i'm richelle cary, and for updates from around the world go to www.aljazeera.com. >> an u.s. district court judge has ruled that virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. it's only the latest case on the federal appeals court using the reasoning of the supreme court to up end state laws, and it is the inside story.

>> hello, i'm ray suarez. after the northeast, the west coast and several great lakes opened the way to same-sex marriage you wouldn't have picked the next dates on the list. utah, oklahoma, virginia. two of the reddest states on the map, and deep purple bell weather. in kentucky a federal judge ruled the state cannot deny the validity of same sex marriages performed in other states. so kentucky's own ban on such marriages for now is untouched but that appeals court decision put pressure on the widespread practice of refusing to recognize a married couple from let's say massachusetts if that couple moves to take up new jobs in missouri. but federal circuit that includes virginia also colors north carolina, south carolina, and west virginia. if the court of appeals up holds the virginia division, that's

hour focus of this edition of "inside story." virginia is for lovers was the slogan of the day for same-sex marriage supporters in virginia. >> today we are more american than we were yesterday, and today we're a little more equal than we were the day before. >> reporter: thursday uphurled judge struck down the state's prohibition of same sex marriage ac mandarin knowinglying long history, tradition alone cannot deny same-sex couples from marrying. in her 41 page opinion the

norfolk judge referenced the history of segregation. and it wasn't until 1967 that interracial couples in virginia could marry after the supreme court ruled mildred and rich 1958 marriage must be legally recognized there. >> virginia's position are not being repeated this time as attorney general i'm proud that

the commonwealth is on the right side of the law in this case. >> in a pair of landmark decisions last june the supreme court ruled against the defense of marriage act and called california's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. questions remain on how to legally pursue these solutions, but a growing list of challenges in state law resulted in change and new rights for gay couples. >> we're seeing across the country victory after victory in the court system, in the state houses, and even at the ballot box, a majority of americans support the marrying of gays and lesbians and the laws will quickly catch up with the

american opinion. >> states like new mexico, new jersey, utah and oklahoma have upheld decisions to legalize weddings in all forms. earlier this week a judge in kentucky ruled the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but did not rule on the constitutionality of same sex unions in the blue state. a total of 17 states and the district of columbia allow same-sex marriage while currently 24 states have pending lawsuits on the issue. as states increasingly move toward marriage equality, some on capitol hill are seeking to slow the wave. on thursday republican senators ted cruz of test and mike lee of utah introduced the state marriage defense act that with would give definition of marriage to the states. meanwhile there will be no rush

to the altar in virginia. the judge stayed any action while challenges to her ruling are shaped. >> what's next in the fight for and against the right of same-sex couples to marry in the united states. how did last terms marriage in court change in the debate. here we have patrick scene policy council at the gay and lesbian task force. rich wit the director of marria. and from new york chris of get equal. what do you make of these latest decisions. the ones from oklahoma and utah which come from some of the same legal ground?

>> well, they are complete misreadings of the windsor last year. and there was a misreading of what happened last summer. first of all, the defense of marriage act was not struck down. only amendment three. and to recognize and not recognize marriages from other states. and on proposition eight was not found unconstitutional simply put the people of california were denied their right of the vote by not being given standing in that. and so out of those decisions we have this complete misreading of windsor. what windsor did last year was impose on the federal government the requirement that they respect the state's definition of marriage. in new york they demanded that the federal government recognize her marriage in new york, and

windsor decision found that they had to do that. it said nothing about other states recognizing same-sex marriage. what we had in virginia, utah, oklahoma are misreadings of the windsor, and that was clearly indicated when the 10th circuit as well as the federal judge in utah and stayed their decision which indicates they believe there is merit to these states with these appalling decisions. >> when the decisions are taking the plain language with the majority opinion and the dissents, and finding their reason for ruling as they did in that language? >> it's the twisting of it. the intent of last year's decisions were not to enforce states to adopt same-sex marriage. they held intact doma and said

states have the predominant role in defining marriage and the federal government needs to follow that. this is a state's right issue. what happened in virginia and these other states are travesties of democracy overstepping the bounds of the federal government. we have millions of people who clearly voted to define marriage in their state by their sovereign right as one man and one woman. as a result of these decisions their democratic rights has been nullified. >> the judges ruling in these state cases simply misunderstand what the supreme court said last june? >> i think yesterday's decision from judge ray allen is one that strikes at the heart of what americans believe about marriage, which is that marriage is a fundamental right, and lgbt people should have access to that fundamental right because the u.s. institution guarantees

protection of the law. i think it's interesting that it's a misreading of the supreme court, when section two of the defense of marriage act was not in front of the court. it was only whether or not section a.

