isn't about gays and lesbians being allowed to marry, but it also has to do with opening the door to several spousal rights and benefits. so a lot of excitement here and across the state. i'm told there are a lot of gay rights activists getting ready to plan all day, stephanie. >> bisi onile-ere live for us in ann arbor, michigan. let's turn to adam i understand the crowds have been really vocal now. i'm curious if there is anyone on the other side. we know a lot of religious groups were against same-sex marriage being legalized country wide. >> i just asked the same question myself stephanie, because when you look at the crowd right now, it just seems overwhelmingly with people in favor of same-sex marriage. there are a handful of people that are not.

concerned women for america, they have a small presence and a couple of other people representing other religious organizations, but that's about it. one man on the front line was daniel. you are kind of a supreme court junky. and you are a gay rights supporter. what was it like for you to standing there on the steps of the supreme court when this happened? >> it is an extraordinary feeling. i was here two years ago when the decision in the defense of marriage act and prop 8 came down, and there is a very different feeling -- >> how so? >> people expected this decision in a way they absolutely didn't two years ago, and i think that speaks to the very change in the environment since the decision came down two years ago. >> what does it mean to you personally to be standing out here when that decision came down. >> i think being surrounded by people who have been a part of

this struggle for the last 30, 40, 50 years, much longer than i have been alive, it's very humbling and extraordinary. it's a very very great day to be here. >> thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> there are organizations, the freedom to marry group they have put out a statement saying this is a great day for america. but they also said the gay righting struggle is not over yet. there are still issues with hiv protection, there are issues with bullying there are issues facing the transgender community. so for the gay rights community, this is their big victory, but really, their fight is not over yet, stephanie. >> adam may, thank you. >> i want to go back to bisi onile-ere in ann arbor, michigan, with more reaction there. >> the couple highlighted here

in michigan with the supreme court when they came here we are at a community center for gay rights activists, and they were nervous and they were still a little bit nervous as they were waiting in the house here behind me for that decision to come down our cameras were rolling. i want you to take a look. >> yes! [ cheers ] [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> so you can say there was a moment where they -- they burst into tears and then there was applause and a lot of -- lot of hugging, a very very emotional situation for the couple april and jane. they have waited a very, very long time for this day to come. when they came here today they were uncertain whether they would hear the decision but indeed they did. their case helped spark the supreme court to take a look at this issue, and i'm told there

is a lot of celebrating going on today. we're still waiting to hear from the couple has to say, and hopefully that's something that happens in a short time. back to you. >> thank you. i want to go back out to mike viqueira outside the supreme court, you have been going through the dissent, mike. i understand there were four different disscents written. >> yeah and that is somewhat unusual. the lead dissent was written by john roberts yesterday. and anthony kennedy again, today being the swing vote. the dissent is saying in part chief justice roberts says the fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage, and of course this was the argument put before the

court by opponents of same-sex marriage. the constitution in their view clearly gives the right to define and license marriages to each state. roberts go on the people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples or retain the historic definition. and finally but for those who believe in a government of law not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. and we have been skimming through scalia's dissent who says now this country is being ruled by nine unelected individuals on the supreme court. that's the view of justice scalia. >> as you are talking, mike we're seeing some of the attorneys for the plaintiffs start to descend from the steps of the supreme court.

the lead was a woman mared mary who this was her first time arguing before the supreme court. i want to bring in an lbgt advocate. you have been highlighting aspects of the ruling here. what stands out to you as what sueded the majority here? >> i think it's a very interesting decision. a lot of people a lot of court watchers and advocates on both sides of this case expected that the anti-marriage bans would be analyzed by the court as a form of sexual orientation discrimination, or a form of sex discrimination. and the way the decision came out would hinge on which way it went. in fact what justice kennedy did was something totally different. he said the question of whether or not someone can marry is one of fundamental rights.

