undisclosed items being put in paper bags and taken away from the house just the other day and his attorneys have said all along no arrest warrant has been issued, certainly up until that point. but, apparently, things have changed. chris? >> but there is no word yet from police or from aaron hernandez's attorney, which means either that they're just waiting on their own time or this might have been somewhat of a surprise. you had no indication this was coming, correct? >> that's correct. we have been told that it's an ongoing investigation following every step of the aspects they're looking. where is he? we know there is a relationship between them. they were friends and sometimes they would party together. in act aaron hernandez his fiance, his girlfriend and one of her sisters was dating the victim in this case. so, there is that connection

between the two. now, as to whatever else would be going on, we don't know. but, certainly, searching the last couple days not just only around the house, but also an area around the house. the body was found less than a mile away from where the football player lives. >> all right, susan, thank you very much for being on it. obviously, details have to come out of this. we don't know anything except what we told you except that aaron hernandez, the patriots' tight end put in a cruiser and taken away. we're awaiting word from police and the attorneys. >> a developing situation and much more on this breaking news coming up with carol costello in "cnn newsroom." coming up right now. >> happening now in "newsroom" decision day at u.s. supreme court. two major rulings on same-sex marriage that will affect millions of americans live outside the court where hundreds are gathering for this historic decision. also breaking this hour, george zimmerman entering the

courtroom and the star witness may take the stand this hour. plus, this -- >> i is what i and i'm not changing. >> tenacious paula deen and what everyone is talking about this morning. "newsroom" starts right now. i'm carol costello. thank you for being with us this morning. lots and lots of news to tell you about. you heard on on "new day" that aaron hernandez was seen in handcuffs getting into a police cruiser. we do not know if he has been charged, but police have been investigating his possible involvement with the murder of a close friend of aaron hernandez. a guy whose body was found just a mile away from his home in massachusetts. susan is in massachusetts.

tell us what you know, susan? i'm sorry, let's go to sunny hostin. when we get susan, we'll get her back on the phone. let's go to sunny hostin, our cnn political analyst. they arrested aaron hernandez and we don't know if he's been charged with anything, but the guess is maybe obstruction of justice and maybe something more. what do you think? >> yeah, we don't know. there's no question that there must be an arrest warrant. no way that you can lead someone away in handcuffs from their home, especially, without an arrest warrant. and, so, we know that a judge and made the determination that he can be arrested on some sort of charge. this is the very beginning, of course, of a case. we don't know much but there were those reports, sort of floating around that it could be an obstruction of justice charge which would stem from the allegations that he destroyed

his cell phone and he destroyed his surveillance system. we have seen several search warrants have been executed at his home. again, i want to make it clear that it takes quite a bit of probable cause of evidence to have a judge go forward and allow law enforcement, a search warrant of someone's home. i mean, a home is where you expect -- >> sunny, i think we lost sunny hostin. all right, so let me tell you what we know, once again. the new england patriots' tight end aaron hernandez taken away in handcuffs from police. taken from his massachusetts home. a photo journalist of cnn saw him get into the car in cuffs. we have susan candiotti on the line. susan, do we know why police have taken hernandez into custody? >> we don't know, carol. no. we have reached out to the district attorney who was in charge of this investigation and

said they were being very careful about everything they have been doing thus far-reached out to, of course, police sources, as well as the lawyers representing aaron hernandez. but interesting to hear how this went down in the morning, which is not uncommon. police entered the front door, according to our photo journalist rick hall and eaaron hernandez came out and he was wearing a white t-shirt and shorts. next step would likely be that he would go over to the police department and hear what the charge may be. if, in fact, he decides to talk with investigators, this is what we've been told. questioning possibly could take place. that's highly unlikely given the fact that a lawyer which was representing him and the legal team. however, from there very likely he would have a first court appearance this day and it's possible that there will be discussion, of course, about bail being set. >> this comes as kind of a surprise, susan, because

hernandez's lawyers, one of them came out just the other day and said that people are making too much of this. please, don't jump to conclusions. all kinds of humors flying around that simply are not true. >> and, in fact, they also made the point that there have been no arrests warrant issued. well, that's true. our law enforcement sources have been telling us, as well, that no law, excuse me, no arrest warrant has been issued. apparently, things have changed within the last little over 24 hours. of course, we have to find out why he has to take him into custody and get the precise nature of the charge. all kind of talk about this, but we wanted to be precise about this and find out what's at stake. >> susan candiotti, i know you're still on the case. when you get more information, of course, we'll have you back on the air a live. susan candiotti reporting live from massachusetts. now, let's head to washington where shaping up to be quite a historic day in the country's emotional debate over

same-sex marriage. starting in about just an hour we expect the supreme court to rule on two of the most anticipated cases of the year. at stake, the legality of same-sex marriage and government rights and benefits. the opinions could reshape the future for millions of same-sex couples. supporters on both sides of this contentious issue are waiting outside of the supreme court. you see them there on the steps. and that's where we find cnn's brian todd. good morning, brian. >> good morning, carol. a very highly charged atmosphere here today and much different than in previous days. the sense that today is the day. this is the day when the supreme court is in final session today and rule on the two same-sex marriage cases and this is the real difference you haven't seen in the previous days earlier this week and last week. lines from the steps of the court all the way down the street. this line just started to move a little bit. our team got here a little after 5:00 in the morning and a lot of people here then. a lot of people stayed overnight just in anticipation trying to get a seat in the court. limited seating.

not sure if some people will get in. we have one of the people who have been in line since early this morning. bobby, why did you come all the way from new york to be here for this day? >> this is such a landmark case and a historic, momentous kind of day. i wouldn't want to miss it. >> bobby, thank you very much. probably want it get back in line to save your space. one of many people in line and, carol, we'll show you some of the demonstrators. some of the die hards that have been here since last week. you have banners and signs and flags waving around here and a lot of media gathered around them and the crowd very highly charged today because they know this is it. no more rulings after today. the crowds smaller leading up to today. mark will take you in right in here to the demonstrators. they really hope one of these rulings is going to come down their way. the predominant, the numbers really here are in favor of same-sex marriage and of the laws changing in favor of couples and same-sex marriages. that's really the predominant

number of protesters here today, carol. >> all right, brian todd, an exciting day. we expect that decision to come in just about an hour in the 10:00 eastern hour of "newsroom." special coverage and wolf blitzer will be here and brian todd, i'm sure you'll be back. just an amazing sight at the u.s. supreme court in washington, d.c. the star witness in the zimmerman murder trial may take the stand at any time now. i'm talking about trayvon martin's girlfriend, the young woman talking with martin on his cell phone just before he was killed. as you can see, court proceedings have gotten under way and we understand the judge has also riluled on emotion to allow 911 calls to be admitted on evidence. george howell is in florida. george, fell us more. >> carol, good morning. right now you see jane, she is on the stand and we're still waiting it learn her relevance to the case as a far as being a prosecution witness. we also now know that juror b-72

was released for reasons unrelated to this case. we understand that that was one of the male jurors. one of those alternates that was released. i can tell you aegd yesterdyest very difficult for a lot of people, including the family of trayvon martin and i want to warn you some of the images you're about to see may be disturbing. it was too much for tracy martin and sabrina faulten, the parents of trayvon martin had to leave the courtroom. leaving jurors and the public to see this, the lifeless body of their 17-year-old son, some images too graphic for tv. they were shown during the testimony from sergeant anthony romaun romando, the second officer who arrived at the scene and tried to perform cpr. >> were you able to get a pulse? >> no, i was not. >> reporter: also called on diane smith. jurors saw the evidence she collected by george zimmerman's

handgun, clothing, skittles and the fruit drink martin was carrying. smith told prosecutors she couldn't find any blood on the sidewalk where zimmerman said the teen slammed his head, but during cross-examination, her answer left room for the defense. >> when you were walking down the sidewalk with the flashlight, the idea was to see if there was obvious blood? >> yes. >> and it was raining. >> that is correct. >> in fact, the defense was able to turn the table on several of the state's witnesses. like wendy, who trained zimmerman about neighborhood watch guidelines. >> he seemed like he really wanted to maintain his community to make it better. >> reporter: celine told prosecutors she heard what sounded like running from left to right outside her unit the night of the shooting. a detail the defense challenged her on, as it was the first time she offered that version of events publicly on the record. mark o'mara by showcasing her

online behavior. >> tell me what that says on your facebook front page right there. read that. >> prosecute the killer of our son, 17-year-old trayvon martin. sign the petition. >> back to a live picture here in sanford, florida. you see jane there. we understand she lived in the neighborhood and prosecutors will, obviously, ask her about what she heard, what she saw, what she did on the night of february 26th. also want to talk about these nonemergency tapes. these phone calls that george zimmerman made before this alleged crime. the prosecution wants to get, wanted to get those tapes admitted as evidence. keep in mind, the burden is on them to prove this concept of a depraved mind. that george zimmerman somehow wanted to. that there was a build up and he eventually met trayvon martin. this was the person who would not get away. that's what they were trying to

prove and keep in mind the defense is saying when you listen to these nonemergency tapes, you're hearing the work of a good samaritan. not a person who was frustrated and not a person where there was a build up and then the result of this fatal shooting. so, again, carol, these audiotapes will now be part of evidence. jurors will hear the tapes. they will hear how george zimmerman called several times reporting what he described as suspicious people using the word either black or african-american interchangeably. but all the people in these five audio clips from what we understand, that's what he was doing reporting a black male suspects. >> so, in other words, he called into the nonemergency 911 to say, you know, i see another burglar. someone else is breaking into these homes. the prosecution is trying to say that there was this rage build up in george zimmerman and he was determined to get someone for burglarizing these homes and it resulted in the death of trayvon martin. >> yep. >> all right -- >> that's really the plan. it seems like with these

audiotapes now admitted as evidence, it is a very important part of their case and also one more witness that we expect to hear from. could hear from this witness today. witness number nine. this is the girlfriend of trayvon martin who was on the phone with him the night of the shooting. again, that will be very key for the prosecution and could be very difficult for the defense because what she has to say could very well contradict what george zimmerman has been saying about that night. >> george howell, thank you so much. we'll take you back to sanford, florida, once another witness takes the stand. especially if trayvon martin's dpro girlfriend takes the stand. a tearful paula deen in her first tv interview since scandal sent her career into a tail spin. she says she is not a racist. here's what she said on "today" show. >> are you a racist? >> no. no i'm not.

