spinning the basketball on his finger. others include enry kissinger and nelson mandela. i'm more thank you for joining us. for the latest room head to aljazeera.com. ray suarez is next with "inside story". have a great night. [ ♪ ] it happened faster than anyone could have predict. in 2004 massachusetts was the only state where same-sex couples could marry. over a decade later it's legal in 36 states and the district of columbia and public opinion changed swiftly. but the political and legal shoving matches over redefines marriage are far from offer. whatever way the supreme court

decides, there are big complications ahead. that's tonight's "inside story". welcome to "inside story", i'm ray suarez, a majority of americans live in places where same-sex marriage is legal. a cluster of places are fighting back hard. in recent arguments several justices seemed to wrestle with the change that is in their power to make to essentially redefine the old idea of marriage between one man and one woman for good. john arthur was dying of a.l.s. and wanted to list his husband as his surviving spouse but the state of ohio wouldn't let him do that. the two men were married in

maryland where it was legal. the attorney-general decided to use the challenge from the two men. he has been joined from couples from four other states where same-sex marriages are banned. bus met with a couple in detroit. >> reporter: april and jane share four adopted children. all of them have special needs. noel jp is six, jacob 5 rihanna 4 and riley 2. they consider them both mum, but they are not legally recognised as a family. where does that represent changes where one has rights and the other doesn't? >> there's simple things. i legally can't sign a permission slip for either of my boys to go on a school outing because i'm not the legal parent. >> that is because michigan is

among 13 states that bans same-sex marriage. no legal union means no violent adoptions. the two together had to adopt two children separately. >> the biggest one is in a case where something happens to either of us one dies or becomes legal cap acetated, we can't make decisions, the children don't automatically go to the other parent the nurses sued michigan over the adoption code in 2011. in 2012 they amended the lawsuit to challenge the ban an gay marriage, a measure that voters approved in 2004. dana is the attorney. >> our position from the beginning has been that as much as you want to respect the will

of the people not so much that you disregard the civil rights of minorities and our position has been that you don't get to vote on civil liberties of other individuals. >> reporter: after a 2-week tile a judge ruled in favour of the women which opened the door to gay marriage in michigan, 300 couples tied the not. >> it was a wonderful day, so much joy and happiness. >> after three hours the state filed an emergency appeal and the mayor stopped. they didn't get married, both wanting to wait on the outcome of their case. in jan they heard that the high court would hear their case. >> what made you decide to fight? >> when we set out to do this we set out to educate the public

about our life. so that people can say they know a gay couple. they know a les by job couple and a -- lesbian couple and a family. and to show that we were not that much different. >> reporter: what began as a personal fight for the michigan couple can lead to a ruling impacts thousands of same text couples nationwide. one of the married couples at the center of the debate joins me now. they married in the district of columbia in 2010. welcome to the programme. >> thank you for having us. >> if the court rules in favour of the co-petitioners is the fight over is that it or will there be little hurdles and traps and snares over the place? >> there's be backlash.

if the court rules in favour of the couples. they will say the constitutional marriage are not constitutional and everywhere needs to be afforded the same opportunities as civil law. what i'm anticipating, we are seeing around the religious backlash in the states where you opened up talking about where legislators are trying to put forth the amendments saying if this happens, we'll let religious institutions to be able to discriminate and not accept that this is law and omply to it if you were offered a job in new orleans, dallas - a goodgood job - can you take it. are there some places where it will be taken care of or are some places just too complicated

to live. . >> that's the problem we have now. we would do what we did in d.c. when we were engage in 2009 marriage was not legal. we were going to have to go to connecticut to get married. we decided instead to fight for the right to marry. so i would say if i was norte nate enough to get a job in an area that did not have marriage protections, that's the path we'd follow. we'd fight for our right. >> do you know what is tricky. let's say the supreme court ruling comes down the way we expect it to, and marriage is a law of the land. the challenge is that in a place like georgia and new orleans, and over 30 states in the country, it is legal to fire someone from their job simply because they are gay. we could be married. get married. >> on a seat. >> go to work on monday. put a picture of our spouse on the desk and be fired, because

l.g.b.t. in this country do not have comprehensive protection from discrimination. we have so much work to do even beyond marriage. we have comprehensive nondiscrimination policies that would protect people. >> as you heard talked about, there's a gathering backlash. doesn't sound like either of you think it's over even if the supreme court makes a ruling tearing down the amendments as they exist in the states. >> no and the thing that we say is no one has won civil rights. right now we see the supreme court two years ago gutted the voting act. a law set in stone. we see in 2015 voter suppression laws running rampant across the

