal protections under law if indeed they were a married couple. shannon bream just now at the supreme court. she has her gym shoes on running towards our camera. she has the decision in her handle.
>> reporter: it appears they struck count portion of the doma which would ban same-sex couples from getting the same benefits as traditionally married couples. i'll read you this opinion authored by justice kennedy. he said doma same-sex couples with the duties and responsibilities that are an essential parts of married life that would be honored to accept were doma not enforced. he goes on to say the class to which doma directed restrictions and restraints are those persons joined in i am-sex marriages made lawful by their state. this is talking about different states have different laws and rules on marriage. where same-sex couples are married they are recognized as legitimate. because of doma they could not collect federal benefits, tax laws and retirement and survivor benefits. what kennedy goes on to say is doma singles out a class of
person. it imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the state finds to be dignified and proper. he's saying here doma is no good in as far as it defines marriage as only between one man and woman. it doesn't recognize the federal benefits for -- for same-sex couples. bill: just too recap. doma, a law that's been on the books for 17 years has been struck down in a 5-4 ruling which means couples married in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal, they will have access to 1,100 federal benefits. they will have the rights and protections currently provided to opposite sex married couples under the federal law on the basis of their marital status if
they have chosen to get married in a state that recognized gay marriage. do i have that right? >> reporter: do you. the close of this opinion by justice kennedy. it's a 5-4 opinion. he says the federal statute is invalid for no legitimate purpose overcomes a purpose to disparage and injure those who the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity by seeking to displace the protection of treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others. the federal statute is in violation of the fifth amendment. now it says this opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages. it sounds like he's saying in states where the same-sex marriages are valid, the federal government cannot keep those couples from getting the benefits they would under federal law. bill: 5-4 decision. i want to bring in the judge
napolitano, our fox news senior judicious analyst. judiciouso -- senior judicial analyst. >> i'm not surprised from the outcome from the way the oral argument went. the federal government refused to defend the defense of marriage act and the house of representatives had to hire outside lawyers to do so. i'm not surprised given justice kennedy's track record in cases of this nature affecting same-sex issues. this was a very difficult case for the court to uphold dom clarks this context. a same-sex couple got married in canada where it was legal. moved to new york. at the time of the death of one of them. same-sex mawrnlg was legal in new york. if they had been an opposite sex couple the assets would have passed from the decedents' estate to the living one. it was $1 million.
instead of collecting $1 million to prer deceased spouse. she only collected $650,000. the rest went to the irs. it wouldn't have happened if they had been a same-sex couple. she'll collect that refund from the irs with interest as will all same-sex couples married in states where same-sex marriage is lawful. the federal government of the united states of america is now required to recognize marriages of people of the same sex where they have been made lawful in states that make them lawful. bill: doma is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the 50s the amendment. it only applies in states that recognize gay marriage. how many states is that today? >> reporter: that's about 11 states, bill. it's hard to say how this would affect states like new jersey
where same-sex marriage is prohibited but civil unions are permitted. i don't know, i have the opinion in front of me, if the court acresses that for the court is going to visit that issue on another day. bill: stand stand by there. i want to get back to shannon bream. back to the steps of the supreme court. what else do you see there? >> reporter: you remember during the argument there were a couple points that stood out. one point where justice ginsburg who decides for the majority said what you are doing is having couples who can get married in various states -- they can enjoy the benefits under that state but because of doma they can't get federal benefits. you will remember the phrase that came from that argument. she says what you are giving them is a skim milk version of marriage, it's not the full milk version. that's the heart of this opinion. they are recognized in their states as having legitimate
relationships. they can adopt children and do all kinds of things. they can have survivor benefits and all kinds of things that any other traditionally married couple will have. but because of this federal law which was passed with bipartisan majority and signed into law by president bill clinton who has since said doma high school to go. you remember when the case was first filed it dealt with two women who lived in new york. they were married in canada but lived in new york. when one passed away the other was left a huge estate bill because the state didn't recognize their marriage. at the time that she filed her lawsuit, not too long after that the federal government within the attorney general and president obama came out and said they would not defend doma. they would enforce it. but as the legal battles are playing out they wouldn't gift. and they flipped sides and went to court fighting against doma even though it is a law on the
