s. >> thank you and thank you all for being here. >> i thank the gentleman. we will start our second round of questions. i was listening to my buddy from tennessee menus talking about his chevy and dropping a new engine in. and i sometimes it wasn't all that easy because my priority is to re-engine the atlas v. it is reminded me as you're talking he and i had the two privilege to meet with an american treasure earlier this week, retired general tom stafford was also an apollo astronaut the we both visited this topic with him you know. how big a deal is this to re-engine this rocket? and he basically said it's nothing. we re-engine fighter jets for generations and that's much more competent than what we are talking about here. so with that background esther culbertson, your companyis in the process of changing the

engine from the nk 33 to the rd-180 russian engine, correct? >> just spent how is it reasonable to change and engines because it depends on the background of the engine. ..

we did a lot of analysis to make sure it would not be incompatible and when we reached the point where we needed to go forward with another engine it was the one most likely to succeed in our application and the one that was available to last and they continue to deliver cargo. >> gray. ms. brinkley, you've only heard some reference to it today and the interchange of the ranking member and in the next day and all we hear about cost a significant amount of money to re-engine fiat misfires with thea r. one. can you address -- from what i understand it will cost $200 million to modify or the spot for the ar-1 appeared can you address that? >> yes, i can did we'd been working with you l.a. for several years on replacing various forms and like i've said

we would get the problem over the past 10 years. we have an active contract identifying specific changes that need to be made assuming that goes to an atlas five vehicle. the configuration requires a different launch vehicle. i summarize the question. the changes that need to be made i will submit for the record. in terms of the estimate for those costs and underrated members have never heard a $200 million number. every changes associated with the ar-1 going into an atlas five is millions of dollars are the cost estimate is still needed to be refined but the modifications required are very minor. >> for the ar-1 and the atlas-5. >> same question.

>> can i ask you mr. culbertson's comments. his response that 10 years of investment by the russian government to develop a replacement which was developed into the aj 26 is the key point tenures and we don't know how much money was invested. the p.e. four is being developed is fully funded. we are more than three years into development. there is real hardware to see if not a paper engine. >> mr. bruno has stated that the d4 and the ar-1 would work on the atlas-5 with modifications. one with more modifications than the other. can expand extent but have to modify the engine to work? >> i think that is a better question for mr. bruno. the engine, when you develop a new engineers start with requirements of the details really matter.

they are so far along in a development in the details are much more well said the team can look at that and assign the right system to meet the national security needs. >> mr. bruno, i would love you to visit this topic. >> this is an excellent example of the difference between the engine provider of marshfield goal service provider. it will not cost tens of millions of dollars to incorporate any version of a ar-1. we started with an understanding of performance level coming out of either of these two engines will be using a pair of engines to do that. >> let me stop you. with the combined thrust of the two engines be comparable? >> yes it will. it will be larger than the two. >> in addition to that, he uses a very novel control system to move the nozzle insert the rocket based on fluidics to top

off the engine fuel system. that is a technology that does not exist in the united states and one that we do not have an interest in developing. there will be a new thrust control system to go along with that. so when we do all of that with the new performance point required there'll be software changes, structure changes to accomplish even thea r. 100 -- ar-1. the number was not unreasonable. >> $200 million. we will hear from air force later. do you think that is accurate? >> i think it is accurate. that is for the ar-1. i can bring the number down if i leave the tank the same. but if i do that because of the lower efficiency of the engine and its first-generation as a launch system for several

missions i will be adding one or more solid rocket boosters to the launch vehicle. the cost competitiveness, the affordability of the system would be less than the atlas today. >> giddiness modifications moves you towards the rocket system you want but is not necessary for the replacement engine we are pursuing or that i am pursuing. >> it will not lift 15 emissions. could i keep the tank sized the same take the engine that is made available to me, strap on the extra strap on and just deal with the additional costs. i could do that for the first set within the fleet. so remember that the atlas is a fleet of rockets the least capable of which is equivalent to a falcon. there are much more difficult orbits that we go through. eventually there's a limit to how many strap ons i can attach

to the rocket because the way the rocket is configured. those difficult missions would become out of reach of an atlas and misconfiguration without a longer tank to carry more fuel. >> now let's talk about the p.e. four. >> yes, it requires more extensive changes to our infrastructure and rockets. >> what is the figure turned in to? >> it would not be unreasonable to triple or quadruple the number. >> 60,800,000,000. -- 600 million to 800 million. >> let's talk about the other infrastructure involved. let's say we do change to a new rocket. i'm not saying i'm ready to go there. what else is required in

modifications other than the rocket? don't you have to change infrastructure use for the lunch process? >> yes. you can think of it in these pieces. there's the rocket, there's the pad factory of course and then the equipment we use at the launch site to integrate the rocket with the satellite and roll it out. so those things are more dependent upon the physical size and configuration of what changes we have to make to accommodate the engine. so my colleague is correct there are far fewer changes with the ar-1 said the diameter and length of the rocket will be much worse than lawyer and the factory can be the same. the equipment at the launch pad can be only slightly modified in the pad will have smaller modifications. for the methane engine because methane is most than the tank will be much larger.

i will replace much more to it in the factory and redo what is called the mobile launch platform that moves the rocket to the proud and the changes to the pattern works and food. >> are those part of the triple or quadruple in? does comprehensive secure. maybe i missed it, but were you able to explain the difference in the 16 months you assert blue origin has over their development? >> yes. both companies are under contract with us. we have weekly engagements, monthly formal reviews tracking the schedules side-by-side. as i mentioned in my opening remarks it started several years later the blue origin is essentially the nature of the 16 months. >> thank you.

>> this'll be for all the witnesses. you agree that government should tell the intellectual property it makes in the system? i know you're talking about if we invest the amount they invested the system they should know. >> yes, sir. i do agree. >> of the government has invested that money as the law allows, the company is also their ip they develop to enable systems. >> i equate my colleagues at the government fully invested with own and retain ip rights for systems privately developed. >> the two of you fully invest

>> what if we pay for 60% of the development costs, is that something you believe should inhibit owning a percentage of the properties value? start with ms. thornburgh. >> it would depend what development we talk about in terms of the technology. if it was an offshoot of something completely developed in invested by the private corporation maybe not. it would be case dependent. >> mr. myers. >> the contracting methods has public or the partnerships and mechanisms in place to allow industry to invest in account for shared ownership. >> that's one of my concerns. they've always set aside $400 million for the summary project by the time it's all said and done the 1.3 to $1.5 billion as much as 800 million or more may be paid for by the federal government.

it seems to me there should be some interest we have in intellectual property that arises out of that. >> i want to ask the witnesses base. this is for all the witnesses. either clear requirements for the air force about what they are aiming you think they're not only clear but fair and reasonable. >> i think the requirements are clear. >> ms. kleeck. >> i assume you are referencing the current acquisition process under way. >> yes ma'am. >> there is a process that is well spelled out and does focus more on an ultimate watch service as opposed to invention but it is spelled out. there's a lot of different ways

the process could go. >> mr. culbertson. >> yes sir they sound our experience in the commercial and government market, we understand requirements and what they are looking for and we do think it is focused on a system developed in a public-private partnership that would give the government the most options for competition as well as success. >> with regard to the ongoing source election activity, i don't get for me to comment because i don't want to wonder influence the ongoing source election. >> do you have any comment on this? you're not doping invention the ob buying it. >> the comments in the rps activity are very clear from the government. >> a couple of cleanup questions

for ms. van kleeck. your history is launch service providers are being a prime on developing a new engine. why do you believe this approach is not appropriate in this situation? >> the issue at hand that we are talking about is replacing an engine and right now we are looking an are looking an acquisition process is looking at replacing the service are looking at an evolution of the service. i believe with the acquisition you can get to invention through the process but it isn't the most efficient way to do that. >> finally, as you l.a. was lowered with a new launch vehicle can you tell the committee if you intend to mitigate risk by carrying forward both the ar-1 and be-4 s. design options and if not why not and if yes, when will you require in selected new

single option. >> i will not carry them all the way until completion. i will carry both until it is clear the major risk with either path has been retired and we are in a position based on technical feasibility, schedule and forecasted recurring cost. i expect that to happen at the end of 2016. the reason we let down selected not carry both forward and simply because i cannot afford to carry both all the way. >> thank you very much. the ranking member is recognized for an additional questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. side areas i would like to pursue. i think it's going to be important for the committee to understand in the air force is very prediction and payload size because the assumption is they will get the same size as they are today. they probably need to be on the

big side if we are going to do the lift capability. all this talk about launch systems and lift capacity, the question is what are we lifting. this electronics gets smaller and smaller, it could be wider lift capacity is sufficient to do the job. i don't know the answer to the question. anybody have any answers on this panel? >> the standard reference for tackle performance remains with the air force caused the eight reference missions. so they provide us with a set of where they and payload weight to be lifted to the orbit. that has not changed because of the debate. the most challenging require our complete capability to be out of five with a five strap ons and its largest payload fairing.