>> they have th the right to goo work and not face discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender. >> as the supreme court's decisions expanded the map and changed the strategy of those who were advocating for same-sex marriage around the country? >> well, you know it's very clear there are our founding fathers who had a very clear idea on how to protect minorities when they include several parts of our constitution, and later on when we were able to include the 14th amendment which explicitly say that people's rights cannot be taken away from them without due process. it is unconstitutional to have people voting on the rights of a minority. i, for instance, got married in the state of massachusetts two years ago and live in the state of florida where i don't have

those rights afforded to me at the state level which restricts my life. restricts the way i'm a productive person in society there, and i see this as a very good and important step forward. i do want to say that patrick is right, marriage is not the only thing we have to be fighting for. there are still several issues that impact the lives of lgbt people, including employment protections. >> we're going to take a short break. when we come back we're going to talk about the full faith in credit clause of the constitution. your eyes should not roll back in your head. it has a very important role to play when we talk about marriage and law in the 50 states. stay with us. this is inside story.

al jazeera america. we understand that every news story begins and ends with people. >> the efforts are focused on rescuing stranded residents. >> we pursue that story beyond the headline, pass the spokesperson, to the streets. >> thousands of riot police deployed across the capital. >> we put all of our global resources behind every story. >> it is a scene of utter devastation. >> and follow it no matter where it leads - all the way to you. al jazeera america, take a new look at news. are. >> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. a federal judge struck down the state of virginia's ban on

same-sex marriage. it's only the latest examiner of thexample ofthe court's cascadi. the landscape is changing fast in the states where it's still against the law. and chris, we just heard philippe talk earlier, while his marriage was solemnized in massachusettsings he lives in florida where it's not recognized. for a long time that didn't happen. if you were married in new york you didn't have to get remarried if you moved. are we giving ourselves problems down the road in not coming to some common wisdom in how to handle this. >> there is common wisdom. part of it started in section two the right for a state to define marriage as it sees fit,

and to recognize marriages from other states or not recognize them. we have representative webber bills and senator cruz and lee that protects the right of states to define marriage as they see fit. you have to understand that this is a state's issue. it has been. it's not something that was ever delegated to the united states government. the supreme court last summer was asked specifically to find a right in the constitution for the same-sex marriage, and they did not find that. the supreme court refused to find such a right. and so the states were left with that. and so we go back. you know, there is a common sense rule in here, and that is let the states decide for themselves. >> so arguebly you could drive from boston to santa monica, and be married, unmarried, married, and unmarried, depending on where you are on the interstate system? >> in the eyes of those states, the laws of those states,

absolutely. that simply is how it is. for instance, in new england it was only a few years ago 2007 in the chambers where the question of same sex divorce came up across the border of massachusetts into rhode island. and at that time the rhode island supreme court held that rhode island was not required to recognize the marriage from massachusetts in the divorce. while i agree it is awkward in one of those things that it hams counsel do, not because of bigotry or hatred, but this drive to redefine the most fundamental institution in our country, that is the route of re problem. the people of those states have the right to governor themselves. >> fair point, patrick, if the people of a state have voted on a question, and this has come up as a ballot question in many

states, and they decide not to open marriage to same-sex couples, can a judge in washington or a federal circuit say, sorry, what you're voters decided is simply invalid? >> this country has a long history of putting the rights of individuals on the ballot, and then states and individuals voting against the rights of those individuals, and then the courts coming in and cleaning up saying no, that's what the clause is there for. that's why we put it in in the 1,800th, and that's why we upheld it and reiterated it with decision after decision that says you can't put the rights of individuals to the vote among the public. one thing to remember, we're not just talking about marriage. it's not just a right. if we say it's all righ interesf

rights around marriage, then that gets us down the road to say we can deny the right to housing, the right to healthcare, the right to employment. these three things are the pillars to society. if one doesn't have access to a job or health insurance so they can be healthy and go to that job, or they don't have access to housing, then they're unable to fulfill the american dream, which is to provide for your family, and be a warping member of society. when we look at the fund mellow right to marriage, and the idea that you can travel from state to state, and police happens believer if you happen to be in a state that does not recognize that, you won't have access to your partner if you're in a car accident and they're in the hospital. it effectively limits the rights to even travel in this country, which is a fundamental right as well. >> well, philippe.