books duly passed by congress and signed by a president. it's a big win for the administration. they argued for this provision to go. so this portion of doma is gone with the support of the white house and the attorney general. a big success for them today. bill: bret baier is with me now. bret as i go to you. quote, reading from the decision. 76 pages in length. doma seeks to injure the very class new york seeks to protect. by doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government. reading from that excerpt now. bret, on the politics of this. how do you analyze it? >> reporter: this administration has come full circle on this. originally defending doma, then choosing not to defend doma, then essentially saying doma needed to be struck down. the president of course in his evolution as he called it on gay
marriage, will now support this. this ruling. i just want to read one other piece of this from justice kennedy. and this i think is the heart of it. shannon nailed eight as well. the federal statute he says is invalid for no legitimate purpose, overcome the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood andity. by seeking to displace this protection and those persons as living in marriages less pre-respect than others. that's justice kennedy. justice scalia and justice thomas and the chief justice dissented saying there was no jurisdiction for the supreme court to have this ruling. bill: kern difficult writes this places same-sex couples in a position of being in a second-tier marriage which refers back to what shannon was
the great outdoors... ...and a great deal. thanks to dad. (gasp) nope. aw! guys! grrrr let's leave the deals to hotels.com. (nice bear!) ooo! that one! nice! got it! oh my gosh this is so cool! awesome! perfect! yep, and no angry bears. the perfect place is on sale now. up to 30% off. only at hotels.com backflips and cartwheels.mile? love, warmth. here, try this. backflips and camm, ok!s.mile? ching! i like the fact that there's lots of different tastes going on. mmmm! breakfast i'm very impressed. this is a great cereal! honey bunches of oats. i hear you crunching.
bill: breaking news from the u.s. supreme court. right before the break we got the decision 5-4 ruling, the defense of marriage act has been struck down. there is some nuance in this. shannon bream on the steps of the supreme court. judge, to you, this is a decision that applies to states that have already recognized gay marriage. what does it say about a gay couple who could be married in, say, the state of new york, but moves to the state of texas. what does texas do with that relationship? >> texas is free to reject the same-sex relationship that was made in new york and the couple
moved to texas. but the federal government is not free to reject it. so you could have a couple lawfully married, a same-sex couple lawfully married in the state of new york moving to texas, the state of texas will not recognize that marriage but the federal government will. not all of doma has been struck down by the supreme court because not all of dough that was challenged in this case before the court. the court can only strike count portions of the statute that have been challenges. the on part that was challenged and struck down is whether the federal government can declare marriages must be opposite sex. the supreme court said it cannot. the issue of whether a state -- i'm not picking on texas. i'm just using it as an example. whether a state like texas can reject same-sex marriage lawful in a state like new york. the law this morning was texas could reject it and the law after this case stays the same.
texas can reject it. bill: if texas has benefits that go towards a couple that are lawfully married. >> texas would not have to afford them to the same-sex couple living in texas. bill: the opinion by justice kennedy, joined by the four liberal justices on the bench. four justices dissented. for the dissents i want to get back to shan mom bream. -- i have to get back to shannon bream. >> reporter: generally when we get an opinion the author of the majority opinion reads a synopsis. on rare occasions there will be a dissenting justice so fired up they will read part of that dissent from the bench. justice kennedy is reading his dissent from the bench. he apparently he is really firey at this point and that continues. it could take some time. i want to read you a portion of
his con sent. he said this story is black or white. hate your neighbor come along with us. but the truth is much more complicated. it's hard to believe in a struggle like this one the challenge in the end proves more than today's court can handle, too bad, he says. a reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage could be politically legitimate and would have benefit for what was called the majority temperament. when might have covered your selves are honor promising all sides of this debate it was theirs to settle. we might have let the people decide but that say the majority will not do. he's taking a big swing at his colleagues saying this should have been left to the people. what the court did was take sides in something that in justice scalia's opinion should have been left to the people
through their elected representatives. it gives a clue on what will happen with proposition 8. but justice scalia is still reading this dissent from the bench. he's aparentingly pretty emotional about it. bill: i'm reading that bench statement is lengthy and you mention that can be rare at times. is it today? >> reporter: i would have expected today in something as heated as this controversy. that the difficult isn't iters at least one of them would read from the bench. in other cases where justice ginsburg has been on the losing side, where the losing sight is upset or confident in its reasoning for conviction you will get those dissents read from the bench it's a lengthy process with justice scalia
continuing to read the dissent. bill: stand by there. the court could does not have before it the question whether the states may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage. [ male announcer ] running out of steam? ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle.