>> part of it is orbit. >> yes. it is important to understand the subtlety within that as well, which is the time required and space to reach the highest order bit and that dictate some of the technical carrot or a six of the upper stage. when we go to the geosynchronous argot if you wish to have jack the satellite it takes hours and space operating an upper stage to circular as the orbit something not possible with conventional field like kerosene, for example with the elaborate systems to keep them from freezing a period of >> we haven't given much attention at all to the second stage problems you point out are very important. the intellectual property issue is the greatest source of wealth on the planet but we have increasing difficulty understanding ownership in

relationships like that. i guess it gives us some comfort that the american citizen might be owning all of this ip but sometimes the defendants moved. they make private sale decisions that could endanger national security. so this is something we need to figure out better and in terms of pay back to the taxpayers if we could get one or two pharmaceutical companies to pay back benefits of the drugs from basic research done at nih it would return many more than a few billion dollars. we need to work with our colleagues in committees on that. on the question of paperwork, mr. burnell mensch and far 15 i think you called it. i am not sure it's all a that really could paperwork? is that necessary paperwork? can we stratified and reduce the burden for anybody who might

have to be subject it to the paperwork burden. it's not the 10 commandments. it is not written in stone. >> the federal acquisition regulations provide for different novels. 15 is one set. to install than others do exactly that and provide guidance when it's appropriate to use the less elaborate systems. >> so there is some flexibility with them not. is that the biggest and scariest monster out there? you just mention that to scare us. >> it is the world with this and that you l.a. >> the question mentioned at the monopoly. nobody likes a monopoly but a best case situation we have a duopoly or maybe an oligopoly. we need another billionaire tubac ms. van kleeck. maybe there's others for

sufficient makers. when you correctly set the business case the diminishing number of payloads a substantial raise and it takes an investor's ego to propel the sword of glory of spacefaring. so i think is weaker monopoly, we should bear in mind best case we'll have an oligopoly and that is not a whole lot better. we let the retail model where we can get amazon pricing for everything. here despite the involvement. we don't want to be too idealistic in this. finally there is this touchy issue of recording brilliant personnel and we in america have relied heavily on one of broad and other folks imported from germany. the last one just died in the last year or so down in huntsville, alabama. there are some brilliant ideas

to make a difference. i couldn't help but note on the first page of mr. meyerson's testimony is recorded lots of folks have lots of places including someone would marvel in experience. that is interesting. makes me think regarding the rd 180 is not the russian who actually knew how that work. where is that person and maybe the chinese did that with the integrated that into their long march or maybe the blueprints. you kind of wonder -- you hope the team of scientists can do great things and in many cases they have. some cases there are these individuals who come up with the secret sauce and that leads us to the very interesting feature of space that or they do not rely the patent system to protect their ip preferring instead the trade secret system

which is basically nothing there knows that the entire western system of protect intellectual property. i am not defending the patent office but this is kind of an interesting challenge here. just keep it locked up in a safe like the coca-cola formula as opposed to publishing and disseminating and protect them legally. there are many challenges we face as we get into this issue to make sure we have assured access to space, that we have a perhaps unique national security capability to that what is required on the timetable we need to serve the war fighter and we are increasingly relying on global models come international models that may or may not service this unique national capability. so these are some of the challenges the subcommittee faces as they come up with a

fair solution but above all puts america first. that is how i see it and corrections and amendments to that modifications because we are trying to do the right name and not have congress messed up yet again like we did last year. thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i would know when congress messed up last year it was with language the private sector gave us to put it not though. we didn't dream up the language. the gentleman from oklahoma for any additional questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. burnell covey mentioned earlier to close the business case you l.a. will compete in the commercials that are for space launch. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. meyerson, does blue origin intend to compete in the commercial spaceflight industry with the sound system? >> in the very long term yes we

do. our first iteration insider shepherd vehicle which we flew last month as an emergent supplier to you l.a. and other companies in making the engine available. >> just for you if little origin enters the space and they compete directly against the market, does that pose a risk to the cost of government launches? >> in the foreseeable future i see a committees in the marketplace is complementary and what my colleague is referring to is in the far future we will have ample opportunity to work out arrangements. >> if the aar one engine ultimately is not what is down select date, what is the future

for the ar-1, ms. van kleeck? >> current way it is relevant to this particular change in launch vehicles in this particular point in time. every 10 years we have different opportunities to do that. we would maintain the technology of the technology level. if there is in a that what you said, the development will not be complete at this point in time. >> is there a chance to launch vehicle provider might materialize and the ar-1 would find itself relevant in the commercial and gev program. >> it is possible. it clearly depends on what the launch vehicle provider is, what their path going forward are. as you know, there are multiple providers here on this handle and we talked a limited market. in the near term, it is not a high probability.

>> one of the challenges we have is certainly it seems like there are two different directions that the panel is trying to accommodate. one direction as the air force physician, which is we need to purchase launch as they serve as. of course that has been the going mindset for everyone for quite a while. then we ended up in this position with the russians got aggressive. i will tell you i share chairman roger's position. we don't want to send one more dollar to russia that we don't absolutely have to send them and i agree with chairman roger is we need to do everything possible to mitigate risk to our own assured access to space. that is kind of what drove us to the position today worries about language in the nda that might not be compatible with language that says we need to purchase launch as a service.

this is a challenge we will continue to have. unfortunately, the panelists today find themselves in a challenge where they are trying to basically go to different directions at the same time given what has happened in the world and of course we as congress need to figure out a way to make this the best for our country and the taxpayers and the national security interest and i know chairman rogers has that in his heart. the goal here is to get off any russian engine and make sure we have assured access to space. with data make that happen. i appreciate you guys being here and working through this with us as we try to make it happen for her country. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman and occur completely. the gentleman from colorado for any questions you may have. >> one question.

mr. meyerson -- [inaudible] has a large methane rocket engine ever been built and flown in space and what are the advantages and challenges of building this type of engine? >> by large i will say no, engines that are greater than 250,000 pounds have had no large methane engine built in space that i know of. we have been busily working on the be-4 and we have made some design choices to mitigate risk with development design choices in our chamber pressure, our object to design choices and materials that give us confidence we can develop the engine by the end of next year and get into testing and launch vehicle requirements. >> to your first question is have we found a large methane rocket engine. we have not done that. the thing i want to point out is

the one aspect as you hear a lot about the novel technology and the engine power plants discussed today i want to point out the one common thread whether it's raptor, ar-1 or be-4 is the combustion technology. all three engines incorporate that in that does represent the technology coming to the table. whether you try to replace them mean in terms of the ar-1 come you have to finish the oxford stage technology and it's the same for a raptor engine. i want to also comment the talented engineers in the united states have been working on technologies to late 90s through programmatic investments of the research laboratory and nasa. technologies have been available but yet to be fully funded and brought to the table until these conversations are happening now. that is where we stand on that.

