>> reporter: the supreme court didn't just rule narrowly that same sex couples have the right to marry but broadly. by a very slim margin. the majority said the 14th amendment require states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples but the dissenting vote it's just marriage now and

it's the "inside story." >> this morning the supreme court recognized that the constitution guarantees marriage equality. in doing so they've reaffirmed that all americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. >> welcome to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. just a few hours ago. couples consistenting of two men or two women np ones in 2s and then in bunches more states join the growing list of places where same-sex couples could legally

marry. it was inevitable. it would head to the supreme court. michigan kentucky, ohio and tens pleaded for relief from the high court and got it. here is al jazeera senior washington correspondent mike viqueria. >> reporter: as news spread to supporters waiting outside the supreme court a moment of jubilation. and for jim obergefel the man who brought the case, justice was finally served. >> today's ruling from the supreme court affirms what we all know to be true in our hearts our love is equal. >> moved to ohio, which does not. when john decide, he fought to be listed on the death ticket with john's husband. must same sex unions be recognized in every state and do they fall under the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law?

the court split on familiar ideologic lines evenly subdivided between left and right with justice anthony kennedy casting a swing vote in a 5-4 decision. in his majority opinion kennedy wrote in part, the challenged law burden the lives of same sell couples and they bridge the gap of same sex couples. >> there's so many people who have been waiting decades for this day ocome that i want to make sure that they finally have this joy and this security that comes with marriage. >> reporter: in dissent chief justice john roberts calls it a state rights issue. the fundamental right to marry does not make a state change its definition of marriage. judge antonin schee scalia wrote

freedom of intimacy is a bridge rather than expanded by marriage. ask the nearest hippie. but the majority said children of same sex marriage were harmed and humiliated by the ban. for them that was a triumph. >> to add our son's name to the birth certificate and it became so much more important and so much bigger than this. >> for jim it was a very personal victory. >> but most importantly i'd like to thank john. for lfg me. for making me a better man. and for giving me something worth fighting for. i love you. this is for you john. >> reporter: mike viqueria, al jazeera, washington. >> thank you. >> we'll start with a look at the majority opinion and the dissents with joe patrice editor of above the law.

welcome back to "inside story" joe. it looks like a complete victory. do the states that are mentioned specifically this this litigation ohio, kentucky, michigan, tennessee have any recourse or is this it? >> this is pretty much it. they will -- there's going to be a slight delay the case gets sent over and then affirmed down the line but for those states, this is completely over and for the other states that have bans on gay marriage that's going to end very very quickly soon after that. >> was this a roll of the dice, for those states that wanted to maintain some form of impediment to same-sex marriage to go for a case that really asks the fundamental question: can you keep same-sex publes from being couples from being married? >> it was kind of a roll of the dice because it really put it all out there but with very few

exceptions everyone saw the writing of the wall after the last couple of decisions in this line both written by justice kennedy it was pretty clear there was going to be a five-four in this way. >> reading the opinion joe i would say there are points with all supreme court opinions with the citation of precedents and quotations from other cases that more like the erector set of justice but then there were points that were almost like poetry. their hope is not to be condisemed to livecondemned in loneliness, to ask for equal did dignity in the eyes of the law. there were points where kennedy's majority opinion was quite moving. >> yeah, and to some -- it's a sign of how cynical and hardened lawyers can be in the legal circles, a lot of us are talking over how he bent over backwards

to be so flowery and that was kind of a knock down on it because he didn't drill down on some of the key analysis points that a lot of us look for. but to step away from being lawyers and to be merely human it was a beautifully written opinion. >> some states that are not part of the litigation but still have bans, do they automatically get sucked into the vortex of the supreme court ruling? >> not automatically but pretty close to automatically. what's most likely to happen is those states will immediately drop any barriers that they currently have seeing that it's not worth it to keep going. there could be a chance that some of them hold the line and ris atriz at which point thereresist and it will most likely go almost immediately up and be

slapped down by this ruling. >> in the scalia dissent everybody went to harvard or yale he almost indicted the court for something that it's always been unrepresented by america. >> yes it was curious. i also learned california was not the west which is another dig he threw in specifically at justice kennedy. it has always been that way and it really is kind of a starching. being the nonrepresentative body that it is means it's insulated a little bit from the passion he of the tyranny of the -- passions of the tyranny of the majority. there are problems with the fact that almost everyone has the

same at the end of the day the same bio. >> but the thing that's curious about antonin scalia making that case is he has been an absolute warrior for the idea that popular opinion has no place in the proceedings of the supreme court, that that's not how justices make decisions. in his cases involving the death penalty, in the execution of children and the mentally ill he has said we don't take polls to see what people like to do and then go ahead and do it and here he's citing the fact that the court is select, patrician highly unrepresentative, was that odd? >> it's a little odd but it fits with i think there's a nuance to the way he talks about the demographics of the court. i think he really does feel, rightly or wrongly that a lot of these questions things like