need a little kick? the math of retirement is different today.ek. money has to last longer. i don't want to pour over pie charts all day. i want to travel, and i want the income to do it. ishares incomes etfs. low cost and diversified. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.
bill: u.s. supreme court no ruling on proposition 8 yet. the challenge out of california. when it happens you'll hear the hear first. we have a decision regarding the defense of marriage act, a 17-year-old federal law that now has been struck down. meaning in plain terms, same-sex couples who are legally married are entitled to equal treatment under federal law, not state law, federal law with regard to income taxes, social security benefits, et cetera. i want to get back to my team, shannon bream, the judge, bret
baier in from washington. the obama administration deside offed not to fight doma. the administration has come out in support of what the justices have now ruled in a 5-4 decision, issuing the opinion, 76 pages in length. i don't know if air force one has left or not -- what do you have on that? >> the president just took off bound for africa and will start this trip in africa. i expect we'll get a paper statement from the president through the press office about the defense of marriage act, and this ruling 5-4. you're right, that the administration did not defend it at first, and in the end was really pushing for this ruling. we should point out that this -- how this came down with justice kennedy siding with the four liberal justices is really what a lot of people thought would happen with this case, with
doma. the real question is what happens with prop 8? and as shannon mentioned, and you talked about, there are some indications in some of the writing here of this opinion, that a number of the justices may have issues with the jurisdiction question. i'd be interested to hear the judge on this. because i think there are sometimes in these cases that are related little hints about what may be coming foreshadowing what the decision might be on pro*fp 8. bill prop 8. bill: that could be the case. justice scalia -- >> they are running out. bill: oftentimes that indicates that a decision has been handed out. we don't know what decision that could be. judge, can you address bret's issue, his question? >> look, the issue is can the government defend a statute? and if the government chooses know the to defend a statute does that mean that the statute
is indefensible or illegitimate or the lawyers in the courtroom don't have the right to be there? they were willing to overlook that issue in doma, we don't know if it overlooks that issue it appears they didn't in the proposition 8, we'll hear about it as soon as shannon can finish reading what the runners have given her. bill: we will go back to shannon bream now. she has yet i believe another decision this in regard to proposition 8 out of california. shannon i know you're reading as fast if you can. if you have a decision and you have the answer, the stage is yours. >> okay. bill, what we're looking at here is the proposition 8 case, this is the ka is in which california voters went to the polls and massed a measure amending their state constitution so it only rec tphaoeubsess marriage between a man and a woman. this is not case similar to doma, in that government officials which would have been the ones defending it said no we are not going to defend proposition 8 in this case. what happened was supporters of
proposition 8 pulled up the case and said we want to be the ones defending it. they wouldn't be the normal parties to do that. it sound like here what the court is going to do is say that group did not have standing. we've never before uphold the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. we decline to do so for the first time here. because the petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstration standing to appeal the judgments, we don't have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. the judgment of the ninth circuit and in that case the ninth circuit struck down prop 8 saying you can't give right to same-sex couples which california has done and then take them away as voters did with prop 8. so basically what they are saying is that decision by the ninth circuit, getting rid of prop 8 is vacated. the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. now, it's going to take a little time to iron that out, if that happens if they are saying that the people who chose to take up defense of prop 8 weren't the
right parties to do that and the government officials are refusing to do so, what the lowest court had done was strike down prop 8, meaning that it's no good, it can't amend the state constitution to say that marriage is only one man and one woman. as we continue to read through this the first impression is prop 8 is probably gone in california. these parties did not have standing to appeal the decision. we'll keep reading that is the first blurb it probably means bad news for proposition 8. bill: it was a ballot measure in 2008. the question was if they could make it unconstitutional in the state of california -- they could essentially ban gay marriage. the vote went down a 52-47 or 52, 48% the amendment passed. you had all these legal challenges against proposition 8 and now we have four or five years later the u.s. supreme court ruling on that. shannon keep reading to the judge here in new york. they vacate the decision back to the ninth circuit.