there's a fundamental rights we recognized in loving versus virginia. >> is that so significant? is he creating a fundamental right through this decision? >> what he says time and time again in this decision, very interestingly, is that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. so he -- both acknowledges historically, since 1967 when loving versus virginia overturned the statutes in virginia, we have recognized a fundamental right to marry, and now he is joining that tradition, or that precedent to a more recent line of equal protection and due process decisions, relating to gay rights issues anti-sodomy statutes that have been struck down. >> culture changes, and a lot of the questions before the court, was whether the court could redefine the institution of

marriage. are we seeing the supreme court simply reflect what is a cultural shift throughout the country? >> absolutely. i think that is right. and if you don't mind i'm going to look at a couple of words that justice kennedy writes. he has often been recognized for his poetic language. he says no union is more profound than marriage for it embodies the highest ideals of love fidelity devotion sacrifice, and family. and he writeses at the end their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions they ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. the constitution grants them that right. so you can seeing that wedding with the old view with a more modern view that has evolved as a result of generations of

activists of work -- >> and justice kennedy who is 78 years old, has really now put his stamp on the supreme court. >> absolutely. a lot of people have said that this is going to become unofficially june 26th we'll hear called justice kennedy day. because his prior gay rights decisions were also on june 26th. he now has four different cases, all of them on the side of -- of the gay litigants, and that's particularly interesting, because he is a republican appointee, but he is going to be a hero for a lot of people -- >> for the gay rights movement. >> for a long time. >> thank you. >> my pleasure. >> let's turn to adam may at the supreme court. give us more reaction from outside of the court there. >> right now a group of supporters just walked up on the steps of the supreme court and

started singing patriotic songs, along them is congressman ted lou who represents southern california. congressman thanks for joining us. what was it like for you personally to watch this today? >> as a coach of the congressional lbgt caucus it is a thrill to be here a great day for america, and i couldn't be prouder of our country. >> we'll see how this is implemented in some of these states that have been holding out. but a lot more issues facing the gay rights community here. what is the next big issue? >> first of all it's amazing we have marriage equality across america. but there's still many steps that need to be taken for full equality for the lbgt community. there's still this awful practice of conversion therapy that really is psychological abuse. i have a law to ban it. >> you are saying that there

should be a national law against repairtive therapy? >> absolutely i authored the law in california to ban it some states have replicated it but we need a nation-wide ban. you can still fire people based on sexual orientation, and we need to fix that. >> congressman thanks so much for joining us. >> adam thank you. we're going now to john terrett live on capitol hill. have we heard from any lawmakers on either side? >> we are beginning too. the senate and the house are now on july 4th recess. but democrats are calling this an historic moment republicans more muted. nancy pelosi has just let her feelings be known. she says the supreme court means that equal justice now equal marriage throughout the whole country.

that's what she says of the decision just handed down. martin o'malley of maryland and of course this case is routed in maryland, because the man who brought it was married to his partner john but they lived in ohio. legal in maryland but not legal in ohio. and martin o'malley says i'm so grateful for the people of maryland for leading this case. mike huckabee a republican contender for the white house in 2016 called this decision by the nine, an out of control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny. john lewis who is the civil rights leader he says that races don't fall in love genders don't fall in love but people fall in love. >> john thank you. i want to go back to mike

viqueira live outside of the supreme court who has more from the dissenting opinion of justice scalia. how scathing was the dissent? >> scathing as usual. when we last spoke, i said that justice scalia true to form had a very [ inaudible ] dissenting opinion. we mentioned that justice scalia says this is a case where democracy has been abridged where this country is no longer ruled by a legislative or executive branch but by nine unelected people. he goes on what reallies anding sounded is the hubris reflected in today's bush. the five are entirely comfortable concluding that every state violated the constitution for all of the 135 years between the 14th amendment's ratification providing equal protection under

the law, and massachusetts permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. they have discovered in the 14th amendment a fundamental right overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification and almost every else in the time sense. so characteristically saying that scalia's dissent has tones of sarcasm in it. again the opinion is couched in a style that is as pretension as its content is ego advertisic and he calls the opinion from anthony kennedy and the five judges overturning laws banning same-sex marriage again, now legal in all 50 states he calls the argument profoundly incoherent. >> really interesting to see the contrast contrast. mike viqueira thank you. i want to go back out to roxana