death penalty things like abortion should be decided by legislatures. now there are some of us that think that the -- as i said already the tyranny of the majority is a problem in that respect but i think he's a ream believer in popular will to the extent that he believes that the legislature alone should be making those calls. query what he thinks the supreme court should be doing in that case since he seems to want legislatures to do everything. but i think that's what he's really after and he really indicts his own brethren for trying to be legislators as i think what -- the way he would want to phrase fit i would get inside his head for a second. >> he was certainly echoed by chief justice john roberts. joe patrice, thank you for being with us. for gay americans today's ruling is the clumghts for a long series -- the culmination of a long series of being

rulings. it's just marriage now and it's tonight's "inside story." ♪ your sword can be a servant for power of the pen ♪ ♪ reach out to raise his voice ♪ >> explorer and environmentalist jean-michel cousteau. >> we are visitors and we need to respect that. >> surprising secrets of the ocean. >> if it wasn't for the ocean, we would have a lot of problems today. >> and the harsh reality facing our planet. >> enough is enough. >> i lived that character. >> we will be able to see change.

>> you're watching "inside story," i'm ray suarez. the supreme court ruled there is no straight marriage or gay marriage it's just marriage now. in the ringing majority opinion and the stinging dissents, you saw the legal not just emotionally nature of the debate. anthony kennedy says marriage responds to the universal people understanding and assurance that when both still

live there will be someone to care for the other. in his dissent justice antonin scalia said, the mystical aforrisms of the is fortune councilmember. joint me now jerry henry of young conservatives and danielle moody mills. a lot of republican politicians once the ruling came out this morning said as far as they're concerned the war is over. they're not happy but they'll abide by the court's word. others are girding their loins to continue the battle. what would you advise them? >> i would advise candidates to remember that this election isn't just a primary. they have to appeal to a majority of american voters on all sides of this issue. and if you look at the polling

that's come out recently you have overwhelming majorities of voters overall as well as voters in different age groups, young voters, this is a huge issue and it's a gateway issue. they are not going to vote for a candidate that opposes gay marriage. i would advise candidates to really look at some of the polling in the next couple of weeks and see if we see those numbers grow just five or six points, to see that this is something not just legally put to rest but in public opinion it's put to rest and they need to look at how they speak to that. >> let's remember the core of the republican primary vote, is among those people who in their highest percentages report that they do not support the right to marry or the gay couples. >> we actually have a lot of polling with young conservatives with the freedom to marry. we work a lot with people in different states. i just finished a seven state tour through early primary states and we are seeing

overwhelming majorities and growing majorities of republicans who are supportive of the freedom to marry. it does actually fit with republican tenets and excessive tix. that mayconservativeconservatism. fest it's alsoit's also about building families. two people, when it looks a little different from those who originally looked like they were getting married it's a lot of commitment that makes our societies stronger and something the republican party has been dedicated to for many years and i think you'll start to see republicans change their language around this a little bit. and start to shift. i've already seen it in what i call the silent majority of those voters.

>> diane moody mills, when you were on the program a couple of months ago with your wife, you expressed the opinion as she did, this fight is never over. even on a day like today when the supreme court seems to put a final stamp on this debate there's always a chance that it will come back. do you still feel that way? >> yeah, i think that the reality is i mean today is a jubilant day right? i'm very excited. but the reality is that what we know about people, what we know about this country is nobody's civil rights have been won fought and then put up our feet and go home. what is set in stone today can be erased tomorrow so it's important for all of us who have been doing this work and advocacy and being ton front on the front lines of marriage equality, that we stay vigilant. >> already the texas attorney general has stated that he's combing through law to see whether he has to compel justices of the peace and county

clerks around the state to perform marriages like yours. are we going to see a lot of this in the months to come that yeah, there will be skirmishes, there will be brush fires here and there that this really is not over. >> you know, unfortunately there are always going to be people in the opposition. and really frankly in their best interest. right now you know we have a presidential debate that's getting ready to kick off and what we're saying is that really are there republican candidates that are going to be out there that are against marriage quj when?when an overwhelming majority of minute yalsmillennials are for it? of course you're going to have an opposition that comes down that says, it's not within their best interest to listen to that law bit you know we continue to stay vigilant and continue to do

the great work and frankly the american public is behind us. >> several of the republican candidates have gone after the court and they've said that this shows more than anything could how important the next presidential election is. because the next president may appoint several justices. does this elevate for all presidential candidates, the issue of the supreme court and the power to nominate? >> you know i think that's always been something that's very important. not just in this case, in every case. every president wants to get their justices in there. interestingly, today's opinion was written by justice kennedy who was a reagan appointee and a republican. and john roberts was a bush appointee. so i think that, i think that the court is the supreme court because it divers these deciphers these things and takes out opinion. you can't always have a

republican justice or are democrat justice by definition and they do a good job when sometimes we are a little annoyed when they don't go our way. >> great to talk to you both. so what happens now? everybody back to neutral corners until we figure identity what to fight about next? in a moment we will speak to jonathan rousch. it's just plairnlg and it's marriage and it's tonight's "inside story."