>> by choice, by osmosis, you don't feel you have racist tendencies? >> no. >> but at times paula deen's interview got quite emotional. alina is here. >> we heard paula deen apologize in the online videos that surfaced last week. this is the first time we hear her answer questions about last month's deposition in which shed a a mitted to using a racial slur, mainly the n-word. in that same deposition she was asked if using the n-word in a joke was hurtful. she could not herself determine what offends another person. take a look at what she said about that today. >> do you have any doubt in your mind that african-americans are offended by the n-word? >> i don't know, matt. i have asked myself that so many times because, it's very distressing for me to go into,

it is very, very distressing. >> you never joined in on that language? >> no, absolutely not. it's very distressing. it's very distressing for me because i think that for this problem to be worked on, that these young people are going to have to to take control and start showing respect for each other. and not throw in that word at each other. it makes my skin crawl. >> i want to read you something that columbia professor wrote for "time" magazine's website. he is african-american. people of deen's generation can neither change the past nor completely escape their roots in it. any more than the rest of us. they can apologize and mean it, as deen seems to.

they also deserve credit for owning up to the past sins as deen did candidly when she could easily have, shall we say, whitewashed it. given the fallout you've seen over the last week, do you ever wish you'd fudge the truth? >> no. >> now, as you know, the fallout from this has been significant. two companies food network and smithfield foods have announced they are dropping deen. today she has spoke about how this has affected her. >> i am heartbroken. i'm thankful for my partners. >> heartbroken, why? for yourself or your family? >> i've had to hold friends in my arm as while they sobbed. because they know what's being said about me. it's not true. >> now, deen also said if there is anyone out there who has never said something they could

take back that she'd like to meet them. here's what she said next. >> i is what i is and i'm not changing. and there's evil out there that saw what i had worked for and they wanted it. >> now, that appears to be a reference to the person who filed the civil lawsuit that started all of this. that person, a former employee at a restaurant deen co-owns with her brother is suing racial discrimination and sexual harassment and, carol, that lawsuit, as you well know, is still ongoing. >> i can just imagine that interview on "today" show will replay over and over again on television shows across the nation and it will be up to people to decide whether to forgive paula deen or not. she never really said i'm sorry, but she said she did regret using the n-word. but she didn't say she was sorry

about anything else. >> i didn't hear her apologize the way she aapologized in those videos that surfaced online last week. that is an interesting point to make. >> alina, thank you so much. an a epic ten-hour long filibuster in a controversial abortion bill in texas dies. that bill, if it had become law, would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. listen to the chaos on the texas state senate floor. >> if i could have order, we will suspend the roll call vote until we can get order in the chamber. >> an insane sight. republican governor rick perry said he might call for a special session to try to get that abortion bill low the state senate. here's nick vulenshia with a look at that dramatic night. chanting in the middle of the night -- >> we will suspend the roll call vote. >> reporter: chaos on the texas senate floor. >> intend to speak for an

extended period of time on the bill. >> reporter: democrat wendy davis took the senate floor at 11:18 in the morning. filibustered for some 13 hours until midnight when the legislature would expire. a politically charged measure that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and oppose strict standards on abortion clinics and the doctors that work on them. it would close nearly every abortion clinic on the state. hour after hour, davis spoke and spoke under strict rules of order. three violations and the filibuster would come to an end. one by one, those violations came. >> my understanding that all questions have to be with regard to the body of the bill. >> reporter: she was cited for straying off topic. strike two, a fellow senator helping her with a back brace. then, after nearly 1 1 hours on the senate floor -- >> i'm going through this, this

bill analysis bit by bit because i have something to say. >> reporter: the filibuster was over. the drama was not. democrats tried to run out the clock with procedural questions and the visitor's gallery erupted. then republicans gathered at the front of the chamber and started a vote on the abortion bill. but the roll call took place just after midnight. democrats challenged the results saying they did not participate in the vote and it came too late. each side claimed victory. until several hours later at about 3:00 a.m. local time. the lieutenant governor took the floor one last time to announce the bill had failed and the legislative session was officially over. >> nick valencia is here now. number one, quite unusual to turn out in such force and, number two, it wasn't just this texas legislature that was standing and filibustering, but

the crowd of people in the gallery that helped push this bill off the table. >> both republicans and democrats are pointing to that noise, that loud noise in the final moments before the vote took place as the reason why it didn't pass and didn't make the deadline, i should say. didn't make the deadline. she had to do this, carol, with no food, no water and couldn't sit down and couldn't lean against anything and incredibly grueling circumstances and she also had to stay on topic for more than ten hours. this isn't like a filibuster that we see in washington that you can read out of a phone book or perhaps an encyclopedia. she had to stay on topic. she got called out on technicalities and removed from the floor and her filibuster for all intents and purposes, it worked. >> the significance of this, if that bill had passed and it became law in texas, it would have closed down most abortion clinics in the state of texas. >> governor perry still has the final authority to say whether he wants to call a special session and this could start from scratch all over again. >> nick, thank you so much.

>> you bet. just ahead in "newsroom" we'll have much more on the zimmerman trial, including two big decisions made just moments ago by the judge. we're back after a break. this is it. this is what matters. the experience of a product. how will it make someone feel? will it make life better? does it deserve to exist? we spend a lot of time

on a few great things. until every idea we touch enhances each life it touches. you may rarely look at it. but you'll always feel it. this is our signature. and it means everything. vietnam in 1972. [ all ] fort benning, georgia in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve military members, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve.

checking out of the hilton shouldn't be a pity party. your next trip is calling. saying, "deb, find a view for two at a conrad." or "make room for more at an embassy suites, deb." or "deb, lead a victory dance at a hampton." so chin up, love, and never stop vacationing. book during the great getaway for great rates at our ten top hotel brands. travel is calling you to hiltongreatgetaways.com.

all right. take you live inside that sanford, florida, courtroom where george zimmerman is on trial for murder. on the stand now is a neighbor named jane zerdica. she is telling the court what she winced the night trayvon martin was killed. she is describing what happened after the shot rang out. >> did you know him before at all? >> no. >> did you know mr. zimmerman at all before that night? >> no. >> okay. having contact or communicating with an operator at 911, is that correct? >> yes.

>> i want it show you some photographs and hopefully you'll be able to see it from that vantage point. please, let me know if you can't. thank you, your honor. do you see that exhibit right there in front of you? >> yes. >> okay. do you live, i'm going to kind of point -- >> well, i don't know if i'll do a good job of this. but kind of blow it up. are you in this area right here, are you, is this the apartments where you were at or the townhouse you were at back in february of 2012. >> if that is where the courtyard is. your vantage point where the arrow is towards this area right here? >> yes. >> okay. when you mentioned that the

person you know as mr. zimmerman or you describe him as a boy, where were they in relation to where the arrow is, were they, i'm sorry a, when they were on the ground, were they in this area over here or where were they? >> i see it somewhere between the first and second porch to the right within that area. >> okay. let me go down to, i'm sorry, next exhibit i want to show you is state's exhibit number four. this is this is not your view, correct? this is just the street level view. you understand that? this exhibit doesn't show your view? >> no. >> i want to make sure the record is clear on that. state's exhibit number five. is this your view -- >> the dog thing is right there

where i was looking. that's the porch where i saw mr. zimmerman standing in front. >> right here in front -- >> right around there and there was a little tree there and he was standing there. i could see him clear. >> okay. state's exhibit number ten. does that show that tree clear? >> yes. >> now, in state's exhibit number ten. would your residence have been back here up in the top of, obviously, the bedroom you were looking up here? >> yes. state's exhibit 38, obviously, as a daytime photograph, but, obviously, it's from the ground level. but is this the court yard that you were talking about in terms of where you observed what was going on? >> yes. >> state's exhibit 41. does this show part of your

residence here, in other words, your vantage point looking towards the courtyard i'm looking at right now? >> you can see the chair next to the white fence and that's where my place is. >> right up here? >> yes. >> that would have been to your vantage point right there? >> yes. >> for the record, i have shown you state's exhibit 41 and you're talking about a window all the way up to the right hand side of that photograph, is that correct? >> yes. >> so your vantage point in terms of looking down would have been towards the, i'm doing an arrow here, towards the courtyard, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. >> all right. we're going to jump away from this testimony, but previous to us taking you back inside the courtroom to hear james' testimony. she is a neighbor. she was looking out her window that night. she testified that she heard two voices. one dominant voice and one not so dominant voice. she also testified she saw two people on the ground. one of them on top of the other.