>> what anyone else like to comment on that? >> yes, sir. i would. i agree the common thread through these things is the oxford stage technology. however, we have worked on methane is the company since the 60s and we built a number of different devices none of which a phone yet. methane is an important technology for missions when you deal with things like that where you make your propellant in space. in terms of the difference between a methane and kerosene engine for a booster but feels, kerry seems characterized the ability to run kerosene in an environment is also characterized the russians have perfected this technology over decades and i'm confident we can also do that with methane but it will take time. it took the russians a long time to get where they are.

we've understand what they've done. we studied the technology for 20 years. this can also be done for a methane at the timeframe is quite a bit longer. >> anyone else comment? >> not about methane but i would like to point out their other technologies that involve propulsion systems and they've been mentioned several times about the solid rock of others that contribute to our access to space weather they are strap on serbian stages. that is a part of our heritage as a country and very much involved and not a market with several people on the panel making sure that is a part of the system. any system going forward will have to have newly developed or perfected motors as a part of it whether the main engine or additional propulsion or second pages. that is to be a part of the discussion of powder made pain the lead we have in this country

and solid rocket motors and propellants over the rest of the world to help with national defense as well as access to space for these big payloads. >> yes mr. thornburgh. >> just a comment. the research and development and testing performed by spacek's private assessment of both activities with blue origin are proven out the viability of methane as a of methane is a field whether its oxfordshire full combustion cycle. i would like to say we've been operating high up in propulsion systems this country said the dawn of the space age. hydrogen offers more complex cities. methane fall somewhere between hype giving kerosene in terms of handling due to the nature of the properties. i want to point out a lot of research and development ongoing in the private sector were independent of government investment over the last several years. >> and i just got one comment to

that. we talked about methane, but the liquefied natural gas is commercially available methane the commodity you can buy in the infrastructure of the u.s. has grown rapidly in the last decade. we chose lng because it's four times cheaper than the rocket propellant grade and is available service supports the applications which we are interested in long-term and does those are very important points that. >> thank you good idea of that. >> of the gentleman from colorado mr. lamborn. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to drill down on earlier to hopefully get more clarity. in response to a question from a record from the last hearing quote space x has not formally submitted to change desired to be except did under certification for the full press system to the air force.

if spacek has been formally submitted the changes, how is it to your system should be certified for lunch are eligible for competition on eeoc -- >> since the last year and there's numerous conversations between the air force and space x specifically to address the information. the bulk of that has been provided in this been discussed between the air force's air force's space x. i'm happy to provide for the record. >> let me approach this from a different angle. i will refer to an article from a march 17th of this year aviation week article entitled space x is u.s. certification by mid-summer. here is a quote out of the article. this year, it's a lengthy quote

so bear with me. this here space x expects to review a falcon nine upgrade that will be a 15% increase in for the falcon nine marlin one d. core stage engine and a 10% increase in the uppers age tank volume. nasa has had an increased interest is likely to require significant design modifications to the engine and rocket escape necessitate additional certification work including a series of successful flight to prove the vehicle. so how was it that nasa can say these are significant modifications and they require additional certification and possibly test flight that you don't seem to think there is a need for more certification. >> the language you use has no need for more certification. just to clarify my comment

earlier world with regard to setting the clock on certification. it's an ongoing certification to launch vehicles before space x was in existence. they were mainly focused on the fact that spacek is not doing anything different than you l.a. has done with atlas and delta in bringing on new improvements to systems that improve performance and cost. we are working closely with nasa and the air force who oppose certified as for the launches and payloads this year and of ongoing conversations with them with regard to the status of the vehicle. they are bred the changes and modifications underflow is supportive in terms of gaining the certification for upcoming launches. >> okay. let me change gears and ask my last question. you stated in your opening statement that there should be a 50/50 investment in a new engine.

disk space x follow the guideline for falcon nine investment? >> with falcon nine investments, space x 100% invested in the development of the launch vehicle. so yes. >> you said 100%. it is my understanding of bulk of the capitalists of refunded nasa contract for contracts totaling $3.8 billion. is that correct? >> i can't speak to the total but if you refer to the program itself, the nasa money is where the space station was focused on the capsule versus the falcon i launch vehicle space that's funded to develop enough. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> really appreciate all of you all. you made a great point when you emphasize we got ourselves in the situation and the ranking member david for the u.s. stopped investing heavily enough

in developing where we need to be a really should have been before now. our full attention is focused on the matter now and we appreciate you being here. i would remind the witnesses who will keep the record for at least 10 days in case any members have additional questions they would like to ask you to respond to for the record. i'd appreciate a timely response. we have another panel of government witnesses. i hope you will listen to bad and let us know what you think about what they say is it will continue to help us grow and develop end of the policy in the right direction. with that, we stand in recess for this panel to adjourn and bring the new panel in. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so a short break and this panel and the theory no-space technology and security as we switch to a second panel in just

a couple moments. here live on c-span2. very quickly, some action over by the supreme court today at the court has decided in a five to four ruling that same-sex marriage has been declared legal in all 50 states. there is coverage of this taking place on our companion network c-span right now. giving your thoughts thoughts and principles involved in those who argue the case before the supreme court. all that taking place right now on our companion network, c-span. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i would now like to welcome the experts for a second panel. thank you for coming here today in preparing for it. we have the honorable katrina mcfarland, defense acquisition. general john heiden, commander air force space command. general mcfarland -- that would've been good. general heiden, it's great to

have you back. we truly appreciate your opinions and also look forward to the commander air force space and missile command center. we also have dr. mike griffin representing himself today, that he was deputy chair of the availability of risk mitigation study and he's also a former nasa illustrator. ms. mcfarland now that you are general mcfarland, i will turn it over to u2's dark. you are recognized for five minutes to summarize your opening statement. i tell all the witnesses jurors davis will be submitted in full for the record if you'd like to send a day, will get right to questions. >> thank you, chairman rogers, ranking member cooper. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee particularly since you're supposed to be a recess and ask my written testimony be taken for the record. assured access to space continues to beat critical to their capability and national

security, ashley is the world has changed over the last decade to non-permissive environment. during our march 17th hearing we touched on many topics concerning the evolved expendable launch vehicle programs. amongst those were the department for reintroducing competition on how we secure our lunch service is for national security space and satellites and our plan for transitioning away from the use of the engine the russian engine to domestically resource propulsion capabilities. while i'm pleased to say we are making progress on both of these -com,-com ma competition and transition is intrinsically and fundamentally intertwined. the standard dependency can be ignored. it must be managed. as you heard that the members before us, it is a complex issue and what spacek's falcon nightwatchman system now has for the first time joined venture formation and enable competition

for a contract service. however, section 16 away of the fy 15 nba prohibits any use beyond the contract for a most dead launch capability out a sigh which relies on the russian rd 180 michigan. 16 away creates a multiyear cap but that is to price competitive launch providers and treats you l.a. for space x is full providers on medium and intermediate launches. it also impacts you always buy ability to compete in the future as discussed as an estimate replaced and certified the capability of thought to mystically at seven years. undercover engineers than it is a complex issue, sir. to avoid the unacceptable situation the department submitted legislatilegislati ve proposal by 92 requesting section 16 away be amended. the department believes the

proposal with the addition of the certified space x falcon nine enables the department to minimize the impact and assure access to the capabilities while completing the transition using domestically designed and produced propulsion systems. the department greatly appreciates the subcommittee supported the legislative proposal and look forward to congress on the defense on the defense committee as the fy 16 budget authorization and appropriation language are debated. the air force released a request for information, rfi. the industry around august 2014 soliciting feedback for transitioning away and responses supported industry to transition and provide lunch capabilities to support msf requirement and broader approaches than anticipated as you heard. as a result of the rfi and the

trade transportation services and there is a first step incremental strategy to follow transition onto domestic repression capabilities being discussed. the department remains committed to transition off the engine and the most efficient and expeditious and affordable manner possible while ensuring continued compliance with the trade space transportation service laws. again, thank you for your support to her critical mission and i look forward to our discussion. >> thank you. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cooper, it isn't not to appear again to talk about the important issues that distinguish colleagues. thank you for your continued efforts to work this topic. as ms. mcfarland said it's a difficult topic to work through.