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. the following words ring with a particular resonance today. if there's any social policy today that has a fair claim to be scaldingly inhumane it is ban on gay marriages as conservatives tirelessly and tirelessly

and rightly pointed out marrying whom they choose is extraordinary deprivation. case for gay marriage laid out just over 19 years ago by this man. jonathan rousch, then writing in the new republic. today he's a senior fellow at the brookings institution. did you allow yourself a little bit of a victory lap jonathan, seeing the thoughts you wrote so long ago vindicated in a supreme court opinion? >> it's hard to fight back tears of being overwhelmed and joyful. that's how i and countless other gay americans feel today just kind of amazed. >> you know there were portions of today's opinion by justice anthony kennedy that read like they were lifted right out of your article. did you get that feeling as you were reading it?

>> well, i wouldn't have put it that way. because trarchgly it's frankly it's been a long time. you've kind of forgotten what you've said and written. but justice kennedy grounded his opinion in conservative values. every since i've been saying same sex marriage is a conservative movement. it's about values of home and family around kids. and saying all those things apply to gay people just as much as straight people, it's gay people embracing the values. and that's the kind of decision that justice kennedy wrote. he didn't say marriage is for anything you want to call love, it wasn't a free love decision. it was the opposite of that. in that sense it services won conservatives won today. >> very prominent on the no side have promised to fight on while others have said look, the supreme court makes the law of the land. this is their decision and we

are bound to honor it. does today's opinion have the ability perhaps to lance the boil, take a little bit of the heat out of the debate and let us see how this works and assess it on its merits? >> well, we're going to see. that's the $64,000 question. we've already seen several republican candidates including jeb bush, say basically i don't like this decision but let's live with it and move on from here. and some other candidates, bobby jindal said basically i hope you know this means war. they're going to the wall. this decision on the one hand could inflame some people who regard it as judicial tyranny. but i think a lot of other people would say, you know, it's okay to have that settled let's figure out how to live with it. i don't honestly know yet which of those two vectors will be the predominant one. >> to close that article you wrote, heterosexual society

would rightly feel betrayed if after legalize aches homosexuals treated marriage as a minority taste rather than a core institution of life. it is not enough i think for gay people to say we want the right to marry if we do not use it, shame on us. what do you think is going to happen inside the community now? >> well, what's going to happen inside the community ray has already happened. it began happening 20 years ago. if there was one worry in that article that did not come to pass it's that gay people would not be interested in marriage. that you know we'd just view it as sort of a right but not something that we actually wanted. we've seen gay people line up in the courthouse in san francisco in the rain to get married. we've seen the courthouse filled in d.c. where i've been married. the gay community has embraced family values. and in some ways, this is the great untold story of family values and excessive tix in conservative

conservatism. we're there. >> a crisis at large in marriage is there something sal ya salutatory, something we want this, something we absolutely want to do? >> absolutely. one of the strongest parts of justice kennedy's statistician is where he says that marriage is about -- it's a fundamental social right not just for gay people but for all people. he understands that a society where people can't get married for whatever reason is not going to be healthy. we live in a society where the opportunity to marry is much more accessible to people at the high end now than the low end. we've got a marriage gap. but it's a class gap. and addressing that i think is the important next step.

and what justice kennedy says in this decision helps undergird that by calling attention to the need for marriage to be there for all americans. >> jonathan rousch, thanks for joining us. i urge you to read jonathan's case for gay and straight marriage from 1996. you ask finally can find it online, you know how. i'll be back with a final opinion on the future of marriage. >> bold... >> he took two m-16's, and he crawled... >> brave... >> ...do what you gotta do... >> then betrayed... >> why do you think you didn't get the medal of honor? >> a lifetime without the honor they deserved... >> some say that it was discrimination... >> revealing the long painful fight, to recognize

some of america's bravest... >> he say.. be cool...be cool... >> ...proudest moment in my life.. >> honor delayed a soledad o'brien special report only on al jazeera america

meets humanity. monday, 6:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> now that the tug of war over gay marriage is pretty much over i can get something off my chest. one of the most often-heard shots at gay people by those who oppose their marriage was that gay people would destroy or devalue marriage. as was mentioned during the argument before the high court pager is a social construct that's been with us for men millennia.

if marriage is a troubled or degraded institution it is heterosexuals who have done the damage all on their own not a couple of hundred thousand gay people in the population of 350 million. the surprise is so many wanted it so badly. that should remind ourselves married or single, what's so precious as marriage in the first place? battered and bruised as at the time, there are people that the worst thick you could tell them is they can't have it and after being locked out so long that they are willing to take a crack at saving it. i'm ray suarez. that's the "inside story."

>> yet the people decide, the greek prime minister announces a referendum on his nation's bailout here. hello, i'm darren jordan, you're watching al jazeera live from doha. also on the program. the once peaceful country is now a target. unitedunited in greece and kuwait. a an attack on a mosque.