south. while we know we are looking forward to a positive did you suggest from the supreme court, and for them to be on the side of history and equality at the same time we have to stay vigilant. >> the gains are so fragile that risk the voting rights act they could go back on. . >> fragile, so we thought. for 50 years there it stood. here we are in 2015 at a time we thought we would never have to talk about that. here we are. >> it's an important lesson understanding that because you win rights today does not mean that they'll be there tomorrow. the same can be said for a woman's right to choose. >> so not to sound paranoid but you are suggesting it's possible that same-sex marriage could be

rebrand and he could fight the battle again. >> history taught us you have to remain vigilant and as martin luther king said to make sure the moral ark of the yun strers moves towards justice. democracy is about growth and ebb and flow. we are not going to rest on our laurels and pretend one or two supreme court rulings is the be all and end all. when it gets down to the quality of life and lived experience this ruling that may grant marriage is not going to change the discrimination and conditions and the sytematic discrimination through the law that is happening for l.g.b.t. people now. >> there's so much that we need to do. >> during the argument the justices wrestled with the idea that it was courts and legislators that pulled this off, not voters. would is reassure you if as

public opinion is changing there could be ratification in the ballot box instead of the courtroom. >> what makes this important is the colleagues decided that marriage bans are unconstitutional. >> in the lower courts. >> in the lower court. >> we heard the argument before. with proposition eight. we heard the arguments before there's no merit on the i suggest side other than to say we don't like same-sex couples, they don't have anything to do with the law. that's the basis for the argument. the fact that it is the courts deciding this in some areas, and not just voters is important. >> it will not quell me from keeping vigilant about the

issue. >> one of you talked about - i want to hear from you on this. if we end up with a narrow ruling maintaining the patchwork, different marriage laws in different states can we live with that longitudinally out from today. >> the court had denied taking it. everyone has been appealing. all the states have been trying to appeal and make the supreme court decide the reason the supreme court took this case it was an entire district that pretty much said the same thing. they said "we have to get in and decide now." the point for them is to make a decision so there's no confusion. >> great to have you both with us. next, the other side of the debate. after losing so much ground in

the fight state by state. what now. we talk with a lower whose job it is to make the cause against same-sex marriage. it's "inside story".

tonight on "inside story", we are look at the battle over same-sex marriage at the outset in the 1990s, those that wanted to keep marriage as between one man and one woman won - over and over again. in recent years the tide turned and decisively so. where does it leave those that fought same-sex marriage. robert is with a legal group founded to protect religious freedom. welcome to "inside story". >> thank you for having me. the battlefield changed shape. what is the fight now. what is a plausible set of victories now that same-sex marriage is legal in so many states of the union? >> we don't know what the supreme court will do. there's no shortage of commentators that predicted the

supreme court will impose same-sex marriage in all 50 states doesn't mean it would be legitimate. the supreme court's only power is in the legitimacy it was once recognised and that depends on making legally principled decisions and not political compromises. if they make law in this area if they rule broadly in a way that really puts pressure on the states that have bans on the books now, what does - what does it mean to say the ruling is illegitimate. won't it have the force of law. >> there's nothing in the text structure, logic or history of the constitution to allow the supreme court to redefine marriage for all 50 states, we saw legitimate decisions, and the u.s. supreme court said black americans or black people were property not citizens.

the american people and the president rejected that decision as illegitimate and did everything within their power to undo it. through legislation or giving the supreme court opportunities to reverse itself. if the supreme court crosses this line and imposes this new creation of same-sex marriage on all 50 states the american people should treat the decision as legitimate and do everything within their power to resist it. especially after new justices come onto the court in later years. >> i understand the idea about people resisting it opposing it. once regs trars are giving licences and people are starting homes and filing income tax returns as married couples. is the game kind of over. you may not like it or want it, but it's here and we have to make accommodations don't we?

>> i think we saw the decision with row v way, the supreme court trouble thought it was settling with that. we know from history that nothing could be further from the truth. it polarized the division between american citizens, and we have seen incrementally continued eragency of abortion laws throughout the united states because of the vigilance of the pro-life movement in the united states. if the supreme court were to cross the line and redefine marriage you'll see the same polarizing division in the country, more so than now. and the faith community and people outside the faith community recognising that marriage is defined by what it is and is not subject to redefinition by a government. those citizens will resist the

imposition of same-sex marriage laws to the extent they'll resist being required to recognise marriages in whatever way they can. >> customarily, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution has given states the ability to recognise each other's marriage. i have been married for a long time lived in five different state and none asked if i was legally married in another state, they accepted i was. when gay people are married in illinois, connecticut and california, and move somewhere in the union, will they continue to be challenged in that way or does this vacate the fall faith and credit clause and the custom of marriage recognition. >> that is a question before the supreme court - will a state that does not recognise same-sex marriage nonetheless have to recognise memories from other states. the full faith and credit clause