so what happens then to the law, judge in california? >> that means that the trial court decision is the law of california, and the trial court decision said proposition 8, the referendum cannot interfere with what the supreme court of california found is a right for same-sex couples to marry in california. stated differently, same-sex marriage is lawful in the largest state in the union, california, from and after today as a result of this opinion, and all those who got married in the interim, first it was unlawful, then it was lawful, then it was unlahose that got married in the interim their marriages are valid, and lawful in the state of california. bill: we will check out the time vote on that. that appears object 5-4. it was on political ideological
lines. back to shannon bream, bret baier and the judge as we continue with prop 8 after this. dry mouth definitely affected my self confidence. it's debilitating when you try to talk, when you're trying to eat, when you're trying to sleep. i'm constantly licking my lips. water would address the symptoms for just a few minutes. the hygienist recommended biotene. it's clean and refreshing, i feel like i have plenty of fluid in my mouth. i brush with the biotene toothpaste and i use the mouthwash every morning. it's changed my life. it is the last thing i do before i walk out the door.
bill: breaking news continues now from the u.s. supreme court. we have now been given two decisions by the u.s. supreme court regarding marriage in opinion. our team continues our coverage. shannon bream at the u.s. supreme court. prayer bear in washington and judge napolitano in new york. we have a decision on dmoa careful down 20 minutes ago. the defense of marriage act has
been struck down. any state that recognizes fay marriage must also afford the couples the rights and privileges under federal law protections that otherwise heterosexual couples would still be able to take advantage of today. with regard to proposition 8, this now is likely to see further litigation over the question of of gay marriage and whether or not that can take place in the state of california. but the ruling from a few minutes ago from the court means that the federal court ruling striking down gay marriage stands in the state of california, it was a 5-4 vote. i believe based on the count i'm seeing justice roberts and justice scalia voted with three other liberal members of the court to make a majority in a 5-4 decision there. in all likelihood in california they will rely on this ruling to allow the resumption of same-sex marriage in about a month's time once they get through the procedures there in the golden state. shannon bream is back with us
more. what else do we need to know there, shannon? >> you point out an interesting split in the justices who lined up together. just to remind folks the decision on prop 8 doesn't get to the merits of what the supreme court thinks about the issue of same sex marriage, it simply gets to the procedural issues about who had the the right to bring this case. you have the chief justice john roberts lining up with justices, scalia, ginsberg, brian and saying gone. dissenting justice kennedy joined by alito and soto mier. the people who brought this case all to the supreme koerpt they say didn't have standing to do that. prop 8 was passed in california banning same-sex marriage by amending the state constitution. the governor, the attorney general i believe also the registrar of records, three state officials were named in that case. they refused to take the case, they refused to defend prop 8. again it was supporters of prop 8 who stepped into the role hoping they could pursue the
legal remedies. what the supreme court is saying today, we have never upheld the standing of a private part tea to defend a constitutional of a state statute if state officials don't choose to do so. the ninth circuit opinion is vacated and the parties are told they never had a right to appeal. that leaves us with the district court's decision. of that was from judge walker. a bit of controversy about him and interest he may have had in this particular decision. this was a lot of back and forth about that. basically what he said is that proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. evidence shows prop 8 does nothing more than inch vine in the california constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex kouplts. that's that district court's opinion that will be upheld in california. judge walker's decision there for now is going to be the law of the land and as you said it would appear that the logical process here is that same-sex marriage will be able to resume in california.