i don't think that she could identify which person was on top. sunny hostin is also a listening into this testimony, as well as jason johnson. both here as court observers. sunny, i'll start with you. when you get right down to it. they can put all the neighbors on the stand that they want. i'm talking about the prosecution here. the only eyewitness to this crime is george zimmerman. >> well, that's true. there were witnesses that saw different pieces of this, though, carol. i think that's very important because what the prosecution needs to do is really put this together almost like you would a puzzle because, as you said, there were really only two witnesses to the entire altercation. how it began, what happened in the middle and how it ended and those were george zimmerman and trayvon martin. trayvon martin is no longer with us. but these witnesses' perspect e perspectives are very crucial because you have to challenge george zimmerman's story in a

case like this because he has everything to gain by not being truthful and perhaps everything to lose by being honest. so, make no mistake about it, this is extremely, extremely important evidence that is coming in today. >> extremely important evidence. let's talk about those five nonemergency 911 calls jason johnson because the prosecution is also trying to show that leading up to george zimmerman allegedly following trayvon martin, he made these five calls to 911 saying another burglar. i see another one. and the prosecution is trying to say, hey, he had all this pent up frustration and when he finally ran into trayvon martin, he exploded into some sort of rage. >> i think the admission of these five previous calls is absolutely huge. it was interesting the argument that the defense was making yesterday is, well, you can't show this builds up. actually, the prosecution had an interesting redirect. the point is we're going to demonstrate in these previous five calls he behaved properly

which means that night he was behaving in an abnormal fashion which helps their argument that george zimmerman really snapped that. something really critical, something difficult for the defense especially when later on the prosecution plays tapes of george zimmerman's actual interview with police that night. >> the other interesting thing that may happen is his girlfriend may take the stand and why is this important? she was on the phone with trayvon martin shortly before he died that night. >> i said it from the very beginning when we first started covering this case. in my case, the most crucial witness. as we were just discussing, carol, there are no true eyewitnesses to the exact eve s events. but this is an ear witness. she was on the phone with trayvon martin and she heard what may have been the initial start of the confrontation. she's going to testify that george zimmerman followed

trayvon martin. trayvon martin told george zimmerman or asked why are you following me and in response there was some sort of scuffle and the phone went dead. that is really crucial and it really combats immediately what george zimmerman is saying, which is that he was the one that was attacked. whoever started this encounter is the person i think that the jury is likely to find guilty. and, so, you know, she, her testimony is going to be very, very important. >> okay, you two stick around. i have a bit of breaking news i have to get to from wall street because the dow, it's rocking. it's up, what? 135 points or so. at least i think so. let's check in with cnn business anchor christine romans. the bell has just rung and, wow, that's good. >> strong morning and what's so interesting. a strong morning after a not so strong reading on how strong the economy was in the first quarter in a way because you had a weak gdp report and only 1.8%

economic growth in the first quarter of the year. stock investors say, that means the fed can't take its foot off the gas too soon. we'll still keep having stimulus and you're seeing stocks move higher here. let me show you quickly what the economic growth looked like in the first quarter, carol. all over the map over the past seven quarters sore so. under neath our same-sex ruling video there. economic growth only 1.8% and it has been very, very choppy. we don't have real consistency in the recovery just yet. the reason why stocks are doing so well right now. they are beaten down and the s&p 500 down almost 4% over the past month or so. investors are saying, if the economy is not really growing super strongly, that means the fed is going to keep propping up and the economy keep pushing money into the system and they like it this morning. >> i like going up the hill a lot better than going down. thank you, christine romans. >> me, too. we told you at the top of

the show the other news breaking story. aaron hernandez has been arrested. our photographer witnessed him being placed in cuffs and put into a police cruiser. you're taking a look at aerial shots from our affiliate wcvb. aaron hernandez is being held and being questioned, we think, in connection with the murder with a friend of his and that friend's body found not far from hernandez's massachusetts home. rachel nichols is on the phone right now to tell us how the new england patriots might be taking this all in. >> well, just hasn't made any public statements on this case. as you may know, if anybody follows this team, they're not the most forthcoming publicly. we can expect them to comment now that this happened. what we see what the charge is, how long hernandez is going to be involved with the police and whether this is something that they're going to prosecute or whether this is something that the police are using as a tactic

to get more information on the investigation that they're doing, then we'll probably find out more about how the patriots and nfl will handle this. six years ago nfl commissioner roger goodell instituted a much harsher player conduct policy. used to be not only did you have to be charged and prosecuted and not only found guilty, then the process would start with the nfl and any discipline around you. the conduct policy is now basically saying, hey, if there's conduct detrimental to the league, even if it's the appearance of doing something wrong and that's bad for the image of the nfl, we have the right to suspend you. we have the right to sign you and the right to call you under the carpet and the commissioner's office. so, i would think one of their key high-profile players being led off in handcuffs probably qualifies as conduct that is seen as detrimental to the nfl. we'll have to see what happens first with the legal process and

then what the league and patriots decide to do about it. >> i'll bring in sunny hostin and ask her about possible charges against aaron hernandez. police in massachusetts have moved very slowly with this case. i think they searched his house two or three times. they haven't made publicly any charges they're thinking of filing against him and they have said very little about this. what does that tell you about the investigation? before you say this is the video of aaron hernandez being arrested earlier this morning and being put into the police cruiser. but, go on, sunny. >> well, you know, it tells me that this was a very methodical investigation and it's important for police to do it that way, especially when you're talking about a high-profile person. what is striking to me is that they're doing what we call a perp walk. they have him in handcuffs being walked from his home. that tells me, carol, that there was an arrest warrant for him and that they are very comfortable, in fact, with the foundation of that arrest

warrant because we see him on video being led out from his home. oftentimes when you have a high-profile person on a high-profile investigation, that person has retained council. we know that hernandez has counsel and police will negotiate with counsel and for someone's surrender. they didn't do that here. instead, they walked up to his front door and arrested him and let all the world see it. it tells me two things. one, they're comfortable with their investigation and, two, perhaps they're trying to put a bit of pressure on hernandez. i know earlier it was recorded that perhaps they were thinking about an obstruction of justice arrest or a grounds for an arrest. that's not murder, let's face it, but it still is significant. you're still looking at several years in prison, if convicted. that would stem from the fact that we've heard that he, in fact, destroyed his cell phone which, of course, could contain some evidence about this murder and, also, more damaging, i think, really destroyed his home

surveillance system. i mean, who does that? so, that would raise red flags, i think, to any jury, judge or police officer. >> rachel, what kind of reputation does hernandez have within the national football league? >> well, i mean, he's certainly a player that attracted a lot of attention over the past couple of years. we see this a lot with athletes where they're great and everyone loves them until there is a case like this and all of a sudon the scouts come out and say, we always knew he was a bad seed. we always knew he was a problem. we are hearing more of that kind of thing now and we didn't hear that in the previous couple years. but if you do listen to his past, you see there are some incidents that are sort of red flags and in professional sports we hear this time and time again with professional teams saying, hey, if the kid can play, we want him on the field. we've seen athletes who have been the subject of murder investigations, we've seen athletes like michael vick who have been in prison and we've seen athletes who have been

involved in financial dealings and we've seen athletes with abuse on their record and we see time and time again professional teams putting them on the field saying, hey, if they can help our team and they're not physically in jail at the moment, we want them to play. if they are winners, fans usually forgive that. i think with aaron hernandez, depending on what happens here, yes, there will be a lot of controversy right now and you may see the nfl officials get involve institute player conduct policy. in the end, if he's not in custody and on the field and he succeeds, the new england patriots, i think most sports fans will probably cheer for him. >> that's probably true. stick around. thanks so much. i have to take a break and before i go, i want to tell you, because we have like a lot of news happening this morning. this is the growing crowd outside the u.s. supreme court. advocates on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate lining up to hear a pair of rulings that could affect millions of americans. the u.s. supreme court due to rule on the constitutionality of

same-sex marriage in just about 25 minutes or so. we'll be right back. at university of phoenix we know the value of your education is where it can take you. (now arriving: city hospital) which is why we're proud to help connect our students with leading employers across the nation. (next stop: financial center) let's get to work. vietnam in 1972. [ all ] fort benning, georgia in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve military members, veterans, and their families is without equal.

begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve.

welcome back. 44 minutes past the hour. i'm carol costello. let's head back to washington. that's where we're waiting for the u.s. supreme court to rule on two most cases of the year on same-sex marriage.