saberi who joins us outside of the historic stone wall inn here in new york city. this bar considered by many to be the birthplace of the gay rights movement. what is going on out there? >> that's right, steph because it is considered the birthplace of the gay rights movement, so many have been gathering here. the crowds have really picked up since just about 45 minutes ago when the supreme court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, and we'll have the cameraman pan across, people have come from across new york and also a few journalists mixed in and also people coming from other states such as chris from texas. chris, you came here all the way from texas, where same-sex marriages have not been recognized by law. what does the ruling mean for you? >> it means finally even in our state where they have fought gay marriage, our human dignity is

being recognized so for us this is an incredible moment and it was a pretty powerful moment when we got the news so -- >> what does this mean for the gay rights movement as a whole? >> well it's an important step but it is really just one step. it's a great day, but the reality is there are people who are going to continue to fight and make it difficult for us to get married and to do other things, and so this is a step in the way of a long long line of other things that we're going to have to achieve. >> thank you so much chris. we'll be here throughout the day, steph to share the stories and celebrations that are happening. it is a very enthusiastic crowd here. back to you. >> okay. i think we're getting a live feed from the supreme court with [ inaudible ] speaking. >> -- continued to fight my right to list my name on john's death certificate.

no american should have to suffer that indignity. that's why john and i and the 30 plaintiffs who are part of this lawsuit decided to fight. i know in my heart that that man is with me today. he cared for and loved me for 21 years through thick and thin. this affirms what millions across the country know to be true in our hearts. our love is equal; that the four words, etched on to the supreme court equal justice under law, apply to us too. all americans deserve equal dignity, respect and treatment when it comes to the recognition of our relationships and families. now at long last ohio will recognize our marriage and most important marriage equality will come to every state across our country. it's my hope that the term gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past; that from this day forward it will simply be

marriage. and our nation will be better off because of it. i also hope that this -- that this decision has a profound effect in reducing the stigma the hurt the alienation and discrimination that lbgt people often feel when we live our lives openly and authentically, at the same time my heart is also in charleston. these past few weeks and months have been an important reminder that discrimination in many forms is alive and well in america. it reminds us of the deeply unfortunate reality that progress for some is not for all. if we're truly dedicated to our democracy, and the values that we as a nation cherish, we must be equally committed to ensuring that all americans are treated equally and deserve justice. that's when we are all united.

i want to take my legal team and especially al who stood by me every step of the way, thank you to aclu and all of the litigators plaintiffs, and organizations who fought for equality. our shared victory was only possible because of each and every one of you. i would like to give a special thank you to mary and doug who brilliantly argued our case before the court, and eloquently affirmed my life and relationship and millions of others like me across this country. we owe you all a huge debt of gratitude. but most importantly, i would like to thank john for loving me, for making me a better man, and for giving me something worth fighting for. i love you. this is for you, john. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you. [ cheers and applause ]

>> that man that you just heard him is jim ogerfell he is the named plaintiff in this and today a huge victory for gay rights. i want to bring in alan family law practitioner and lbgt advocate. what will this decision have on other rights for gays in this country? for example, employment? >> i think because of the way the decision was framed which was it was not viewed as an equal protection case, the implications are not likely to be as brood as some might have hoped. >> so as you are reading through this decision you are finding it is more narrow and more focused on just the right of the question to marry? >> exactly.

although there is a lot of language talking about the essential and inherent dignity of human beings the court does not specifically state that the equal protection clause is violated if other forms of discrimination occur, as you mentioned employment public accomodations, housing, education, and so forth. it's going to remain to be worked out by courts in this years to come. and i think it's worth just taking a moment to note one thing that justice kennedy made a point of voting and that is it isn't clear yet nothing about the decision today requires religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. all the court has ruled is that the civil -- meaning legal -- institution of marriage must be made available on an

equal basis. so people practicing faith don't need to worry that their priests are going to have to perform these unions. >> that's an important point. because other cases are people that don't believe they should have to provide services for a gay wedding, because that runs up against their constitutional right to practice religion, so this case does not invalidate those religious freedom claims. >> that's right. but there is an important distinction, i think we'll see as the cases play out in the years to come between whether governmental workers are going to be ultimately allowed to refuse to officiate civil weddings, and whether employers