>> excuse me. >> he put words in my mouth. i never claimed that same-sex couples should not have the right to have access in hospitals, sometimes of crisis or any of those things. that is a fallacy and red herring. we all take care of those things threw various instruments, and access to healthcare is something tha every has a righto have, and i appreciate the attempt but that is putting words in the mouth and that's not acceptable. >> if florida gave you those rights, what is different about you when you're with your spouse in your home? >> well, many things including the way we rent our house. like patrick explained it very well. in the state of utah as well as most places in this country,

lgbt people still don't have employment protection, accommodations protections, including marriage, that's one of the rights restill don't have in many places. when i leave the state of new york to be reunited in my home in florida i'm no longer married in the place where i live, the place that i contribute every day for that community. it not only is uninstitutional but it is really inhumane, making people choose where do you live? where do you raise your children? that's why judges are siding with us in this particular issue, and it's important to remember that it goes way beyond marriage and the ways that this country treats lgbt people. >> we're going to take another short break. when we come back we'll talk about conscience laws that are

coming forward in several places around the country. this is inside story. ♪ what is this place? where are we? this is where we bring together the fastest internet

and the best in entertainment. we call it the x1 entertainment operating system. it looks like the future! we must have encountered a temporal vortex. further analytics are necessary. beam us up. ♪ that's my phone. hey. [ female announcer ] the x1 entertainment operating system, only from xfinity. tv and internet together like never before.

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. the federal court has ruled of virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and this soon could have an impact on other states in the fourth circuit. still with us, patrick, at the national gay and lebanese task force. chris director at the organization of marriage which opposes opening marriage to same sex couples. and from new york, philippe of get equal. patrick, you heard chris note that those kinds of protections you were talking about actually have been provided for in local statute in some of the states

that for bid same-sex couples from getting married. so questions about hospital rooms and things like that are handled in the law short of being able to be married. in oregon and kansas, they're now debating conscience laws that allow private individuals to provide a differential level of public service if they're operating a business, if they're an employer to married or single gay people who say if you don't believe this is a way to live you're not under legal requirement to recognize the needs of these people. are you worried about these laws? >> i'm worried that people think that is acceptable. in our society, the ability to go to a restaurant or purchase items at a business or go to a hotel have historically been

part of an american's ability to access everything in society. and when we know that we have seen many states who do have laws, in fact, in 33 states you can get fired for being transgender, and in 29 states you can be fired for being gay, those protections don't exist across the country. i think its important to note that we don't want to put an individual's ability to access public accommodations in society at the whim of anybody who just decides i'm going to discriminate today. we know the national discrimination, the largest discrimination against transgendered people people that transgender experience ridiculous levels of

discrimination in our society. 40% of transgender people have attempted people that's because everywhere you turn you can't access housing or employment or healthcare, and these are the types of fundamental rights people should have equal access to everyone else has. >> some of these debates have grown out of the debate of marriage. and the kansas act said that religious entities are exempt if they believe that it goes against their religious beliefs, what do you make of those laws?

>> they're talking about sexual orientation or transendder lifestyle or housing. the laws that we're talking about going on the books, the protections of religious freedom are about people sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. that's what the conference is cs about. what is marriage. when we stick to that people have very deeply held braves about what is marriage and their first amendment right to exercise freedom of religion is protected in the u.s. constitution. but we found that there have been lawsuits and other legal wrangling that have sanctioned people of faith for their refusal to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony quote/unquote. they ought to be able to exercise their freedom of religion and choose who they will serve when it comes to the issue of marriage. the issue is not one of sexual

orientation. arlenes florist in washington, a florist being sued by the state of washington for refusing to provide flowers to a same sex wedding ceremony has had gay and lesbian employees and served gay and lesbian clients, their refusal was the concept of marriage. >> we're just about out of time. should be be able to serve if you own a business? >> this is the same argument that was made over 60 years ago about black people and marriage. so you know, does chris take the position that if an individual's religious belief that black people are less than human as many people seemed to believe about lesbian, gay and transgender people. >> i'm going to take that as a no. it's a yes or no question, i'll take that as a no. my guests, thank you all for

being with me today. that brings us to the end of this edition of "inside story." thanks for being with us. in washington, i'm ray suarez. >> i called it a ticking time epidemic. sherman. >> he twerked his way into the national consciousness, taking a page out of miley cyrus's book. >> when you started off the term super agent didn't exist. if you think about it player representation didn't exist as it does today. how did you start that, and why?