quite the scene at the u.s. supreme court. brian todd is in the middle of it all. brian, good morning. >> good morning, carol. this is really a what gives you a sense of how passionately people feel about same-sex marriage. look over here. all the signs and chanting protesters over here. the vast majority of them in favor of same-sex marriage. i'll go to the die-hard. a gentleman who has been here in the searing swamp-like heat of washington, d.c. for the last two days when other protesters have not been here. came here from miami. bob, why is it so important for you to we here at this day at this time? >> this is a long journey. six years ago we led the opposition where the gay marriage issue was used to stop the equal right amendment and go after the community and take us three elections to finally overcome that and the supreme court needs to catch up with dade county. i'm here to say specifically the issue for me is not gay marriage. i'm in a 26-year relationship and entitled to everything

everybody else is or let them pay for it. i'm not here to endorse my lovemaking. it's not their business. >> thank you very much, good luck. one of several passionate protesters and hundreds of them now gathered on the steps of the supreme court. just minutes away from the decisions on the two very, very important cases involving the defensive marriage act and the prop 8 the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. carol? >> i want you to take us through the cases on tap and mentioned them briefly. the u.s. supreme court must decide whether all couples, no matter if their sexual orientation have the constitutional right to federal benefits. the other case is very much to do with california. >> california was a unique case because the state supreme court in 2008 ruled that same-sex marriage was legal and valid and then later that same year the voters voted to ban same-sex

marriage. so, that issue is key. that is really going to strike at the constitutionality if same-sex marriage the supreme court going to uphold the ability of the state to decide one way or the other and whether people can have that constitutional right. how they rule on prop 8 is key and don't forget the defense marriage act. that is not at stake. they'll rule on one section of it that deals with the benefits. does the federal government have the right to deny benefits to couples who are legally married in a certain state, even though that state has said they can legally wed. can the federal government deny benefits to them? that was edie wincer who brought that case. striking at the social fabric here and striking a that crux of this issue and just minutes away from hearing about it, carol. >> you can't ignore the possibility that maybe the supreme court will rule on the

defen marriage act. >> they may very well do that. they had a tendency to do that on other cases, not just same-sex marriage but other cases. remember dozens of states that do not, that have not legalized same-s same-sex marriage. it is very much a state issue and moving fast on the political front and that may be where the court decides to kind of put it back to, just letting it go on the political front and let the states move on this and kind of decide the social temperature of the country on this, carol. >> all right, brian todd, thanks so much. take you back to sanford, florida, when we come back. george zimmerman on trial for the murder of trayvon martin. one of the alternate jurors has been dismissed. we'll talk about why, next.

all right. we to have breaking news to tell you about. the new england patriots' tight end aaron hernandez. you saw him being arrested earlier. he's in handcuffs, as can you see. the police are parading him in front of the tv cameras. they put him into a cruiser. right now, we believe aaron hernandez is in the police station, and he's being questioned in connection with a friend of his murder. that friend's body found not far from aaron hernandez's home. when we get more information on what possible charges might come down against hernandez, of course, we'll pass them along to you. they may be -- they may be murder charges. they may be obstruction of justice charges. we just don't know. also going on right now, the trial of george zimmerman. he's being tried for the murder of trayvon martin. as you can see, testimony is continuing in this case. on the stand -- i'm sorry, what's happening now? the defense is now questioning a witness. this is a witness, jane surdyka.

she kind of saw a scuffle outside of her window that night. let's listen to what she's saying. >> we'll talk a little bit more about that in a bit, because that's the opinion that you've formed, correct? >> correct. >> well, let's talk about the setting, though, a little bit more. what was so powerful about the cries that you heard were the extreme nature of them, the compelling nature, something that you will never, ever forget. >> yes. >> and you said that before. >> yes. >> it's obvious that you are very distressed on the recording. would you agree in. >> yes. >> and it was two -- two cries, or two distinct sounds, that you heard? >> the help. yes, there was two. from my recollection of yells for help. >> the first one seemed to be

the actual word "help"? >> more so. >> and the other one was even higher, more excruciating, almost a yelp that you described? >> yes. >> but that's the only two that you heard? >> i believe so, yes. >> have you listened to the recording that was made where there's the cries for help in the background? >> no. >> never heard that? >> just maybe once or twice on tv, over the radio, something like that, a year ago. >> well, i mean -- so you have heard it? >> i've heard that someone record -- or the telephone call, they had it on the news or something. >> so you have heard that 911 call with the background of someone crying for help? >> yes. >> over and over again. >> a couple of times. not over and over.

>> what you distinctly remember, though, are two for sure? >> yes. >> you think there might even have been more that you didn't hear, now that you've heard that recording. >> i just always thought there was two. i guess i still think there is only two. >> this was raining pretty hard that night. >> yes. >> hard enough that you shut the window. >> correct, yes. >> and that was because of the rain? >> pardon? >> that was because of the rain. >> pouring down rain, so it wouldn't come into my window, my house. >> but you were still -- when you were looking out at these two men wrestling, one on top of the other, you were able to see clearly it was two figures? >> yes. >> and that one was on top of the other.

>> yes. >> and that one was more vertical than the other. >> to me, they both looked vertical. >> you used the word "vertical," on top -- the man on top was vertical. is that what you mean by, he was more sitting up? >> no. they were both laying on the ground, one person on top of the other. vertical meaning when i looked out, they were vertical. >> oh, the direction was vertical. >> yes, sir. >> i see. okay. the position, though, of the men was at that point that you saw them they were sort of one on top of the other? >> yes. >> and you couldn't see the detail of what the arms were doing, other than it impressed you as if they might be wrestling? >> yes. >> at what point did you realize this was a really serious event, one that help is desperately needed? >> when i opened the win -- sorry, when i shut my nightlight off, and i could see two men

were on the ground, i knew it was something very serious. >> so let's -- before we go to that point, the voices or voice -- i'm not sure what you said -- earlier, it was you heard a voice or voices outside your window several minutes before. is that correct? >> the first time i heard the voices, yes, someone very loud talking outside, which surprised me, because it was raining. >> so let's talk just about that for a moment. you were still -- you were in the bedroom, and was your window closed at this point? >> it was closed. >> even though -- okay. and you could hear a voice or voices outside that caught your attention, because of the weather conditions. >> yes. >> you didn't hear anything specifically being said. >> no. >> and it wasn't like an

argument that you describe later on. >> no, just someone talking really loud, so i could hear them even with my window closed. >> you don't know who that was, i take it? >> no. >> you didn't see them? >> no. >> you don't know whether it was somebody completely unrelated to the case. >> i would assume they were the same people, because it was minutes later that i -- the same area, same people. >> but that's your -- that's your assumption, correct? >> yes. >> you don't have any basis for that, based on your observations? >> no. >> so you hear a voice or voices outside the window that catches your attention, and you don't notice at that point that there's any particular confrontation or any kind of distress in the voices? >> no, just someone talking unusually very loud. >> and it could even have been one person, correct? >> if they were talking to themselves, yes. >> or on the phone.

>> true. but so loud, i can't imagine someone talking that loud -- >> but you didn't make out any words. >> no, i didn't. >> you just heard sound. >> yes. >> so if someone's talking over the wind on a cell phone -- >> we have to take a break. "newsroom" continues after this. hey, it's michelle bernstein. here to take your lettuce from drab to fab with new lean cuisine salad additions. just byol. first, thaw your dressing. next, steam your grilled chicken and veggies. then, dress it. add your crunchy toppings. and voila. enjoy.

i'm wolf blitzer in washington with our breaking news coverage. this is the final day for the united states supreme court to issue opinions this term. we're expecting rulings literally at any moment now on two landmark cases on the future of same-sex marriage in the united states. both will test whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to get married. jake tapper is over at the u.s. supreme court with our legal analysts. he will bring us the rulings. and our correspondents will bring us reaction. don lemon, dan simon, dana bash,

brian todd, they are all standing by. and the chief national correspondent john king, and gloria bowler, here in our washington studios. brian, a lot of folks are anxiously awaiting the decisions on the two critically important cases. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. very anxiously awaiting. some people have said they're nervous, because the moment is at hand. the decision coming down in minutes. i have one same-sex couple here. molly wagner and sharon burke, students at american university. they have braved the swamp-like heat of washington, d.c., to be here. molly, why? >> you know, they said the decision's coming down today, and we just felt it was really important that we get here and show that this is something really important to us, and that we're here, we're not going away, and the decision impacts us directly. >> reporter: what about you, sharon? >> i'm hoping the court is on the right side of history this time. i just wanted to come down here and let everyone know that -- that we're not going anywhere. >> reporter: are you a little nervous, moments away here?

>> nervous. cautiously optimistic. >> reporter: all right, guys, thank you. anyway, we've got -- >> brian, hold on for a moment, because i want to alert our viewers, the justices have now announced that a critically important case, the defense of marriage act, whether it is constitutional or not constitutional, has been reached. this is the united states versus windsor. john king is at the magic wall for us. john, explain what this case is all about, the defense of marriage act, or doma, as it's called. >> let's take a look. it's united states versus windsor. it's not a question of whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. it's a question about the practical effects that if a state does recognize the same-sex relationship, what happens when you apply for federal benefits. because the federal government right now, it defines marriage as between a man and woman, so the question is whether it violates protection guarantees. the government says, since the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, that you can't claim -- say the

married rate for estate tax, can't get social security benefits for a surviving spouse. any federal benefits that might be available for a male-woman marriage, not available to a same-sex relationship. that's the argument. the respondent in this case is edie windsor, had a same-sex spouse, passed away, and she wanted to get the benefit of the estate tax. the federal government said we can't do that, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. so this, wolf, is not a question of whether the court is going to embrace or deny the right -- a federal right to same-sex marriage. it's more about the practical effects of that question when you apply for legal benefits, and if you go through this as we play it through, i mean, there's a bigger question. i'll bring this up, as we await the other decision, as well. here's the issue. you have any red state or orange state, you either have recognition of same-sex marriage or at least broad recognition of civil unions and the rights of same-sex couples. what happens? the decision we're waiting for the details on, what happens to folks who have the relationships in these states, where they're

recognized by the state fully or mostly, the spouse passes away, then what happens? >> a good point. john, hold on for a moment. gloria, you spient a lot of tim speaking to the attorneys involved in the gay marriage cases, two critically important ones. the defense of marriage act, we heard john explain some of the background. it's interesting that on this particular case, it's a federal law, the defense of marriage act, which defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. the obama administration refused to defend the federal law. >> right. exactly. on proposition 8 and on doma. i think that what we've seen over the years since these cases have been litigated is a real shift in public opinion on the question of same-sex marriage. and let's take a look at this. we have asked this question back to 2003 about whether you think marriage is between gay and lesbian couples should be recognized as valid.