i believe everyone has been fortunate to witness the space power mall theater commander has realized how fundamental spacek star to every offer of the globe today. these capabilities are without assured access to space. today's reliance on capabilities assured access is important to imperative and remains one of our highest priorities. the launch industry fundamentally changed over the last two decades. their first daughter is the vehicles we launch. we purchase access to space is a service and industry is now investigated private capital of new engines and rocket and we are collaborating closely with them to determine how to invest in public or the partnership and u.s. rocket propulsion systems. within context of assured that if it is critical we know this fast as we can to eliminate reliance on the rocket engine. the united states shall not remain dependent on another

nation to assure access to space and we needed an american hydrocarbon engine. it will be a significant challenge but with the efforts and ingenuity of our government and industry teams is possible to develop an american mentioned by 2019. however the engine has to be made into a rocket. it still has to be made into a launch system and even if the system looks similar we need to integrate the new engine test, certify and doublecheck another year or two when the engine is developed. we don't want to be in a position where resource has been expended in no commercial provider has built or modified the necessary rocket. the subcommittee could be a healthy space launch industrial base as they move as fast as we can does the rocket engines. thank you for support. i look forward to continuing the partnership into your questions. >> thank you. general graves, you're recognized for five minutes. in the chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and members of the

subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. space capabilities are essential to the american way of life and multiply the effectiveness of war fighters. thanks to the efforts of the men and women of center are many contractors than many mission partners we continue to deliver worldwide navigation threat warning strategic and tactical communications and many other capabilities from space. as with all come to know space launches the key to providing all of the capability. we address the critical nature of space launch to a policy of assured access to his base, made cheney to reliable launch system is a critical method for continued access to space should one suffer an event. as part of this approach, we purchase launch services on a commercial basis, with america's most important source of innovation and national economic

strength on the market. these two concepts assured access to space and competition are the cornerstones of our national launch policy. a guide or implementation as we execute the 2015 national defense act which outlines and mandates we develop a next-generation rocket compulsion system. in response i will emphasize the air force is 100% committed to transitioning off for the rd 180 for space launch as quickly and prudently as possible to a domestically produced liquid or solid space rocket propulsion system. from our dad slowly replacing the new engine is not the complete solution. since rockets are heavily influenced by engine design, even a drop-in replacement which

closely matches the physical interfaces and performance would require modifications to the launch vehicle structures. the feel on our side of the felines and he shows to accommodate minor distances and performance. as was mentioned by the previous panel to control and rd 180 engine have a critical characteristic of the out of five. the new engine will require changes to the electronic control systems and significant engineering analysis to develop new profiles to launch the various satellites. in other words rocket engine specifically engineered to replace the rd 180 on the outlets would most likely be usable and not by any other launch service provider without significant modifications to the engine and/or the launch vehicles. we also do not believe this would meet the intent of the

competition. additionally if the product of market research, we found if i procure to mention not designed for a specific launch vehicle commercial providers would be unlikely to build a rocket without the government funding the redesign of their launch vehicles adding time, cost and risk we cannot afford. the air force is pursuing a strategy of shared investment with industry, using public-private partnerships in the launch service bubble. the goal of the plan is to produce at least two domestic commercially viable launch systems, including the accompanying engines. in our research, we assess the industry timelines predict incomplete rocket propulsion systems by 2019 are aggressive. history has consistently shown developing, testing and nurturing invention takes 67 years with another year or two beyond that to integrate into the launch vehicle. with all that said we are

moving very fast. we have the acquisition strategy to reach the end status quickly as possible. step one pursues technical maturation and risk reduction efforts building expertise within the u.s. step two target shared investment and rocket propulsion system development. step three guys the transition of our shared investment into the launch system and finally stepped forward directs the acquisition of services to meet national security states. as we move forward our overall goal is to preserve assured access to his face by maintaining our laser focus on mission success. our approach will accomplish this by supporting competition where says and acquiring space launch of certified commercially viable providers using domestically produced rocket propulsion systems. if we do this we'll be on a path to transitioning and have

at least two domestically produced viable launch providers that are certified to meet national security space requirements by the end of fy 22. thank you for your support and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. dr. griffin, you're recognized for five minutes. turn your microphone. since i forgot some things. >> chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and distinguished members of the committee i am honored to be asked to appear to testify the matter before us today. before beginning any substantive discussion, i should know for the record that i'm here as an independent witness. i received no consideration of any kind in connection with the topic of today's hearing from anyone. i'm here on personal needs and personal expense and do not represent any company agency or

committee on which i've served in the past are presently serves. with that aside we are here to discuss the rd 180 and its replacement. the rd 180 has been used for two decades on various versions of outlets and without the engine are functionally equivalent replacement today's launch vehicle will be grounded and with it to third of our national security payload as we presently have the manifest. while i completely agree why we should not be dependent on a foreign power, much less an adversary for an element of her nationals this launch capability, i believe the legislative action taken in this regard is a bit too abrupt. it might be that we should wean ourselves of this dependence a bit more gently. if the outlets is grounded, then what? what u.s. policy requires national security capability the requirement is met but only

partially so with the delta for family, the previous panel said payloads could be shifted from at least adult to four. that is so, but many critical data between these vehicles would require considerable rework at considerable cost to shift from at least adult. it is in general more expensive than the equivalent at last and the top end does have performance is less than that of the top-end outlets. some atlas payloads will not be transferable to delta. finally, the delta production limitations are such that without a massive increase in manufacturing and launching first rapture, very limited search capacity is even possible. the net effect of shifting national security space systems from at least adult should we have to do so will be several years of delay for the average

payload in billions of dollars of increased costs. some have said the best forward path is to discard decades of government investment and experience with the outlets and develop a whole new system. this has nothing to solve today's problems and even if it did if you're rational to suppose an entirely new launch vehicle could be obtained were quickly or at less cost than alone. others would have us believe the u.s. government can merely purchased large services from a multiple competitor as if one were select any particular airline for desired trip based on airfare and schedule. purveyors would have us believe that if we have an engine supply problems the u.s. government should stay on the sidelines while the market solves the problem. in reality their launch architecture has far more in common with aspects such as air

carriers and submarines than airlines and cruise ships. the market cannot be allowed to determine whether they make it to space. the supply chain required to maintain the critical asset remains intact. as supply chain is currently quite fragile because while we have been for me being the industrial base, it has withered. ..

>> i need to comment on one of the last statements of the spacex representative at the development of falcon nine was done on private funds and nasa money spent went on dragon. i personally am the originator of the program and that program was intended to provide seed money and i emphasize the money, not majority funding for the development of the new launch vehicle and a delivery system for cargo to space station. after i left the agency with the inauguration of president obama considerably more money was supplied to spacex. i think from public sources it's easily possible to show

that the spacex has received about $3.5 billion or so possibly more in open-source funding. seeing as how they conducted seven launches for nasa counted one upcoming this week that's either an extraordinarily high price per launch of about half a billion dollars per launch which i don't believe is the case or a considerable amount of that money has gone into capitalizing the company. the money was not segregated out according to dragon or falcon nine, so i very strongly believe that the government money which has been provided to spacex has in fact gone to the development of falcon nine. >> anybody else? anything that just jumps out at you? he offered me hope optimistically that more than two countries are going to be competing for this engine. i hope that we wind up with

three or four or more getting into this competition when it really gets going. all right. in last year's 2014 space hearing i asked the witnesses if they think developing a competitively acquired next-generation engine available to all u.s. providers that could effectively replace the rd-180 was imported. general shelton, the predecessor of general hyten state of the a strong supporter of that if we can find the money to do it. mr. klinger who used to work for ms. mcfarland stated, i think in the long run it is an interest of the united states, to develop a next-generation rocket communist produce rocket engine. we took their advice and directed the department of building propulsion system that ends our reliance on the engine by 2019 and we provided 220 million just to get started. but now when i read your plan it's not clear to me that we are

focused on developing domestic engine. what's changed since that testimony bucks i'd like to ask all the witnesses come in your professional judgment if we have two options, one to replace an engine with a proven technology or, to come to build a new engine with an unproven technology, new launch vehicle and infrastructure, what is the risk? anybody who wants to take it on. general hyten? >> so assuring national security space: investing in american industry to end reliance on russian rocket engines i'll make -- mr. chairman. i will turn over to my fellow mbs on the panel. my first comment is the united states leads the world into elements of the rocket engine business. we lead the world in solids and in liquid in -- liquid hydrogen and sugar i think we should lead the world in every category of engine development. the one we don't live in is hydrocarbon delivered either the

united states no matter what the rest of this discussion goes on, the united states should develop a technology program to build hydrocarbon technology for the united states across the board. i think it's essential to but we do as a country. we have avoided them for about 20 years and we got to take it on and go forward. however, this turns out. the second issue is what's changed. what's changed since last we talked his we actually have a bill, national defense authorization act, that gave a specific guidance. and the guidance said we need to pursue engines that go that grow towards a domestic alternative our national security space launches. to have to pay an attorney. i think all the previous panel to the. they sent it to meet the requirements of national security space community. i think they did a. develop not lead than 2019 that's a challenge. we heard that. been useful and open competition. full and open competition is exactly the structure we put in

