what he was doing. he has 20 prime time emmys and two pea bodies for his work. i'm antonio mora thanks for joining us. for the latest new head to aljazeera.com. "inside story" is next. have a great night. hello. i'm ray suarez. this week gay people started getting married in alabama. but the tug of war over same-sex marriage is not quite over. 81% of barack obama voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage. a federal judge struck down the ban. at the 11th hour the chief judge in the state of alabama tried to nullify the ruling ordering judges not to issue licences much the supreme court is

letting marriages take place for now. the court will take up the issue in this term. same sex marriage - state's rites and the twists and terms leading to that case. we are glad you found us at our new time. it's "inside story". alabama's chief justice warned sunday night that magistrates across the state from not to licence or officiate at same-sex ceremonies. the supreme court denied a writ letting the earlier federal court decision stand so the idos wrong out, and others followed the orders which said in part:

meanwhile, the potential of a national ruling looges. -- looms. in his dissent justice clarence thomas registered misgivings, writing: in the states that recently and only reluctantly began to marry same sex couples, you can see a replay of 150-year-old argument. when can a state make its open rules, and when must it gave way to federal authority. in the case of alabama, there's

a big constitutional matter involved. we'll look at that later. but it's also a human story. the pastor joins me from birmingham officiating at several same-sex unions. welcome to the programme. >> thank you, good to be here. >> is it fair to say some of the people you married assumed up until now, if they stayed in alabama, they wouldn't be able to get married. >> that's the way it was looking. we thought it would be about five years before any law was changed that would allow same-sex marriages in alabama. we are last in a bunch of things, it looked like it would be this as well. >> is this a move that your congregation had to sign off on? did they consult with you over whether you would become one of the clergy that sol somonized

these unions. >> our congregation is full of clergy men and women. the process for our church has been over the course of many years, we have come to believe the way we have and affirm what we do. theys jefr been something made official but a recognition that there are people that love god and are gay. and just like there are people who love god and are heterosexual. so we have recognised that and affirmed that and felt the calf god on people as they love and administer to each other. >> in some states where opposition to gay marriage is the strongest. a frequently heard worry is they'll ride roughshod over a

boundary between church and state, and state governments will order churches to join gay couples in marriage. is this a worry you hear expressed in alabama. is it something that you worry about. >> it's not something i worry about. we believe in the separation of church and state. we believe that each church should have its own autonomy and we believe in freedom. with those in place, we know there are systems with the first amendment that guarantees separation of church and state. and nothing like that will ever happen. we are not worried at all. >> do you speak amongst other pastors, do you speak to other people in clergy conferences, that kind of thing, where that challenge is put to you, and you have to say, effect it's not going to happen, or it's not

something i worry about? >> it is. we hit that all the time. there are groups of local ministers that meet and converse about this and share openly as this comes up it's hopefully our ability to provide a calming instinct in that. and assist something that is very important to us that we follow the presents and help other people understand our perspective. >> has this been a journey for you. if i had spoken to you when you were fresh out of seminary or bible college, would you be in the same place as you are today. ready to have the couples say "i do." >> thank you for asking that. it has been a journey for me it continues to be a journey for me. there's a spectrum where people fall into this issue or belief it's been a journey for me to

become involved personally with people. along the path that i have travelled, god has placed people in my path on my journey, allowing me to see how the love of christ came out in people of all shapes and sizes and colours and cultural background and sexuality. so it is something that because i'm willing to open up to individuals, i have been allowed to change. allowing themselves to be open to others in ways that they are vulnerable, that they would be open to change as well. >> during the long national argument over the issue, some have been comfortable comparing it to the struggle for black civil rights. some have been offended by that

comparison. alabama is one of the hot lands of that struggle. how do you come down on that. have you seen that play out - the discomfort and the embrace of that idea that this is sort of a civil rights debate for the 21st century? >> i believe that. your last statement that this is the civil rights debate for the 21st century. i believe that is true. where i fall personally is that it's abhorrent to me that i have a right that others do not. some people classify this issue as religious. some classify it as civil. and i see it as both. because there are rites and privileges given to those married, that are withheld from those who are not. then it becomes - moves from a religious art into a civil one, because we get benefits for the

taxes. we get benefits in death, insurance, different things like that, that it's abhorrent to me that i have some that others do not. it's a civil rights issue for me. i see in the south that it is definitely connected to religion. and, unfortunately today in birmingham as the protest is small, but still protests at the jefferson county court house, it was a racially divided line. unfortunately there were african-americans here that were protesting but it was because of their religious beliefs that they were doing so. we have to remember that in the deep south, in the bible belt that religion is tied to everything that we do. it's important for us to speak along those terms to them. but it is definitely a civil rights issue for me. >> pastor we didn't get down to birmingham to witness one of the nup tools. why don't you take us in a