and if you go back to 2003, you see that 31% of the american public said, you know what, we don't think -- it should be recognized. and now, 55%. so in one decade, support for same-sex marriage has almost doubled in this country. and so, the question today we have before the court, is the court effectively going to follow public opinion on this, wolf, which has really shifted dramatically. >> and we do know a decision has been reached. we're going through the writings of the justices. we want to be precise, obviously, and make sure we fully understand what these justices have decided. at issue in this first case, the defense of marriage act, gloria, the specific question is whether or not it's constitutional to prevent federal benefits going -- >> right. >> -- couples of the same sex. >> and if you are legally married in a state, the question is whether the federal government should recognize your

benefits. that's the key question. here for the defense of marriage act. >> and we should know momentarily what the justices have decided. john foreman is taking a closer look at the defense of marriage act as well. tom? >> wolf, right now, about 300 people are inside the chambers there. we can't take you there with any live cameras, but we can virtually set the scene. they're listening to what the justices are saying about this, just at last march they listened to the justices discuss this. justice roberts had a concern about the very then john king mentioned, the obama administration. he pointed out he would not defend it in court because it's unconstitutional, but they enforced it as the law. he said, i don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. she said congress decided to reflect collective moral judgment and disapproval of

homosexuality. he said he wanted to know if this was even something that congress should be involved in. the question is whether or not the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage at all, and justice ginsburg jerched in on that issue you were discussing a while ago about how some states have approved it. but then, she said, the federal government comes in to say, no joint tax return, no marital deduction, no social security benefits, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this. that's what the justices were saying back in the spring, wolf. now we're going to see what decision this summer has brought. >> tom, thanks very much. obviously, a lot at stake right now in this first case, whether or not the defense of marriage act, which president bill clinton signed into law back in the '90s is or is not constitutional. there's a lot at stake, of course, for everyone, including the president of the united states. jessica yellin is traveling with the president -- actually, let's go to jessica in a moment. jake tapper is over at the u.s.

supreme court. jake, i understand you've gone through the paperwork now, and you're ready to tell our viewers what the justices have decided. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. this is a landmark ruling about whether or not the federal government's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages, people who have been married legally according to the laws of their state, whether the federal government's refusal to recognize them is constitutional or not. i'm going to bring in jeff toobin who has been going over the decision. jeff, it seems like the court has said -- the court -- the federal government does not have a right to not recognize these marriages. >> doma is gone. this is a major broadly written opinion which strikes down the law on the ground that it discriminates against gay people. this isn't a decision about states rights. this isn't a narrowly written decision. this is a decision that says the federal government, by passing doma, demeans those persons who are in a lawful same-sex

marriage. that's the -- that's a quote from the opinion. this opinion says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people who have valid same-sex marriages. they are entitled to file joint tax -- federal tax returns. they are entitled to social security survivor's benefits. they are entitled to be informed when their spouses are killed in action. this is a decision that says gay people have equal rights under the federal constitution when it comes to this statute. >> and, jonathan turley, i want to bring you in, because jeff is making the point here that this was not a decision made on states rights grounds. this is not the court saying, we leave this up to the states. this is the court saying, under the equal protection clause in the constitution, the federal government cannot do this. that could be significant when it comes to this other ruling

that we are expecting on california's ban on same-sex marriage. >> you know, it's a fascinating, even a breathtaking decision, because kennedy went way beyond where he had to go. and this has always been viewed as an incrementalist court, a court that wants to not get ahead of its skis on issues of social division. >> we've seen that this week with other decisions that have been splitting the baby, as it were. >> that's exactly right. kennedy goes out of his way to say we're not doing this on states ground. this is about equal protection. it's about the dignity of marriage. this is about marriage. it doesn't matter whether it's between a man and a woman or two men or two women. and in that sense, it's the other shoe dropping after lawrence. because this was the question left dangling in lawrence, when the supreme court said you can't criminalize homosexual relationships, but the court really doggedly avoided the marriage question. kennedy is just bursting on the scene here and saying, it's marriage. it's all marriage. you can't deny it to these

couples. >> and this was 17 years ago that bill clinton, president bill clinton, signed the defense of marriage law into law, saying that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages, no matter what the states do. jeff, as soon as you saw who had written the opinion, kennedy, and who he had -- who he was joined by, the four for want of a better term, liberal justices on the court, you knew what the decision was. >> well, the thing that's so -- many extraordinary things about this decision. we now know what the first line of anthony kennedy's obituary, many years in the future, will be. he is the justice who is the author of the three most important gay rights decisions in the history of the supreme court. he wrote lawrence v. texas which said in 2003 that gay people couldn't be thrown in prison for having consensual sex. he wrote the roemer decision which struck down a colorado law that discriminated against gay people. and here, he has now written the opinion that says the federal

government cannot put validly married gay people into a separate and lesser category of rights holders. >> i want to go to brian todd, who's outside the supreme court right now where there are many, many same-sex couples, and straight couples, straight individual, celebrating this decision. brian, who is with you now? >> reporter: jake, they are certainly celebrating. i talked to these two ladies before the ruling. now i'm going to talk to them after, because they were nervous before the ruling, but now they're just happy. molly wagner and sharon burke. molly, first your reaction. >> i don't even have words. i'm just so happy, and just overwhelmed with emotion. i couldn't be more proud of my country and of the supreme court today. i'm so happy to be here and be a part of it. >> reporter: sharon, how about you? >> we'll wait for prop 8. but this is a major victory for everyone in the community. >> reporter: all right. sharon, molly, congratulations. a little bit of chanting here, jake, as they're waiting in anticipation of the prop 8 ruling. and i'll throw it back to you. >> all right, thank you so much.

just to reiterate for those just joining us, there has been a 5-4 decision in the supreme court striking down the part of the defense of marriage act which says the federal government does not have to recognize same-sex couples. that is no longer the law of the land. justice kennedy writing the majority decision. the majority opinion said that that is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. jeff toobin, this is going to have a lot of specific ramifications for individuals. this case was brought by a woman who had to pay $363,000 in ta s taxes, because even though she was married according to the laws of canada, where she and her same-sex partner were married, the federal government did not recognize that, and, therefore, she had to pay $363,000 in taxes. this is going to mean real things to real people. >> real things to real people, to thousands of couples, whether it be same-sex marriages, legal in 12 states and the district of columbia. a lot of people have been married. all of them have been denied the

privileges of marriage under federal law. now, they will have it. that means joint tax returns. that means social security survivor benefits. it means -- there are hundreds of references to marriage in federal law. these gay people are now married under federal law. that's a dramatic, dramatic change in their status. it's an improvement in they're status. we are, of course, still waiting for the decision in the proposition 8 case. i think it is -- i don't want to draw any conclusions about what they might do in proposition 8 based on this decision, but it certainly makes that decision quite interesting -- >> and suggests -- it suggests, and we don't know what the court will rule in the proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in california, but the suggestion that kennedy says that this is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, suggests that that's something he won't be

able to ignore for the next ruling. >> let me just read one sentence here, which i think tells you a little bit about the tone of the opinion. doma instructs all federal officials, indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriage of others, unquote. the federal statute is invalid. for no legitimate purpose, overcomes the purpose and effect, to disparage and to injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity. that's a pretty broad statement that gay people have equal rights to straight people. >> and just to get into the specifics of what this might mean. there are 12 states plus the district of columbia that currently recognize same-sex marriage, or are about to, because minnesota and rhode island, they passed same-sex

marriage, it will happen in august. what does this mean in the 36 states where same-sex marriage has been banned or is not allowed? what does this ruling mean, jonathan turley? >> well, we're waiting for that second opinion to determine whether there still remains a prominent state law issue here. you know, the court could have rendered this decision on the equal protections grounds, but still, in the second opinion, recognize state -- the right of states to make this decision. and that's why this is the important linchpin. the language of this opinion is broad, and it would seem to indicate that there's equal protection rights that extend beyond the narrower question of federal benefits. but remember, right now, what this means is that if you can get through a state that recognizes your marriage, the federal government will recognize it as well. but you still must be married in a state that recognizes a union between two men and two women. >> and that's a minority. that's only 12 states and the district of columbia right now. >> that's right. and so, the question is, is

there still this live torpedo in the water of a state law issue? is kennedy, who's a big believer in federalism, going to support the right of the court and say, we're going to leave this up to the states? we've answered what the federal government can't do. but we have not said what the states can or cannot do. >> i want to go to brian todd right now. we keep hearing the cheers behind us. we're only a block away from the supreme court. we keep hearing cheers from the activists very excited about the ruling, that the federal government no longer has the right to discriminate against same-sex marriages. they have to acknowledge them and accept them and bestow upon them federal benefits if they -- the couple was married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. brian todd, tell us who you're with right now. >> this is phil adie. this is catholics for equality, the name of your group, i take it. >> i'm the former executive director. we disbanded the organization last year. >> all right. what's your reaction to the striking down of the key provision of the defense of marriage act, denying benefits? >> it's a historic day. not just for lgbt, or catholics,