place. we were specifically told by the law not to go to a specific vendor, not go spilled -- not to go build a specific engine but look at full and open competition. of thing that struck me about the previous panel that was very impressive is how much they have embraced that across the board from blue origin to ula to aerojet rocketdyne to orbital atk to spacex, to embrace back to look at that place. so the competition was imported. but when you do pull an open competition had to go to the process to make sure it is full and open answer across industry. that does not happen overnight. i would just make those two comments for the record. >> mr. chairman, you asked whether or not we should replace the rd-180 with proven technology. as the previous panel did express, we did not have the capability within the united states today to replace the engine. so what have we come up with

will be a new engine the ar1 be-4 for both mentioned. from our point of view replacing an engine has to effect on the overall capability that we plan to deliver. we must verify the impacts of any changes to any component in the system especially on the rocket itself and our ability to deliver that capability to orbit. so combined with what general hyten just mentioned our approach is to look at the total capability, total system that will result in any changes to any component to include the engine. that's why we start from the launch service, ultimate capability to assess what the impacts are and can decide whether or not as you will see 34 step process that we have in place whether or not any of the providers, and by the way, we did have what we are referencing as a broad response from industry to the rps proposal that we put out there, that

arrived a couple of days ago and we're accepting right now. so that its interest but we must look at the impacts from many changes to the rocket, to the system thank you. >> ms. mcfarland? >> chairman, i think it was a very clear that one thing came out from each of the previous industries comment. there isn't a drop in replacement for an rd-180 on the table. not a drop in exact replacement. so really what we're focused on is risk. how do we leverage our funds and risk? are they going to be leveraging funds from the government and the risk is to the government? and we passed that risk factor industry? or do we take and work together with industry and funding and share the risk? i call it that been me now or pay me later that each of these industries have already stated

it is a limited industrial base for commercialization immediately. i shared with you earlier the satellite industry association study that says there's a modest growth, some of between four-9%. they don't use the size site as you're familiar with that we have for payloads. so we carry, no matter what, and underwrite a whatever comes out of here. and because we don't have the ip to the rd-180 and we haven't develop a stated repeatedly here engineering expertise that understands the metallurgy and necessary for methodology to do the proportions in exact form, we have to since we will have some modicum of respect the air force proposal as it stands, are pursuing getting the government and industry smarts to go to the point where they can make a

logical decision to the next step. can we prevent going forward with a launch system? shall we look at just -- jet propulsion systems? should look at just engines? was the most cost effective, and by the way, timely? we are racing against time proposal. the advancement from industry is reassuring. the question is now where do we place that risk and how can we afford it particularly as i mentioned to you also earlier with the ranking member we are concerned with sequestration right in the middle to move forward on this replacement. it hits us right at our weakest joint, fy '16. >> you heard the witnesses in the previous panel talk about the degree of modifications that would be required to take one of the new proposed rockets come engines come and put it on the

rocket itself. they didn't disagree with numbers that i've heard from you earlier, general hyten up $200 million for not just the rocket but all the infrastructure changes or that was the floor. do you still believe that is at a minimum what we've been looking at no matter which alternative we select? >> mr. chairman, i won't disagree with what mr. bruno said what his numbers are. the numbers i should with you of the number i heard from mr. bruno. we will know more as i took it into the contract activities within. general greaves will be going down that path with him directly but i think those are ballpark numbers that are fair to look at. but they are not tens of millions of dollars. i think 200 million is the floor. >> is the floor. now, one big change from the last during today's hearing, striking to me is the idea of

hitting 2019 for completion of testing and providing your system for air force certification seemed ambitious. but realistic. now you heard from the previous panel, with high degrees of confidence they played they are not likely to complete testing of their systems but have completed certification easily by 2019. general greaves come you seem to have some real concerns about that. do you think just optimism or -- >> sir i believe they're discussing certification on the engine. when we talk certification we're talking certification of the system. so the engine plus everything, any modifications to the engine brings with a software, structures, loads, flight dynamics processing manufacturing, that's what we refer to as certification. so i do believe it is aggressive, but then that's only part of the answer.

>> you just create a new question for the record for all of our industry panelists because we are going to find out if they were talking about what certification process. >> mr. chairman, i was listening real close, and the be-4 answer from -- was ready to integrate and find 2019 and the aerojet rocketdyne with certification of the engine in 2019. so i think that's a great question for the record, but i was listening very close to that as well to do what they said about certification. >> may i add a comment speak with yes. love to hear your thoughts. >> i first want to say that i very strong agree with general hyten that hydrocarbon large hydrocarbon engine technology is one with a go at our peril, our national title. i would point out we've never actually agreed not to have it. we just get a make or buy decision back in 1995 and we decided to buy it. that option doesn't look so smart right now, and some i

think we need to learn how to make it. i'm not interested in replicating rd-180 technology. i'm interested in going beyond it and that's what i believe we will and should do. secondly i believe that there is considerable self-interest on the part of a number of different parties in estimated difficulty of integrating a new engine on a launch vehicle. i don't think it's a $10 million problem, but i'm not sure that i agree that it is a multi-$100 million problem. i actually compiled an incomplete list of 14 different engines which have been used on a buffer of a different launch vehicles and stages, and eight different -- plethora -- stages which have been re-engined over the course of 50 some years of american space history. i would be happy to submit for the record but i simply, the history of this matter does not

show it to be so horribly difficult to re-engine and vehicle of some of our early witnesses were saying. spent and if you would submit that for the record. >> i do so we don't believe it to be so difficult. >> before i go to the ranking member, general hyten, i want to go back to the specific language you wrote down that blue origin and aerojet offered. when blue origin said they would be ready to fly by 2019 how did you interpret that? didn't mean they completed the certification process? >> not i interpreted that as the engine would be ready for a to start a certification flight test program in 2019. certification flight test program takes a year or two usually about two years to go through from a very first flight of an engine. so that was interesting to me because -- >> what does the aerojet language media? >> what it means to me is a

similar thing except they said by the end of 2019 the engine would be ready. they didn't say ready to fly on the rocket. they said they would be ready by the end of 2019 spent which you've interpreted as meaning having completed certification process? >> engine, not the system. >> to document just the engine not assistant? >> i heard the engine would be ready in 2019. i think it's important to point out that both of those technologies have significant challenges but they will have to work through. i believe industry on both sides especially on a competitive environment can pursue those and get through those. but nothing is him as a think a number of the committee members talk about him as a new endeavor when you get above 250,000 pounds of thrust. the combustion across the board has not been done yet so they're still tactical risk to pursue in either activity that we need to remember. >> ranking member is recognized any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i hate to bring up the asia sequestration but that probably is as ms. mcfarland when a the most important issue we face not only for this issue but for all the military issues. this committee has conducted yet again so to put a fine point on it under this ndaa we will be borrowing $30 billion, we say from the local account, not budgeted pashtun local account. will probably be borrowing from china, and yet none of us has thought of our proposed we by the long march missile from china to meet our gap. but we're taking the money from them but we wouldn't consider buying their missile based on rd-180 technology. side of the members of this committee of this congress will solve the sequestration problem

something i repeated congresses have failed to do which dramatically injures our national defense capability. so that's the big issue. within the object issue where focusing on this company to ask the witnesses and the chairman this question. general greaves indicated there's been brought interest in the latest rfd. but that is for more than re-engine. so i'm interested find out declared in this hearing, if in which a movie interest in a new rfd just for a new engine. are we buying missile systems or are we buying new engines? >> congressman cooper, the broad response of industry includes an initial proposals from both engine providers as well as

launched service providers. we are assessing that combination as we speak. we received it three days ago. were on a timeline to select the best and get detailed proposals from the remainder. >> that any new rfp would delay the whole process. >> yes. >> you have expressed extreme skepticism about the possibility of getting a certified inch replacement by 2019. >> yes, sir. we believe a new rfp would delay the process but we also believe that the current process we have, it encompasses both opportunities for inputs from engine providers and launched service providers that sell. so within that sum total of interest we have today we believe it's highly likely will find which of his. >> i would respond to the ranking members questions.