of private companies like the pizza company, and there have been dozens around then country seeking to protect their ability to refuse to grant marriage licenses or officiate same-sex marriages based on religious grounds, there's no way that is going to be upheld because, again, marriage is a civil institution. and with respect to private employers, and private establishments, the courts and legislators will be balancing the religious freedom, versus the anti-discrimination principal of our constitution on the other hand. thank you. >> absolutely. let's go back to adam may at the supreme court. >> hey there stephanie, a lot of the plaintiffs are out in front of the microphones, and making statements. two of the plaintiffs michael and greg they were named plaintiffs in kentucky they will be joining us in just a

short time but eric is a college student at university of maryland, he raced down here and just missed the decision by a couple of mkt-- mktinutes. you are 22. what does this mean at your age? >> it means a lot. because i was in high school when they passed proposition 8 getting rid of gay marriage so it hurt a lot. >> when they get rid of prop 8 for example, and you see a setback in gay rights and you are a gay student going through high school. what did that say so you as how you were valued? >> you felt like a second-class citizen, and you were always wondering in the back of your head who is for and who is against it. so at least now our government is behind us. >> it is quite interesting when

you think about the differences -- >> okay. it sounds like we are having some problems with our audio feed there with adam may outside of the supreme court. for now we can go back to the white house. we are expecting to hear from the president shortly and our correspondent randall pinkston is there. randall what would we expect to here? >> i think we're going to hear an expansion of the comments the president made from his twitter message earlier today. actually applauding the decision of the u.s. supreme court, in making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. and we must -- as you pointed out earlier, the president has in recent years been a very strong proponent and advocate of same-sex marriage. however, in the past he did not support that position. at one point he said it was his

understanding that marriage was something that was to take place between a man and a woman. obviously he has changed his mind as have so many others. we have seen the poll results show that the american public is increasingly not opposed to same-sex couples. steph. >> yeah the latest wall street journal nbc news poll showed an all time high of 59%. i want to head back out to mike viqueira at the supreme court. let's talk about the president and his evolution on this issue of same-sex marriage. >> well, you are right, and of course it was 2010 when the president perhaps infamously or notoriously said that his views on same-sex marriage were, quote unquote, evolving. he has opposed same-sex marriage

as a candidate for senator, and as a candidate for president. in 2010 offering his first sense of ambivalence or at least wavering. close scrutiny from the white house of exactly what that means, but it was joe biden who put the president in a very tough spot. he came out stanchly in favor of marriage equality. contracts later that chronicled the entire episode, described a white house that was angry with the vice president. biden ended up apologizing to president obama, but nevertheless the upshot was to force the issue with the president and before the election the president came out and endorsed marriage equality,

before the 2012 election and of course we all know how that worked out. it was during the argument of this case earlier this year when his solicitor general in arguing it put forth the administration's case echoed largely in the majority opinion from justice kennedy today that this was a 14th amendment issue. that equal protection would deck indicate that marriage equality should be the law of the land in all 50 states. so that brings us to this day, stephanie. >> mike viqueira thank you. let's go now to alabama. okay. it appears we are having

problems with our collection in alabama. meanwhile i am joined by john terrett on capitol hill with more reaction from lawmakers. john, what are we hearing? >> speakers weighed in in the past few minutes. john boehner who is traveling with the president in south carolina today speaker boehner saying while all are kwee at itted equal, and deserve the right thereof, the speaker goes on to say we are disappointed the supreme court has disrespected the democratly enacted will of millions of americans by forcing states to redefine marriage. that's the speaker in the past couple of minutes. nancy pelosi said earlier today what the supreme court of the u.s. has done now is to make sure that equal justice, equals marriage equality for everybody in the country.

now if i may we have a couple of reactions from con tenders from the white house in 2016. we heard from mike huckabee now a con tender for the republican party in 2016. he says this decision regarding gay marriage is an out of control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny. but martin o'malley who is the former governor of maryland who this case has its roots, but they were married in maryland where gay marriage was and is legal, but lived in ohio where until today it was not, so jim brought that case and here is martin o'malley saying that he is so grateful to his state to bring about the situation that leads to improved human dignity and equality under the law. so reaction is com