but for every american and every person across the globe. this will have ripple effects in countries we don't even realize have lgbt concerns. >> reporter: we're moments away from the proposition 8 ruling. what is your sincerest hope for that? >> well, that either they'll rule it unconstitutional or at the very least they will honor the lower court ruling and decide not to hear the case. which i think is more probable, but we'll see. >> reporter: phil, thank you very much for joining us. a real sense of jubilation here, jake, after the first ruling. the second ruling may be minutes or seconds away. the crowd is a little less charged right now because they're a little more nervous. so we'll throw it back to you. >> all right. and as we go over the proposition 8 decision, we're going to throw it back to wolf blitzer in the cnn washington, d.c., bureau to chew over this huge, momentous decision, basically saying that the defense of marriage act passed in 1996, signed by president clinton, is no longer the law of

the land. wolf? >> jake, we'll get back to you as soon as we know what the decision is on the proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in california. that should be coming up momentarily. but right now, i want to go to senegal, dakar, senegal, the president is going to be there. jessica yellin is already on the ground. jessica, this is a win for the president, who refused to defend this law. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. and the president considers gay civil rights a legacy issue and one of his greatest domestic achievements. so the further advancement of gay civil rights will no doubt be cheering for him. i'm told they were planning to watch coverage of the decision on air force one, because the president took off from washington, d.c., before the court issued its decision. so the president learning this as he is headed here to senegal. some irony in the fact that he

will be making his first remarks about this decision here in senegal, a country in which homosexuality is illegal. but president obama also now has some complications of his own, potentially. now that doma is struck down, there is this question of the states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. and his administration has been preparing how will his agencies deal with the hundreds of federal benefits that go to same-sex couples in all these states that don't recognize same-sex marriage. that'll be a question for the next days, as his lawyers read through this decision and see if the court gave his administration any guidance, or if that will be entirely up to the president and his team. wolf. >> a 5-4 decision by these nine justices of the united states supreme court, rejecting the defense of marriage act. the five in the majority, steven

brier, ruth bader ginsburg, sonja sotomayor, elena kagan, and the key deciding justice anthony kennedy. the four discenters, antonin scalia, alito, clarence tom a, and the chief justice, john roberts. let's get reaction. eric schneiderman is joining us, the new york state attorney general, also joining us is kerry, the chief policy director of the judicial crisis network. attorney general, what's your reaction? >> great decision, completely consistent with lots of supreme court rulings holding that marriage is a fundamental right. it's good that they went this far. i think it makes -- look, for edith windsor, who is a new yorker, who was with her partner for over 40 years and has fought this through, congratulations to her. this is about equality. and this means that marriages of people in my state, new york, and all over america, between same-sex couples, will be treated equally under 1,100 provisions of federal law that use the term "marriage" or

define benefits according to marriage. it's a great win, not just for the gay community or for edith. it's a great win for the american tradition of equal justice under law. and i must say, i did not count on them moving this far. i think it makes it very difficult for them to reverse field on such a fundamental ruling about equality under the fifth amendment in the prop 8 case. i look with interest. but for new yorkers, for the states that have legalized marriage, for all of our couples and everyone in america, this is an incredible victory. >> let's get reaction from kerry. before we get your reaction, what this does this is the same-sex couples who are legally married in the united states, they will now be able to file jointly on their tax returns, their marital deduction on tax returns will be applied. they will get social security survivor benefits. official notification of next of kin if their military spouse is killed in the line of duty, and spousal deduction for federal estate tax.

that was the issue in this specific case, the united states versus windsor. edith windsor will now get $300,000 back from the u.s. government, because that's the extra tax she had to pay when her partner passed away. what's your reaction to what the 5-4 decision means? >> well, this is a disappointment for those who are worried about judicial supremacy, which is what justice scalia said in his opinion. this is a court reaching out that it wasn't even before, on procedural grounds, let alone reading into the constitution a right that isn't there. but i think the silver lining is that we see, as the chief justice pointed out, that actually this is a somewhat narrow decision in terms of leaving it to the states really. it's amazing that 30 years ago you would never have seen this kind of decision based -- on the basis of the states having the sovereignty here. and i think that is a fundamental american principle we can all get behind. this is something that should be decided at a lower level by the states, by the citizens of the states and their

representatives, rather than by the court. it's disappointing to see the representatives of the people in congress having been overruled here. but i take heart in the fact that this is an issue that will hopefully still continue to be worked on at the state level. we see that in things like roe v. wade, when the supreme court goes in and tries to enforce a definition for the whole nation, and constitutionalize an issue not there, it often has a backlash and causes further division in our society. i'm hoping that doesn't happen. we'll see. i'm hoping that leaving some of the decisions to the states will still allow the people to be the proper sovereigns and not the courts. >> and the president of the united states, his official twitter account is now reacting to the decision by the supreme court, to go ahead and overturn the defense of marriage act. @bara @barackobama, it's a step forward for #equality, and goes on, #loveislove. jake tapper, we're awaiting the second major decision on the

fate of prop 8, which bans same-sex marriage in california. >> that's right, wolf. and while we're waiting for the decision in the california ban on same-sex marriage, shorthanded at proposition 8, jeffrey toobin, jonathan turley and i are going over and reading not only the opinion that has struck down the defense of marriage act, but also a very blistering dissent by justice scalia, who calls what the court did today, quote, jaw-dropping. he uses the term "judicial supremacy." jeff toobin, this is a -- this is a -- i don't think i've read anything quite this pointed since the stephens dissent in bush v. gore. >> you know, this is the culture wars come to one first street, across the street over there. i mean, the -- antonin scalia believes that the government is perfectly entitled to legislate morality, and lots of people agree with him. here's a line -- >> the government, but not the court.

>> not his colleague -- not four of his -- five of his colleagues today. >> right. >> as i have observed before, he writes, justice scalia, the constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional, moral, and sexual norms. and that is a widely held belief. and he -- but he was outvoted this time, that gay people cannot have their sexuality demeaned, as justice kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. but that fight over the status of gay people and whether the government is allowed to discriminate against gay people, that's the heart of the dispute between the five justices and the majority, and the five in the minority -- or -- >> okay. we'll throw it back to you, mr. blitzer, back in the d.c. bureau. >> all right, guys, stand by for a moment. we now know there has been a decision in the second gay marriage gaze involving what's called proposition 8 in california.

that proposition rejected same-sex marriage. the case is called hollingsworth versus perry. let's get some background, because we're going through the paperwork right now. john king is once again joining us with a closer look at the second same-sex marriage case that the justices have now considered. >> and the big question, wolf, do we get a sweeping ruling from the court like we just did in doma, or is it a much more limited ruling to the states issues? the specific issues of this california case, it's worth remembering, california had same-sex marriage, then took it away, meaning the state supreme court said same-sex marriages were legal in the state, but voters took it away when proposition 8 passed. it passed on a statewide ballot initiative and it took away the rights of same-sex marriage. it defined marriage as between a man and woman in california. here's the argument before the supreme court. the argument from the proponents of prop 8, those who want marriage to be between a man and woman, they say it was passed by the voters, therefore the state has endorsed proposition 8. the states should have the right to keep it. and they argued to the court that marriage -- prop 8 should

be legal and marriage should only be between a man and a woman, because, in their view, marriage is about procreation. that was the argument of prop 8 supporters before the court. the petitioners responding said, no, proposition 8 violates their equal protection clauses under the constitution, that a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, should have every right to get married. as gloria noted earlier, as we await the decision, again, a big question. the court could issue a sweeping ruling that says yea or nay, on the rights of same-sex marriage, or questioning about standing, more limited questions. but what do americans think? about 55% of americans now believe, a majority, but 44% say no, about whether the government should -- should marriages between gay and lesbian couples be recognized as valid. and some other ones here. look at this by age. this is one of the defining things, the polling about the same-sex marriage, is the generational divide. younger americans, nearly 7 in 10 say, yes, marry who you love,

regardless of sex. older americans, of course, say no. it's a generational question. as we wait for this, wolf, obviously the first question is how broad of a ruling do we get from the court? the second question, once you have the ruling, how does it play out back in california where prop 8 is from, and in so many other states across the country having this conversation and legal debate. >> stand by, john. good explanation of what's at stake in hollingsworth versus perry, the case involving what we call proposition 8 in california, which overturned gay marriage, which had earlier been approved by the top justices out in california, proposition 8, by a 52% vote during a referendum, rejected that. and now we're going to find out what the nine justices of the supreme court think about this, gloria is here with us. gloria, you've spent a lot of time with the lawyers who were arguing against proposition 8 before the supreme court. >> right. i have. and they were making the argument about the equal