ceremony and tell us about a couple you made into husband and husband or wife and wife. >> i performed both i take you into the second one i perform. i will not use any names. this couple a lesbian couple have been together for 18 years. so in the ceremony i tried to make it as personal to the couples as possible. for this couple it was a recognition of a commitment that was 18 years old. which is solidified in their love for each other. we talked about the rings that they exchanged 18 years ago. we talked about the vowed made back then. we resaid those and others of love to each other. i literally took my cross and stohl and tied it around to tie the knot together their hands in love together and pressed it. now, openly in alabama, for now

it is a law of the land here for in alabama for is to be a blessing religiously, cut now in the state. that was significant for them. >> pastor thank you for talking to us. >> thank you for having me. >> we'll be back with more "inside story" after a short break. >> when we return a look at the constitutional argument at the heart of the state and federal authority. >> can a judge reported by the president, decide that a law passed by and for the people of president obama is null and void. stay with us, it's "inside story".

welcome back to "inside story". i'm ray suarez. when alabama's chief justice ordered authorities throughout barack obama not to marry same-sex couples, even though the marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional, and the supreme court decided not to intervene, he re-entered an arena he fought in before. moore was attempting something called nullification, defined as the action of a state impeding or preventing operation or enforcement within its territory of a law of the united states. during a century long battle between the government and the state of civil rights state authorities insisted that the federal government simply could not override state authority, except in narrow circumstances. joining me to talk about the continuing tension between state

and federal authority, elizabeth, council for the second state usual center and john ooesman, professor of law. is it nullification if there's not a national law in this area if it's simply a supreme court decision not to uphold a stay. >> absolutely not. you know if the supreme court strikes down marriage laws across the country and then issues an order, that would be nullification. he way not do that. we have a single local trial, federal court judge whose actions are not binding on the state judiciary. there's two systems, a federal and a state system. neither are binding on each other, unless you get to the top, the pinnacle of both the supreme court of the united states. and the supreme court has not ruled these laws unconstitutional.

it's binding precedent on the books saying they are constitutional. >> by voting 7-2 to not intervene, not stop the lower court judges ruling from going effect didn't they decide by not deciding. >> the supreme court has been clear over and over and over again. a decision not to intervene in a case cannot be treated as a decision on the merits of the case. we have an injunction issued by a trial court judge. the federal judge is not in priority above the stayed courts. they are separate systems. i think the chief justice is not only right in his action but constitutionally compelled. until there's a supreme court ruling that a provision is unconstitutional. it's been the right here. >> is the judge within his rites to say federal writ doesn't run

in this state yet? >> no. he has got the constitution wrong. the way that our founders set up the federal system is that the federal law, the u.s. constitution strumps contrary state laws here we have a federal district court judge who said it was unconstitutional for barack obama to deny same text couples marriage licences. they are oged under the con -- obliged to follow that interpretation which is supreme, according to the u.s. constitution, over the state law. that's the way the system works. and they are no strangers to thumbing their nose at federal court orders. this is yet another example of the george walls bar the door type of activity that we have

seen. >> you heard them make the point that the supreme court has not ruled. there's not uniform law yet. >> that's right, and the notion that the state of alabama, not even parties to the case, are bound by the ruling of a judge. at the end of the day, if the supreme court says the u.s. constitution makes the law unconstitutional. that prevails. it's radically different to saying all the state judiciary is bound by a ruling of a federal court judge. a federal court trial judge does not sit over the state courts. it's patently false to say they are bound by a ruling of a single federal court judge. >> let's get elizabeth on this. >> that is not the way the law works. it's clear that federal court orders binds state judges. we have seen this in florida. the judge in alabama made clear

that a u.s. constitution and the federal judge is obligated to enforce guarantees of fundamental rights that we have that we enshrein so they are not up to the whim of voters. they are required to enforce the laws here we have a federal judge interpreting the constitution saying that state officials are bound by the ruling. that's what we are told. >> let me put it to you. hold on a moment. are you saying that even though 81% of voters in alabama approve the ban, they can be outvoted by one federal appointee. >> one of the beauties of our constitution is that our fundamental right, and we saw this in the wake before of the 14th amendments guaranteed of equality of all people these