last year specifically which on this, the agreement includes the house provision which would direct the second defense to develop and rocket propulsion system that is made in the united states, if you don't know better than 2019 using full and open competition permits requirements and is available for purchase by polispace launch providers of attorney. we know this provision is quote not an authorization for funds for development of a new launch vehicle. i will submit that for the record. >> congresses committee can say 2019. that doesn't mean it will happen and we've heard from our air force experts extreme skepticism that could happen. >> give me a third skepticism but hope you also heard optimism. because when you get in a competitive environment and you actually engage the best scientists and engineers that we have, i think it's possible to get there in 2019. the point of skepticism i think

you're referring to talk about the significant technical challenges in a couple of areas. we also have a control issue that was talked about by the previous committee that we have to work through. were not going to go down that technology path. in the welcome that would be a good program for the united states to go down as well. >> we keep on using this word competition. at least from the previous panel, there are really only two competitors if they get down to it. there's the ua group and then there's spacex. orbital wants to get in maybe sometime, but this isn't a retail and private. there are not lots of folks applying for this lumpy business. there's more folks interested in commercial but that's not what we are talking about. is basically at least duty market interest is not an interesting basis of space and less you are a multibillion are with a big ego.

you know comment by the way the missing millionaire for the hydrocarbon engine, maybe we could find a texas oilman who's interested in funding a hydrocarbon platform because dr. griffin is by the right. we need more research industry. in this area. where has it been for decades? we haven't had the backing for it somehow so we are in this pickle right now. >> we were buying it from russia because it was come in ms. mcfarland earlier work hanging out with emulator come and we chose to take -- pay me now or pay me later. rather than preserving our own industrial base. at this point that does not look like it was a small -- smart alternative and messages we do not repeat it. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth but for some advantages sometimes to the government. you proposed a government funded government owned solution. many of my colleagues across the

aisle called a big government. they resist that. they want to turn over virtually everything to the private sector. >> i am a free market conservative and if i thought that the market were such as to supply this item as it does for airline transportation or computers, then i would want the government to buy it off the market. my observation is that well i'll just put it like this. last year ula conducted one commercial launch in something like a dozen national security or other government launches your that's the ratio of free market to national requirements. so i suggest i'm urging the committee to consider regarding this item as a national security item first with some possibility of dual use. but for the national security side, if we believe it to be so then we must ensure our supply

chain and that's everything from prospective control systems and guidance systems to ground infrastructure to airframes the engines. we must ensure a cradle-to-grave we and the national security community have taken care that we can get every item we need. spent i like your argument because we do need a shirt access. you want to form to use the ula racial last year as the appropriate mix but it could be ula is the highest cost provider for commercial and that's why so much of the basis has been taken by spacex. but because of that to our certain it's the only the government can perform to we should step up into debt and fully pay for those unlike we're doing with her overall defense budget because were still rely on sequestration and borrowing the money, essentially from the chinese, that we've got to get real and this committee has failed in that regard. i'm a little worried about the

aspect of the air force demanding competition and performance and everything, and then you are the gatekeeper. so you could slow walk or prevent otherwise qualified vendor from achieving success. assume the rise of six or seven years is worrisome because we won world war ii in that timeframe and now everything is slower in the modern age. i'm a little worried with the spacex certification to it was six months longer than expected. i want to which all are dotted and t.'s are crossed. sometimes we're not quite sure what it is lost in the bureaucracy. general greaves? >> congressman cooper, just let me restate that we are 100% focused on expediting our transition off the rd-180 as well as ensuring we have a level playing field between all applicants for that work effort.

and we have not to date excluded any other proposed options to include -- we have a four step process which will drive us to inclusion expeditiously and we do have the opportunity if we find that for one or more reasons that one of the, one or more the proposals we we do know when the close, will not meet requirements can someone get me what we need to essentially go back to step one which is a technical maturation activity to pursue in engine development. >> that sounds like such a great answer when you said expeditiously and that sounds great but the definition of expeditiously and the modern ages six or seven years. years. >> sir, i'm talking step to which is the rp we are truly assessing, awards between september and december of this

year. it's a two-step process. a set of additional proposals we have no even meet or not meet the requirement narrow it down and moved move it on because you are from the previous panel these providers have been working on this issue for quite some time on their own and we do not believe it will take and exorbitant amount of time to get a decision spent we all hope it will not be an exorbitant amount of time but we heard the far part 15 problems. >> if i could i think that was one of the things underline your question. with the air force used was in the van transaction or they are using far 15. that's a very important tool they are using to expedite not only the speed but the innovation. it's not as prescriptive as we discussed earlier specs so it's not as scary as far 15, the big

monster, but this is a little monster. >> this is like boo-boo spent osha to be comforted by that. essential question of fact there space ask testifies they can handle 60% of national security loads. 60%. ms. mcfarland in her testimony said that they can do for of eight which sounds like 50%. and dr. griffin in his testimony said two-thirds of the payloads would be grounded. so what is it? spent i will answer first. i was privileged to be asked to serve on the mitchell committee last year as deputy chair to look at rd-180 alternatives and we surveyed the manifest at that time. and two-thirds of the individual flights and the manifest were on atlas v, one version of it for another.

that's just about. when spacex talks about can lift 60% of the payload i'm not arguing that's not the case but many of those payloads will be repeat version of the same thing. doesn't mean they can lift 60% of all possible spacecraft that the national security community has to be launched. >> do you have the legal ability to force the continuation of the delta medium? that's what spacex claims, eliminate any gap today. >> i am not a lawyer. >> general greaves, your are a lawyer argues because us, sir. i believe that the entire discussion of delta iv revolves around the ability of united launch alliance to remain

competitive with something like a falcon nine. mr. bruno mentioned before, they are asking for a time to transition between where we are today and whatever their new system, the vulcan is. to do that they need a steady stream of revenues to maintain the capability to get there. so from what they have briefed us, reef to me if the delta iv is forced to compete with a falcon nine it would not be cost competitive and most likely would not win. so without and mr. bruno mentioned it, without that assurance of a steady stream of revenue it would be hard to receive a capital investment they need to make that transition. so it's not in our opinion whether or not the delta iv can meet our requirements are we can force them to stay. is i believe whether or not ula

can remain in business. >> so we could make it happen if we pay them to make it happen? >> yes sir. >> and, okay final point would be this. i'm worried over all that the short tenure of general ships does not meet these multiyear national security capabilities. so many of the personnel and leaders of these companies are retired air force come in when we have three year duty and i'm not impugning anyone's integrity, just seems like when we have a 20 year or 30 year time horizon on some these things we are rotating in and out personal. success is sometimes defined as punching the ticket on your command. if that's sufficient, because we are on the receiving end of a 20 year problem, and wonder where those folks are? >> i understand the argument pakistan, i really do but come

and it may be an anomaly but i would just point out i came back into the element of the business in february 2010. and i started coming over here to build in february of 20 and working this issue as a space acquisition person under the acquisition chain for two years then vice commit the space command, another command a space command. so i've been in this area to focus on this for over five years, and this is essentially a port to me personally to make sure we get this done correctly because i don't want to leave a problem for the people that come after me because i understand that i finite amount of time left and should i want to make sure we get it right so that folks who come after me don't have to worry about this problem spent your a good man, if i get only problem is a very long time for the air force but that pales in comparison to admiral rickover's tenure with maybe nuclear spent i understand the

argument. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> and the point of the ranking member is naked i complete agree with. my frustration that we have these short tenures are really sharp people like you did would be nice if we could make those instead of three years, six years or thereabouts. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine come is recognized. >> turn one. since the issue is a question came up i will take an opportunity to show what i think a lot of us on this panel worked on very hard. every year we reauthorize the department of defense. every week appropriate funds for the department of defense. we have done that again this year, and we have found a way to unwind sequester on defense for a year. and meet the president's budget request. some people would argue that the color of money isn't right. i would argue that they are

correct. i would also argue that the money spends the same way and the money is all green. what we need to do is unwind the defense sequester permanently, but for now we funded the department of defense at the president's budget request level. s.o.b. done and we worked really hard in both sides of them to make this happen. i would also let people know that when the president threatened to veto defense appropriations or to veto the ndaa after we met his budget request the world is listening to that and it doesn't help the situation at all. this is an important issue. we need to unwind the defense sequester permanently, and certainly i support that but the reality is every year we reauthorize the department of defense. every year we appropriate funds for the department of defense. this needs that same situation.