protection clause. ted olson and david bois, one democrat, one republican, arguing that prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. they have said to me this is the last great civil rights fight of their generation. so they would like to have a broad ruling such as the ruling you got on the defense of marriage act. however, just because you got that ruling on the defense of marriage act does not necessarily mean you're going to get it on proposition 8. and i can tell you whatever the ruling is on proposition 8, it's going to be politically interpreted, and you're going to have to look at the details of it to determine how the state of california would react to it. >> whether or not there will be same-sex marriage in california -- >> in california. >> -- or not. tom foreman is taking a closer look as we go through the decision, read it carefully, precisely. tom, set the scene for us. >> think about this, wolf. where you just heard this other decision. there are 300 people in the court right now hearing the prop 8 decision, and this is what

they heard from the justices back in march. listen to what justice kennedy, so critical in all of this, said. he said prop 8 took the court into unchartered waters, and he expressed concern at the time about children in california, because the state does recognize same-sex marriage. he said, if you don't treat the marriages the same, don't you pose an immediate injury to some 40,000 children out in california? justice soto mayor jumped in, and she said she was concerned about the fact that the state would be denying a benefit to people in one area where they wouldn't in any other. she said, is there any other rational decision making that the government can make, denying them a job, not granting them benefits? justice scalia in all of this, as you might expect, challenged an attorney representing the gay rights side with a simple question, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude the

couples from marriage? and the key maybe for coming into today, the sheer speed with it's all moving forward. he said about the court, you want us to step in on the effects of this institution, which is newer than cell phones or the internet. why should it not be left for the people? that's what they said back in march. wolf, as we can see today, they are stepping in in a big way. we'll just have to hear what they say about prop 8. >> we should know momentarily, tom foreman. thank you very much. gloria is once again here. john king is here, as well. gloria, you spent a lot of time looking into this proposition 8 -- >> i did. >> -- debate. and what we should be getting, if we get a clear answer from the nine justices, is whether or not same-sex couples will legally be allowed to get married in california. >> in the state of california. and i spoke with one of those same-sex couples, who are the plaintiffs. let's listen to what kris perry said to me about the difference between marriage and domestic partnership. >> domestic partnerships have

nothing to do with love. they're not about love. they're about health benefits. title. protections in hospitals, perhaps, if you're fortunate to have that domestic partnership. in our case, it results in increased taxation. it is not the same thing. in fact, most people would be surprised that sandy and i have to have three different domestic partnership agreements in order to comply with employer requirements -- >> three? >> -- we are domestic partners in the city we live in, the county we live in, the state we live in. we have three. none of them, not one of them, can i tell you a date which it was executed, nor could i tell you for how long we've had them. but i can tell you this. the day i get married, i will remember that day. and i will celebrate that day every year with sandy. >> let me ask you, not being allowed to marry, how has that impacted you every single day of your life? >> it is the most important decision one makes in their

adult life. not being allowed to do so makes me feel like there must be -- that society thinks there's something kind of wrong with us. if there weren't something wrong, then why wouldn't we be allowed to get married? >> and these two women are at the court today as are the other plaintiffs, and one of their attorneys is there today. ted olsen happens to be trying a case in philadelphia today, of all things. wolf, they have been working on this case for most of the last five years. >> and a lot of our viewers remember ted olson and david bois from the 2000 critically important case that allowed president george w. bush to become president of the united states. >> right. >> in gore versus -- >> and ted, being a conservative jurist who's tried 44 cases before the supreme court, is somebody that surprised a lot of

people that he was doing this on same-sex marriage, and he brought his old opponent, david boise into the case, because they don't believe this is a political issue. they believe it's a human issue, and it's a constitutional issue of equal protection. we'll have to see. >> let's talk a little bit about the president of the united states, because he's obviously put a lot -- he now supports -- he used to oppose same-sex marriage within the past year or so, he has formally come out in favor of same-sex marriage. and it's become -- he even referred to it in his inaugural address. for him, it's a legacy issue. >> it's a huge evolution, since you raised point, and i'm going to walk back over. we can go through the evolution for the president. when he ran for the office, in the state senate in illinois, and a u.s. senator, first came to washington, he was opposed to same-sex marriage. and let's take a look and just go through the president's evolution on this, because the president's evolution in many ways, if you look at public

opinion polls, mirrors the country's evolution. let's go back. this is the president back in october 2004 when he's just in to the united states senate. >> what i believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but what i also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to e be -- to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they're not discriminated on the job. i think that bundle of rights -- >> excuse me. >> -- absolutely critical. >> but as far as why, what in your religious faith cause you to be against gay marriage? >> what i believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before god, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting. >> now, that's the president in 2004, again running for the

united states senate. here he is as president of the united states, six years later, in december 2010, saying that, younow, on this issue, he's having second thoughts. >> my feelings about this are constantly evolving. i struggled with this. at this point, what i've said is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. >> now, the president faced a lot of criticism from his liberal base, including the gay rights community on that point right here. here's the press in his inaugural dress in 2013. i'm going to stop, wolf. let's go back to you for the details. >> let's go to jake tapper right now. he has jeffrey toobin, jonathan turley. they've now gone through the actual supreme court decision, hollingsworth versus perry. go ahead, jake. >> thanks, wolf. there has been a sweeping decision earlier today having to deal with the supreme court striking down the defense of marriage act, saying that if a state recognizes same-sex couples, the federal government

cannot refuse them recognition. now comes the ruling in the california same-sex marriage ban, proposition 8. and it's an unusual ruling. it's one that brings together an odd coalition of justices, two conservatives, three liberals. jeffrey toobin, what exactly did the court decide here? >> you know, i'm not afraid to say, jake, that this is a puzzling decision. it's a puzzling lineup of justices. let me just say who's on which side. this decision in the california proposition 8 case is written by chief justice roberts. it is joined by justice scalia, justice ginsburg, justice brier, and justice kagan. two strong conservatives, three liberals. the dissenters in the case is anthony kennedy, who wrote the opinion in the doma case, justice thomas, justice alito,

and justice sotomayor. so one moderate, two conservatives, one liberal in dissent. that's the lineup. what they hold, the decision is that hollingsworth, who was defending proposition 8, had no right to be in court. remember, this is a case where two people who wanted to get married in california sued, and the state of california, to say that proposition 8 was unconstitutional. the governor of california, jerry brown, the attorney general of california, pamela harris, said we agree with you. we think proposition 8 is unconstitutional. so there was no one there to defend the law until hollingsworth, who was one of the original supporters of proposition 8, but who had no legal status, stepped in to defend the law. what the five justices in the majority have said is that he

didn't have the right to do that. what that means today, for whether same-sex marriages can resume in california, i'm not sure, frankly. jonathan, do you know? >> well, what it means is that the 9th circuit never really did have jurisdiction, so it essentially negates what the 9th circuit did, and that puts all of the attention back on the trial court. and presumably, that court did have jurisdiction, and the opinion would still stay valid. as you know, jeff, it's very ambiguous. and this is an example of how standing, you know, makes for strange coalitions. if you look at these two cases, the standing issue is just as severe in the first case, where you had members of congress defending the law. i represented members challenging the libyan war, and we were thrown out because the court would not recognize standing. and here they have. so you have the shifting standing grounds that you have. but i think that what you're going to see is there's going to be, as jeff notes, a lot of attention on that trial court decision and whether it still has legs.

even if the court of appeals didn't have jurisdiction, whether they can go ahead and say, all right, this stance, proposition 8, is not good law according to that trial judge, and, therefore, the gate is open for marriage. >> does that mean that we -- just for people, to remind them, proposition 8 was a law passed by the voters of california in 2008. they overwhelmingly went to the polls to vote for president obama in 2008, and they -- not overwhelmingly, but a majority of them went, and voted against same-sex marriage in california. does that mean that that law stands, or that it was stricken down, because it was stricken down by the first court? >> that's the question. and i don't think this opinion explicitly answers that question. but there's a political context here, too. california politicians, the leadership of california, the governor, the attorney general, the mayors of san francisco, the mayors of los angeles, they want same-sex marriages to resume. if there is any ambiguity in

this opinion -- and i think there is -- they are going to interpret it as a green light to go forward. so i have to believe there will be more legal proceedings in california based on this, but i think you're going to have the whole political infrastructure of california saying, it's time to go, it's time to let people get married. they've been waiting long enough, they've won all these cases. so i anticipate it's -- the political leadership is basically going to say, you know, come and get me, copper, come stop me from doing these marriages. and i don't know if anyone will. >> the key sentence in this decision has to do with precedent. the court says, we've never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials decide not to, and we decline to do so here. and they're saying this has to do with precedent. we're not going to let individuals come forward to either -- to defend state laws if the state refuses to defend them. >> right. and i think, jake, one of the

interesting aspects, and we talked about this earlier, is what type of fact the sweeping language in the first decision will have on this continuing debate. kennedy went out there and said, this is about marriage. it doesn't matter what the partners are, when he looked at federal benefits. he gave very strong equal protection language that was missing in the lawrence decision. it's now there. and so, the interesting question is going to be is this returns to california, and, frankly, all of the states, is how much effect that's going to have on people. because kennedy went as close as he could in that opinion to saying there is an equal protection for same-sex couples, but he did not go all the way to make that holding. >> well, and in this -- certainly justice kennedy's opinion in the doma case is an invitation to those who live in alabama, mississippi, or any of the states that don't have same-sex marriage, to file a federal lawsuit and say, we have a right to get married.