rights are enshrined in the nation's charter, so we don't have to get a popular majority to vote for the fundamental rites. in cases where you have a majority trying to abridge or ignore the fundamental rites of a minority that is where it's important for the federal court to step in and enforce the constitution there's no popular will of the majority exception. >> how about that. you can't pass a law for anything and say it's the will of the people and must be enforced until they are overruled. >> that's right. she's missing the point on the issue. >> it's not whether the majority can infringe. the issue is who has the say on what the constitution requires. the fact of the matter is it's not a single trial court judge, the supreme court of the united states spoke on the issue saying

state laws are constitutional. now you have a judge and a number of lower courts of appeals saying we'll ignore the precedent and issue rulings striking down the laws on our own. what the chief justice of the alabama court said is we'll be bount by what the supreme court said on this. and they said the law is constitutional and permitted to rely on that. >> that's a mischaracterization of supreme court precedent. >> it is not. >> they have never said alabama.... >> i did not interrupt you, so don't interrupt you. >> i think you did. >> no i didn't. baker versus nelson. it came up out of minnesota, when the same challenges were brought. the minnesota supreme court upheld the state law, and the supreme court declined to overturn that decision on a

judgment on the merits binding on the lower courts until it reverses itself. the notion that the single federal judge gets to overturn alabama law, but supreme court precedent does not understand the federal constitutional judicial system. >> the supreme court will rule in the area. it's expected this year. back in a moment with more "inside story". for months all the federal circuits ruling on same-sex marriage ruled the same way, striking down state laws. and the supreme court waited on the sidelines, a few lower courts ruled against same-sex marriage creating a tension that triggers oversight. when we return as the highest court in the land prepares to hear argument, will it hinge on an older argument over state rites. still ahead on "inside story".

we are back with "inside story" on al jazeera america i'm ray suarez. one thing that could go a long way to bringing order out of the current patchwork quilt of marriage laws and practices in america around same-sex

mannering is a supreme court decision applied broadly. in a ruling that struck down california's prop 8 and a ruling applying federal taxation and heritage laws to a new york woman married to a woman, the high court went some of the way. will a decision give states and couples the finality they teek. in a 7-2 decision the court declined to put it on hold. supreme court justice clarence thomas ex-core rated his peers saying:

elizabeth, why did clarence thomas give us an idea of the supreme court tipping its hand about the april argument and ruling later this year? >> well i do think the trend across the country in favour of marriage equality the one that continues when the case comes to the supreme court. we have seen a precedent over the last several decades driven by anthony kennedy, recognising the dignity of gay and lesbian americans and couples, just justice kennedy was concerned about the equal dignity of the families and mentioned a few years ago, that struck down part of the defensive marriage act. when the justices pick up the issue. some of them have been complaining about. i think they'll rule in favour of marriage equality because of the text history and press dent are clear on this matter.

>> given the traditions in the united states that marriages from missouri are honoured in i.s.i.l. and marriages in jersey are honoured in new york. can we sustain a system where certain states allow same-sex marriage and others don't? >> well you know that is not true. states, if they have a fundamental policy decision. for example, on the degree of not recognising marriages among first cousins they don't have to recognise such marriage purchased in other states. that's a core part of the federalism. the notion that our history and tradition support a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is bizarre. it's never existed and a radical definition of understanding what marriage is about. >> what i suggest is in most cases, under the fall faith and

credit cause. if you move from massachusetts, you don't have to be proved to be married. >> there's an exception to the clause recognising if the mood intrudes on full policy and that is codified by congress in the other part of the defensive marriage act, that is alive and on the books. states don't have to recognise memories performed in other states if to do so violates a fundamental policy. justice kennedy's decision relies heavily on the fact that states are the entities in our systems that define marriage and what was odd about the defensive marriage act is the federal government was not recognising the state definition. here they are asked to obliterate state definitions across the country. it's hard to read that with

justice kennedy's opinion in windsor. >> i think the way to think about this is to think back to the supreme court's decision which struck down state bans on couples of different races getting married. they talk about state policy but state's can't prefer to violate the constitution and the supreme court rejected arguments similar to ones made here. it didn't allow a tradition of discrimination to trump fundamental human rights. if we allowed a tradition of d discrimination to trump the constitution we'd probably have segregated schools and swimming pools. they vindicated rites saying quality was the law. >> elizabeth wilder from the constitutional development center and prover john ooesman from the chapman school of law, thank you for joining us for "inside story". get in touch on facebook follow us on twitter.

and get in touch with us next time. from washington, i'm ray suarez. the u.s. confirms the death of an american hostage in i.s.i.l. captivity, and promises retribution. >> good to have you with us. i'm shiulie ghosh. you are watched al jazeera from doha a u.n. effort to hatlt the fight in ukraine hinges on a phone call. >> bailout talks a 14-year-old tells us about his ordeal at the hands of boko