this decision does not go to any other state. simply this california dispute. bill: again for our viewers if you're just tuning in the ninth circuit in northern california, that decision has been vacated and the lower court ruling stands, which means the lower court ruling ruled against proposition 8, against the voters of california who said marriage should be defined between a man anda woman bya 50-47 vote in 2008. to bret in a moment. first the judge on the split of justices. >> ththe decision today bill is not on the merits of same-sex marriage. heights not on whether or not california can authorize same-sex marriage. the decision today is not on whether or not the people can undue something that their state supreme court did. the decision today is whether or not people who don't have a real interest in the outcome of this can file an a praoel in appeal in a federal court. what lawyers call standing. standing is the doorway to the federal court, if you don't have
the right to be there no matter how meritorious your claim is the court will not hear the case. that is the technical-legal argument. the practical effect of what was done today in this california case is to leave the trial court's decision as the law in california, and as shannon just so ably described that decision says the supreme court of california had the right to declare same-sex marriage as a valid, fundamental liberty from the constitution of the state, therefore, same-sex marriage is lawful in the state of california, notwithstanding a majority of the voters attempting to make it unlawful. bill: would you expect another legal challenge in california on that ruling? >> i don't think so. i think as you pointed out a few minutes ago, bill, once the state and the apparatus of the state is in favor of same-sex marriage. governor brown refused to send state lawyers into court to be involved in this case.
the apparatus of the state will begin i think very soon to process applications for same-sex marriage in the largest state in the union. bill: i want to get to bret now down in washington. we have a decision on doma, we have a decision so far i guess you could call a partial decision in california regarding proposition 8. >> yeah, this is a big day for gay rights supporters, for folks who have been fighting this battle for a longtime in california, in particular, and for the lawyers who have been battling on the prop 8 case. david boyz who is the main lawyer for vice president gore and his challenge obviously for the presidency, and ted olson, well respected both of them and this is a big win for them in the big picture. whether -- as the judge said it doesn't deal with the merits of the case, but the jurisdiction. in essence it comes to the same conclusion, that california in just a few weeks will likely resume gay marriages in a state
that that has been a major controversial issue. and the administration, president obama, weighing in on this as well and we expect to hear from the administration a at some point today. bill: in that state, governor brown and gavin newsom who started the wave and the tendency in california to go towards gay marriages there, you mentioned the legal partners, it's very intriguing. we may see them in a matter of moments. they are expected to talk at the bank of microphones on the steps of the supreme court. 13 years ago they were i'd delogically and legally and politically opposed to one another in that decision bush v gore in 2000. >> and you and i were there in tallahassee. for boys it's abut of reef tkepl
shopb perhaps. in the end they will get what they were fighting foa a bit of redemption. >> weave we've been friends every since tallahassee. you working out of a truck and we were in the presidential suite. kidding. shannon in the 30 second we have what else are you seeing there around you with the voices we hear in the background? >> you may be able to hear there are thousands of people here, and there are a lot of folk here that are cheering as one of the couples that was involved in prop 8 now appears to be coming down to the microphones where there is a press conference. there are folks from all over the country who said they came here, they wanted to be here today to see what happened with these decisions, they are now hearing from the couples as they react, the couples who brought the fight to be able to marry in california. we'll hear several press conferences and a lot of spirited reply. bill: we need to get a commercial here. to our viewers at home stick with us, there is further analysis. we will hear from the players
and also what the justices are saying from the bench as we go to break. back in a few minutes here. letsd even in stupid loud places. to prove it, we set up our call center right here... [ chirp ] all good? [ chirp ] getty up. seriously, this is really happening! [ cellphone rings ] hello? it's a giant helicopter ma'am. [ male announcer ] get it done [ chirp ] with the ultraugged ocera torque, only from sprint direct conct. buy one get four free for your business.