the situation now is just like it was before the supreme court decided loving versus virginia, which was the case in 1967 that said state laws that bar racial intermarriage are unconstitutional. we seem to be moving in that direction, to have a federal law -- a federal constitutional guarantee of a right to same-sex marriage. certainly justice kennedy invites that kind of challenge. we're not there yet. but you can bet those cases will be filed soon. >> and what's unusual is we clearly have five justices who think that same-sex marriage should be legal. that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause. is that fair to say, or am i saying it too strongly? >> i think kennedy comes very close to that. he still left himself a little bit of room. jake, i think the most interesting thing about these opinions is the fact that those people like scalia who are saying that morality legislation is an appropriate and perfectly

valid form of law, are in the distinct minority. if you compare this to what happened before lawrence, when the whole court -- not the whole court. the majority of the court, it once said you could criminalize homosexual relationships. >> okay, wait. sorry to interrupt. those are the petitioners right there in the hollingsworth v. perry case that we're seeing along with their attorney david boise. i don't see ted there. >> he's arguing a case in philadelphia. >> those are the same-sex couples who sued the state of california and it came all the way to the supreme court. they seem to be very triumphant, although, obviously, it was an ambiguous decision, as we've discussed. gloria, you have interviewed david at length about this case. >> right. and i think the question that we're all asking is whether the california district judge, walker's ruling, would then stand to a degree and, you know,

it was a very broad ruling which may be why they're cheering. to your political points here, though, these people will say that within a month, there will be same-sex marriages in the state of california. i think state officials clearly have to read this opinion very carefully to get a guidepost about what they can and cannot do. but let's -- there's ted butrose, another lawyer who argued the case, along with david boise, and ted olson, as you said, is arguing another case in pennsylvania. ted griffin, head of the human rights campaign, who's been on this case from the very beginning, was one of the people who decided to take it up before the court. and let's hear what they have to say. >> you know, it's interesting, guys, because right now we should know fairly soon, and i'm anxious to get jeffrey toobin and jonathan turley and others to weigh in, and i guess the practical question so many folks, especially in california want to know, will same-sex

marriage be legal in california within the next few days? here are those who support same-sex marriage. let's listen in. >> -- the executive director of the american foundation for equal rights. it's my great privilege to be here this morning with the plaintiffs' legal team and founding board members of the american foundation for equal rights. speaking first will be david boise. >> this is a great day for america. ten years ago today, the united states supreme court, in lawrence against texas, took the first important step to guaranteeing that all americans, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal citizens under the law. today, the united states supreme court in two important decisi s decisions, brings us that much

closer to true equality. in the decision striking as unconstitutional the so-called doma, or defense of marriage case, the united states supreme court held that there was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. as justice scalia noted, that holding -- that principle -- guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. in the california case, the supreme court held that the proponents of proposition 8 did not have standing. what that means is that in that case the supreme court could not

reach the merits. but everything that the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion, where they did reach the merits, demonstrates that when that case finally does come to the united states supreme court on the merits, marriage equality will be the law throughout this land. our plaintiffs now get to go back to california, and together, with every other citizen of california, marry the person they love. and the next step is to translate the promise that was in lawrence and that was reaffirmed today in the doma case, that every citizen in every state has the right to marry the person that they love. the supreme court's decision on standing is important for

another reason. when we started out in this case, we said we were going to prove three things. we were going to prove that marriage was a fundamental right. and the other side accepted that. we said, second, we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they love seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children that they were raising. and even the opponents agreed with that. and third, we said we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person that they love, regardless of sexual orientation, did not, could not harm anyone. and not only did the proponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today, the united states supreme court said as much, because they said the

proponents have no concrete injury. they cannot point to anything that harms them, because these two loving couples -- and couples like them throughout california -- are now going to be able to get married. and so, this is a -- this is a wonderful day for our plaintiffs. it's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and in california in particular, who wants to be able to marry the person that they love. but it's a wonderful day for america, because we have now taken this country another important step towards guaranteeing the promise that is in our constitution, in our declaration of independence, that all people are created equal, that all people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. so this is a great day. we thank the supreme court. we thank all of you, and perhaps

most important, we thank all of the people who have devoted so much to this battle over so many decades. people who did it at a time when it was not as easy as it was for ted olson and myself to go into court. the only thing i regret today is that my friend and colleague, ted, can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately, today, in another court, in another part of the country, arguing another case. but his spirit is here, and he will be with me tonight, and we will celebrate, because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades, but for all americans. thank you. >> we now have comments from kris perry and sandy sier, plaintiffs in the case. >> today is a great day for american children and families.

sandy and i want to say how happy we are, not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california, no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you're in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends' parents, and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country that you are just as good as everybody else, no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love. and today, we can go back to california and say to our own children -- all four of our boys -- your family is just as good as everybody else's family. we love you as much as anybody else's parents love their kids. and we're going to be equal. now, we will be married, and we will be equal to every other family in california. thank you.

>> you know, today, we also want to say thank you to all of you. thank you to our supporters. thank you to our amazing lawyers. thank you to the constitution. and thank you to justice served today in this court. it was an amazing day. we thank the justices for overturning doma. it's so, so important for us and for all families. and we thank the justices for letting us get married in california. but that's not enough. it's got to go nationwide. and we can't wait for that day. it's not just about us. it's about kids in the south. it's about kids in texas. and it's about kids everywhere. and we really, really want to take this fight and take it all the way and get equality for everyone in this entire country. thank you all. it's been a pleasure and an honor to represent you. >> we'll now hear from jeff zarrillo and paul katami, also plaintiffs in the case. >> wow, i don't need these.

our desire to do something and get involved in this case, to be plaintiffs, was very important to us. perry changed the conversation. it altered the game. it created a groundswell of momentum and passion that brought us here to the supreme court today. today, the court said that i am more equal, that we are more equal, our love is just like our parents' and our grandparents', and that any children that we may have in the future will be more secure. i look forward to growing old with the man i love. our desire to marry has only deepened the last four years, as has our love and commitment to one another. we look forward to using the words "married" and "husband," because those words do matter. they are important. i said it in my testimony in court. if they weren't important, we wouldn't be standing here today.

i'd like to give special thanks to ted and david and the entire legal team, but ted and david specifically, because their passion for equality is only trumped by the size of their heart. i'd like to thank kris and sandy for taking this ride with us, to chad griffin for his amazing strategic vision, to adam and the entire team at t american foundation for equal rights, and for the support that we have received from countless people that we don't even know, but who will benefit just as profoundly from this ruling today. thank you very much. today's great day to be an american. >> i'm not sure i can add anything -- >> -- proponents of gay marriage are celebrating today, the two huge decisions by the united states supreme court. there are those who are very, very unhappy. let's get some dissenting comments now, the reverend

albert muller is joining us, the president of the southern baptist theology, joining us from ken, and tony perkins, president of the family research council. reverend, let me start with you. what's your reaction to what the supreme court has decided today? >> well, i think it's hard to overestimate the impact of the decisions today. i think, wolf, especially the doma decision. justice kennedy's opinion takes us to the brink of nationwide same-sex marriage. and i believe that will be a devastating thing for this country. i believe that marriage is a pre-political institution, that it's one of god's greatest gifts to all his human creatures and it always has been and must be the union of a man and woman. to radically transform the institution of marriage is to change the definition of what it means for humans to exist together in community. i think when you look at american history, there are many dates that stand, and our constitutional history, what you might call stand-out red-letter days, this is one of those days. and i think even as many people are celebrating this, we

recognize this is a major cultural divide over something as basic as marriage. and it is, i think, something that will be very, very devastating for our country over the long term. because what it means is the inevitable marginalization of marriage and the subversion of the most essential institution for human existence. >> all right. let me bring tony perkins into this conversation. tony, the supreme court justice, anthony kennedy, in rejecting the defense of marriage act, saying it was unconstitutional, said although congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment. a major setback for the family research council by these two decisions today. tony, your reaction. >> well, certainly the doma, as albert laid out, is problematic. but it is, again, limited to the 12 jurisdictions, the states that have same-sex marriage. the prop 8 case, mr. boies and olson, did not go to the supreme

court to see the court punt on that case. they went with the intention of imposing same-sex marriage on the nation, and that didn't happen. they failed in what they wanted to do. this is far from over. in fact, time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. if it were, i don't think they would have gone to the court trying to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation. what we're going to see happen over time, as this plays out in the jurisdictions that have adopted same-sex marriage, you're going to see a loss of parental rights as children are taught in school morals that are contradictory to their parents, religious liberty laws, bakers, florists, others forced to comply with a different view of marriage. as well as even churches. in some places, religious organizations losing their tax exemption, because they fail to comply with the force -- the force of the state in terms of redefining marriage. so i don't think this is over by any stretch of the imagination. and i don't think time is on the side of those who want to redefine marriage.

>> i don't think anyone thinks the whole issue of same-sex marriage throughout the united states is over. but, tony, as far as california is concerned, the largest state in the united states, gay couples will now be allowed to get married in california, based on what the justices of the supreme court decided today, right? >> well, it's unclear what has to happen from this point. but i would note that in 2000 and 2008, voters in california voted twice. so i think this certainly is a rejection of the voters of california who have twice gone to the polls to uphold the natural definition of marriage. so they've completely ignored them as we can tell from the decision at present. but again, in this case, the court could have gone much further and struck down the -- these marriage amendments, which are in 30 states. they did not do that. this only applies to california and how it's going to be implemented we don't yet know as we are still combing through the opinion. >> tony perkins and reverend muller, thanks t