my question is when i heard general greaves talk about technical maturation step one and risk reduction as part of step one rocket propulsion system investment of step two, launched systems investment as step three. this sounds an awful lot like the same process that dr. griffin went through. and my question for you dr. griffin is what is inappropriate now but it was appropriate then? was about program unsuccessful which now have commercial crew and commercial resupply. it seems like it's at least working. why is this different? >> will come and major difference i think it's in the amount of money involved.

in the cots program at nasa taking us back to tenures, we allocated as we intended a very small amount of money across to providers, and the clear terms of the agreements were that there would be a very significant majority of corporate investment. that was our plan at that time. the program did work. we got two new launch vehicles out of the, domestic launch vehicles, the falcon nine and the orbital atk. i think it is a very different thing for the national security launch infrastructure to be told to purchase launched as a service, implying that there is an open market of providers from which the department can buy a launch on a marginal cost basis as if it were an airline ticket and all by the way to be told that have defined the develop of that capability --

>> is about not what cots was? >> and the funding of the development that led to speak at a small portion of the development specs of the level of investment -- >> money matters that's right. when we establish the cots program would want to see a major element of contractors skin in the game. we did not want to skin in the game to be entirely that of the government. if the government was going to fund it as a new development, then we should just do it as a prime contract spirit i just have a few seconds left and i just want to reiterate the point i made earlier, which is the department of defense will be fully funded, and the president needs to sign it into law. and i think it's critically important that we not take a risk of shutting down the department of defense because they present place we don't have enough money spent on the irs or enough money spent on eta or the

national endowment for the arts. that is not an appropriate thing to do especially given the threats we face in the world. with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chairman recognizes mr. coffman from colorado. >> turn one. general hyten, everyone figures to be in unanimous agreement on to point. first, that competition is good since it provides cost savings and resiliency and, number two that when it eventually transition off the russian rd-180 engine. i'm concerned we haven't rationally thought through that process and the timelines in other areas of national defense we would never consider phasing out a capability until we had confidence in a follow-on of werewere not going for example f-35 will be ready to fight

before phasing out the f-16. you know as a combat veteran i would never advocate for the phaseout of one weapons system into less confident the follow-on system is operationally ready to support the mission. in this space launch arena we are anxious to phaseout the rd-180 without full confidence that a robust capability is ready to replace it. what is the department doing to ensure there is no gap in a short access to space between the time the atlas and delta is phased out and the follow-on vulcan and falcon heavy become operational? >> congressman, i agree with your overall assessment. the first rule of wing walking you don't let go of one hand into the from hold with an eccentric unconcerned about to let go of one before we have a

firm hold on the next. i think it's very important that we logically transition off these capabilities. i think the effort that general greaves and acquisition community have come up with to reach out to industry broadly i'm up with a competitive strategy that looks about these different acquisition authorities to allow them to cost us as the acquisition process will allow them, has been exactly the right thing to do. i still am concerned that if he does everything exactly according to plan and we didn't engine by 2019 we still can't let go of the wing. that's why the department has come back to you and requested the ability to continue to rd-180 for the transition period, whatever it is. i agree with that request. >> general hyten, the supply of rd-180's workout to less than 14 engines -- were cut -- what would be the practical result? >> two possible practical results.

number one is ula can no longer be competitive in a competitive market and, therefore, they decide they can't compete and we move into another monopoly. the other is the government because of the assured access to space requirement besides that can't be allowed to stand and, therefore, for the transition. we decide to pay the premium and fly the delta iv at a price point to be significantly higher and pay the difference with the taxpayer dollars. >> general hyten, what is the department doing come and lieutenant journal -- lieutenant general greaves, what is the department doing to ensure you're not replacing a quote-unquote sole-source provider with a different quote-unquote sole-source provider? >> the whole approach we're taking it to protect how to develop the rocket propulsion system that will be available for the capability we need in the future. we're going down that path so we

can have that new rocket whether it's vulcan or whether it's the atlas first stage with the other pieces. we are going down that path and we have a much healthier and national base now. spacex is certified for an element of the capabilities soviet space accidents out there. so we have capabilities if we can take advantage of all of those systems and that's what our approach is trying to do. >> congressman kaufman, we initiated this in earnest last august with a request for information from industry and the been working with them very, very closely and rocket propulsion system effort on going out, step two as we refer to it. the goal is based on what we gather from industry on their capabilities across the board to an initial for potential candidate and then whittle it down to do. we are ensuring based on the

capabilities within the nation that we will reserve assured access to space. >> would you like to comment further? >> exacta with the two gentlemen here said the departments look at this as here we are we are not god the intellectual capital currently inside of our government let alone outside initially to do a one-to-one replacement. the rps, rfp out in the street is to grow the knowledge immediately under a special type of acquisition tool if you would, the ota. it has in their logical steps that would say okay, we can now see what is the quickest clearest most affordable way to get to closure. at this time that is i think the most prudent approach to doing it. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> chernow recognizes mr. lamborn of colorado for

additional questions you may have. >> i think the chairman. i want to follow up on a question i asked earlier. and if i could just go down the line starting with you, as mcfarland. it has to do with questions i would ask -- as the spacex. if you haven't submitted changes for the upgrade falcon nine, then how is it and how can it be said their system is certified for lunch or eligible for competition on the eelv? >> posted at hearing on march 17 they did come up with a statement of intent and, indeed, are working with the air force for the heavy launch, falcon nine. >> the other point i will say this part of the transition phase is moving to the full thrust engines on their murder and capability. that's a very similar process to what we went through of the delta vehicle when we went from and 68 to the 68 a. they worked closely with us as

they go through that. as part of the normal process that we work with both atlas and don't overuse. we've been on the upper stage as well. once we go through and certified the system which is basically a baseline capability as industry learns and develops new capability of they had to come back and demonstrate their changes go through the awlaki.com general greaves is the sort of our so he can ask -- talk about all the details so i will pass them. >> the air force is vested in my position as a certification official for new entrants. part of that in assessing spacex capability we're working with them very closely. in fact, i co-chair, meetings every two weeks with shotwell, elon musk level to assess the current status of what they have opposed any changes that they are envisioning or have realized into the system to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end we are well aware

of proposed changes to the falcon 91.1 system as part of the upgrade that was discussed in the other panel. we are daily, our teams are organic of mccain are working with spacex to fully understand what it will take to accept those changes whenever -- whatever they may be as a certified system. this is no different than we have done with ula in the past. in fact, last december when we flew the upgrade second stage engine, we went through a significant effort with ula ahead of time to understand the changes of that system, of the engine what it would do to the system and then certify the flight which we did last december and it's a very successfully for the first time. so today as we speak, spacex has provided what changes they envision for the upgrade falcon

nine. we are daily in an intense effort within to understand and hopefully certify that system. >> you make an test in the case of ula. will testify to be part of the protocol with spacex? >> as a basis yes sir but i will use the engine was qualified as part of ula's design and delivery process. we flew in for the first time with an operational mission, classified mission back in the summer. so it depends on the level, degree, i'm outcome impact of the changes that we're looking at to determine whether or not it would require a reef light or test flight. it is no different than what we don't historically with our launch providers. >> dr. griffin, would you care to comment? [inaudible] >> i would agree with general greaves with regard to

certification of new capability. in fact, i would say the idea that we fly a large number of repeated copies of rockets is something that may look to from the outside but truthfully it's a rare to go very long empty string without upgrading or changing something about the rocket. so you in this process of evolution, and certainly, certainly we don't give a non-value added test flight, a whole separate test flight with no payload because we go from attendee to tennessee. aegis would want to spend that kind of money. on the event when you're fielding an entirely new rocket you will do a couple of test flights. before typically before you could -- before you put a valuable payload on a. there's a judgment that has to be applied to determine when you're willing to risk an upgrade without a test flight

and when you need a test flight because of the upgrade is just so big that you don't want to risk the payload. >> for a couple of clarifications. ms. mcfarland, some people have made unhelpful comments out of the public that the money from the sales of rd-180 engine goes to quote vladimir putin and his cronies. can you clarify that please? >> congressman, i can't say where the money goes. a government buys launched services from ula but i can state on may 6 2014, they received anything if the united states department of the treasury, the united states department of commerce the united states department of state at the payments do not directly contravene executive order 13661 at this time and would inform the court in a case of such determination in the future had to be overturned. so from our perspective we did