brings us that much closer to true equality. in the decision striking as unconstitutional the so-called doma or defense of marriage case, the united states supreme court held that there was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. as justice scalia noted, that holding, that principle guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. in the california case the supreme court held that the proponents of proposition 8 did not have standing. what that means is that in that case the supreme court could not
reach the merits. but everything that the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion, where they did reach the merits, demonstrates that when that case finally does come to the united states supreme court on the merits, marriage equality will be the law throughout this land. our plaintiffs now get to go back to california and together with every other citizen of california marry the person they love. [cheering] [applause] >> and the next step is to translate the promise that was reaffirmed today in the doma case that every citizen in every state has the right to marry the person that they love. the supreme court's decision on
standing is important for another reason. when we started out in this case we said we were going to prove three things. we were going to prove that marriage was a fundamental right, and the other side accepted that. we said second, we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they love seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children that they were raising. and even the opponents agreed with that. and third, we said, we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person that they love, regardless of sexual orientation did not, could not harm anyone. and not only did the proponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today the united states supreme court said as much because they said the
proponents have no concrete injury. they cannot point to anything that harms them, because these two loving couples, and couples like them throughout california are now going to be able to get married. and so this is a wonderful day for our plaintiffs, it's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and in california in particular who wants to be able to marry the person that they love. but it's a wonderful day for america. because we have now taken this country another important step towards guaranteeing the promise that was in our constitution, in our declaration of independence, that all people are created equal, that all people have the inalienable right to life and the pursuit of happiness. this is a great day. we thank the supreme court and thank all of you and perhaps most important we thank all of
the people who have devoted so much to this battle over so many decades, people who did it at a time when it was not as easy as it was for ted olson and myself to go into court. the only thing i regret today is that my friend and colleague ted else on can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately today in another court in another part of the country arguing another case. but his spirit is here, and he will be with me tonight and we will celebrate, because this is a victory, not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades, but for all americans. thank you. [applause] we'll now have comments from chris terry and sandy sphere, plaintiff -fgs in ths in the
case. >> today is a great day for american chirp and family. sandy and i want to say how happy we are not only to return to california and finally get married but to be able to say to the children in california, no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you are, you are equal, you are as good as your friend' parents and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country that you are just as good as everybody else no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love. and today we can go back to california and say to our own children, all four of our boys, your family is just as good as everybody else's family. we love you as much as anybody else's parents love their kids and we're going to be equal. now we will be married and we will be equal to every other family in california. thank you.
[cheering] [applause] >> today we also want to say thank you to all of you, thank you to our supporters, to our amazing lawyers. thank you to the constitution, and thank you to justice that was served today in this court it was an amazing day. we thank the justices for overturning doma, so, so important for us and for all families and we thank the just this isess to health us get married in california. that is not enough. it's got to go nationwide and wii can't wait for that date. it's not just about us, it's about kids in the south and in texas and kids everywhere. we really, really want to take this fight and take it all the way and get equality for everyone in this entire country. thank you all, it's been a pleasure, and an honor to represent you. [applause] [cheering] we'll hear from jeff and tom also plaintiffs in the case. >> gay marriage is moving forward in america. these are through giant
decisions in that direction. i want to bring in the judge in the 60 seconds we have before we take a break here. listen to the language of david boies, he's knee deep on both of these decisions on doma and proposition 8, what is he inferring by his comments. >> he's inferring what lawyers do. he's picking and choosing language from the doma opinion in which the court says sweeping things about the right to choose your mate without governmental interference and he's suggesting that that language will now be used to file lawsuits in states where same-sex marriage is prohibited to get the courts in those states to compel those states to accept and recognize and permit same-sex marriage. bill: in you can do that would you bypass vot voters? >> yes if you can do that you would bypass voters. basically he's saying this is a spring board to litigation in the states that have out loud
continues. "happening now" with jon scott and jenna lee. see you again tomorrow. johnston a fox news alert on two historic decisions regarding gay marriage in this country. good morning to you i'm jon scott. jenna: i'm jenna lee. the supreme court handing down rules on two big cases. the federal government's defense of marriage act or doma and proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. in 5-4 decision the court struck down a key provision of doma saying it's a violation of the fifth amendment. the decision means federal benefits can no longer be denied to same-sex couples who marry in states that allow gay marriage. on prop 8 the justices ruled 5-4 that opponents of same-sex marriage in california do not have the ground to sue which clears the way for gay marriage in that state essentially. today's ruling let's stand an earlier decision by california's