has been subject to the exception if a certain law of one state violates the policy of another. that doesn't have to recognise it. in this case what we will see is the supreme court will decide that question. the supreme court will have a say on that. going further down the road. what we will see is an erosion of any religious freedom to believe. we have seen it, and we don't have a 50 state mandate from the supreme court yet. the states will face the question of how do we protect the religious freedoms, the freedom of speech of conscience of its citizens who have a legitimate you know non- - legitimate reason to resist

recognising same-sex marriage based on religion or other reasons that existed for millennium robert great to have you with us on "inside story". will the supreme court end legal skirmishing. can it allow the state laws to stand. we dig into that with law schooler gareth epps. it's "inside story".

with me now a professor of law at the baltimore law. could the supreme court, by the way it rules, leave us still with a patch-work quilt of same-sex marriage laws across the country. >> you know that it seems

unlikely that they won't issue a ruling that covers the whole country about marriage. the question more people are wondering is whether the ruling will be worded in a way that states can push back permit discrimination in areas other than actually being married. >> fight a rear guard action as suggested. we see in louisiana where there's freedom of conscious bill that says governments can refuse to recognise. we'll see some of that. how long it will last i don't know. it will depend on how the court words the decision. >> if it's tough to get a majority doesn't the court sometimes narrow in order to get the fifth or sixth vote.

>> the question is what is in the mind of justice anthony kennedy, and his mind is broad and poetics. it's likely that he will write the opinion, and it will talk about the dignity of same-sex marriage couples, but in more poetic than practical terms and they'll have to be litigated down the road. >> it sounded as if some of the judges felt uncomfortable in taking this big step. i thought the justices were wrestling with the historic roll and justice kennedy ask the a number of questions about that. as the argument wore on the problem was that michigan and the other states had little to

offer in terms of an argument why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage. in constitutional law reasons are the coin of the realm. if you can't give me a reason a good reason then i win. that's the way it works. the state of michigan began to say well we don't think marriage is about emotional commitment we don't think it's about love or biology. justice kennedy reacted negatively to the line of argument to the point he almost called the lawyer from the states to drop it. at this point people began to think he would be more comfortable being in a 5-4 majority before we go you heard roger gannon of liberty council before the break talk about resistance if the supreme court

opens the way for same-sex marriage. what form could it take? >> the form of official resistance where a bill can say the texas courts cannot entertain. it can take legislative form religious freedom protections or the form of individual refusals to comply. the fact of the matter is once same-sex marriage enters a community, same-sex couples are so visible, it's harder to organise resistance to the phenomenon than people think it will be because your neighbours are there and they are married and your world has not collapse said. >> and they are not scaring you. very quickly, does public opinion play a role? >> absolutely. public opinion plays a role and played a role in the lower

courts. the fact that same-sex marriage won 22 out of 24 proceedings is important to the justices. >> great to see you. >> thanks. gareth epps teaching law at the university of baltimore. what is propelling the nation to same-sex marriage? my take after this. after this. >> sunday on "hard earned". losing control. >> 50 and broke. i live with the consequences every day. >> harsh realities. >> i did two tours in iraq, when i came back i couldn't find a job. >> fighting to survive. >> bein' a man and can't put my family in a home that they deserve... that's a problem for me. >> hard earned pride. hard earned respect. hard earned future.

a real look at the american dream. "hard earned". sunday, 10:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> part of our month long look at working in america.

what forces social change? well sometimes it's a determined minority forced to work a long time to move a big institution. the abolitionist of the 19th century had to work for half a century to bring down slavery. in the early 20th century millions work for a living. lewis hines photos shocked america's conscience. it was economic distress that

pushed kids out of dangerous work and into schools. concerns about freedom and equality drove the civil rights movement. less talked about is the cold war and the worries about damage to the u.s. from pictures of brutal cops fire hoses and police dogs. marriage for same-sex couples game a long way in a short time. for all the courtroom and valid battles, i'd pay attention to commerce. along with activists and comerts filing briefing with 379 businesses and destroyer groups verizon, price waterhouse and others, for them the limitation assist over. it hurts business, and that will help push society a little faster closer to its destination. thank you for joining us. see you next time. i'm ray suarez.

[ gunfire ] yemen's on watch. the u.n. calls on the security council to send in ground forces against the houthis as the fighting rages on welcome to al jazeera america, lie from the headquarters in doha. i'm elizabeth puranam. also ahead - binyamin netanyahu strikes a deal with the coalition government in israel. >> chile's president sacks government ministers after a series of corruption