exactly due diligence on this to ensure that the statements were not -- >> well, thank you for your back report and for the clarification. lastly i would like to clarify with the or possibly general greaves. waders reported at one point that the contracting approach used by ula to purchase rd-180 engines via m. ross employed quote-unquote question the contracting practices. dispatcher? >> congressman, no. it followed the standard process where the air force procurement contracting officer with advice from such agency, dcma dcaa examined the contractor approach for both the ula and ross edited a couple of things. they went through an essential get a price analysis to assess whether or not the proposed prices we would pay more within historical bounds. they also took a look at for

instance, the 68, what it would cost to produce the engine versus what we were paying for for the russian engines. they correlated all this information and also a shift cost study. in the end all the steps were taken. the rd-180's -- we followed all those rules and we vehemently dispute the accuracy of information. >> thank you for the clarification. thank you for being there. thank you, general hyten and general greaves for your service to our country. dr. griffin from ms. mcfarland thank you for helping our country as well. thank you, mr. chairman for indulging those questions. >> collective. glad for the questions. you know i mentioned earlier in the first panel of the house version of the ndaa for 2016 the senate language is different. so this is a question for all the witnesses.

please comment on the impact of the current fy '16 in the aa senate language regarding the prohibition of russian rocket engines. are nine inches from the 2015-2017 timeframe enough to maintain pressure access to space and kick competition going? why does this issue need to be addressed now? ms. mcfarland? >> no, it does not. we have in block one a. hopeful launch competitive launch opportunities but this would not allow us to have two viable competitors for. >> and then the follow-up to that is as the gotye phase to -- >> you can per? >> i concur with what ms. mcfarland just after it goes further than that because my biggest concern is when we get into phase two the pig between 18-22 where we have approximately 28 launches that we're going to manifest. they would be no atlases of able available to compete for those

launches at that time. that brings the whole discussion we had earlier about the viability of ula to get through that period. that's an even bigger concern to me as we get into phase to. >> i want to nature for the record we understand. both ms. mcfarland and general hyten have stayed nine engines are not enough to maintain pressure access to space? >> yes sir. >> general greaves? >> i concur entirely. it gets back to the entire discussion on whether not ula remains emerge with a viable to make the transition between today and 2022. >> that's important because? >> because they need a steady stream of revenue -- >> the big picture. we need to people? >> yes, sir. shared access space. >> we would be falling down on their overall goals by having to providers. >> may i comment? the requirement for to providers

comes more out of come if you will, my air. back in 1986 we lost in sequence a shuttle space shuttle a titan come and atlas and delta. by the second half of 1986 the united states have access to space capability at all. from among the many recovery actions taken following the loss of challenger, it was determined that we would end expendable vehicle agreement, keep to independent path to space at all times for national security purposes. that's now it's presidential policy for several past administrations and it is law. i think altavista is not 30 years old almost. i think we depart from that at our peril. >> one of the things you hear from the chairman of the senate armed service committee is we can just rely on nasa to make

sure we maintain necessary action to space. you concur with that interpretation? >> i do not. i am going to be visiting with nasa to see what they have in their as well as vehicle. someone understand and i'm sure general greaves and general hyten can explain for the come is a very costly way to set up an asset to omit to do for our mission manifest. >> general hyten? >> nasa uses aldus until for most of their scientific missions today. they are working down a couple of other paths space launch system with a giant rocket, china rockville for interplanetary exploration it is not built to put satellites in low earth or geosynchronous orbit. the good news is we meet with nasa the air force all the time to talk about the partnerships.

with great technology partnerships but they do not have a rocket system that would meet our requirements. >> i concur with what's been said before the one additional note is that my position also functioned as a flight more than certification official every nation zachary space launch. street space launch. that set of criteria that we use, i send letters for everyone of them, that criteria that were used to certify missions that are ready to the -- in most cases are somewhat different than what nasa is it because their risk tolerance is in most cases a little higher than ours because ours are low risk. so that would be a difference if we were told to go to nasa for these things. >> dr. griffin from used to run nasa. do you think we should be relying on massive? >> i don't because in actuality as was said earlier nationalized on the department

of defense for the procurement of delta and atlas launch vehicles for its own robotic payload. the larger rocket, the sos to which general hyten referred is intended for human exploration of the solar system which i devoutly hope we will resume. but to use it for unmanned and national security launches is possibly somewhat equivalent to using an aircraft carrier to transport cargo across the ocean. it would be a bit of an overkill. >> general greaves, what is the estimated cost of your for -- for par plant including agents logical infrastructure? what is the basis of that estimate? >> we do not have a final estimate. a lot of it depends on the assessment that we are doing right now. we do have the funding in 16 tv to address step to and step

three of the four step process but we are looking to see what estimates we get and will work that in future budgets. >> dr. griffin, what are your costs for existing launch vehicle and infrastructure? >> as general greaves said i can't know yet what the cost of a four-part plan will be. i will offer the opinion that they believe, i very strongly believe that the cheapest way for the united states to regain its national security launch independence is to re-engine the atlas like i said that in my testimony for the record. so i can't prejudice the outcome of the procurement process which is ongoing, even though i'm not an attorney i know that but i

do hope that the outcome of the procurement process result in a decision to re-engine the atlas v. >> ms. mcfarland, what would it take to offer in the current air force plan to path that is focused on developing an engine that complies with the law and without ever development of a new launch vehicle? >> i think it would be a good question to ask is actually the chance to review what's been proposed from the air force current solicitation. i think it would be a good question for the record and to think that would be a product. >> general greaves, you stated in your testimony quote a rocket engine is intended to replace the rd-180 onto atlas would most likely be usable only for ula's atlas. however, according to press reports orbital atk wanted the rd-180 agents a much they suit you like to get access to. that was so out of course and orbital went up with another russian agent but isn't it reasonable to conclude the

rd-180 would be flight on an atlas and atari today if orbital have access to the rd-180? >> chairman, the answer is yes, but i but i also said that without significant modification to receiving a launch system, the launch vehicle so yes the rd-180 could be transition to another launch system but it would come with models. ..

it's not fair to support where we need to go in the future. i think it is a responsibility in the department of defense and government should make sure the industrial base is is there for national security. inactive menu or questions but i will give back to the record because we have more than welcome you all i'm afraid. you have been enormously helpful to us and i look forward to continuing effort to get this into a new path of independence. with that comment this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> live picture from the u.s. supreme court today as the court has ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. the 5-4 decision came down after 10:00 this morning on the heels of the court decision yesterday upholding health care subsidies in the nation's health care law. gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry and 36 states and d.c. the ruling today means the other port in states where it's not legal will have to stop enforcing bans on same-sex couples getting married. we have a facebook question about the court's decision. go to face the.com/c-span and weigh c-span and weigh in. later we'll open our phone line to get your take on the supreme court decision in the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> again live picture outside the supreme court the supreme court of the high court has ruled today if i've-4 decision that seems to couples can get married in all 50 dates. this really means that the other 14 states where it is not biblical, states in the midwest and south, officials will have to stop enforcing bans on same-sex couples getting married. "the associated press" and associated press and there's pushback from mississippi. mississippi terminal general saying gay marriage him in a state geared more on that as it develops. a short time ago president obama appeared in the white house rose garden to comment on the hearing today. here is what the president had

to say. >> good morning. our nation was founded on a better sensible that we are all created equal. the project of the generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding works with the realities of changing times. a never-ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every single american. progress on this journey comes in small increments. sometimes two steps forward, one

step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated assistance. sometimes there are days like this when the slow, steady after is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt. this morning the supreme court recognized the con edition guarantees marriage equality. in doing so, they have reaffirmed that all americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. that all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love. this decision will and the patchwork system we currently have. it will end the insurgency of

hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples face by not knowing whether their marriage is legitimate in the eyes of one state will remain if they decide to leave and move for visit another. this ruling will strengthen our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great nation. in my second and natural address i said if we are truly created equal then truly the lovely commit to one another must be equal as well. it is gratifying to see that principle enshrined in the law by this decision. this ruling is a victory for jim old firm and the other

plaintiffs in the case. it is a big array for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for civil rights. is it to refer the children whose families will be recognized as the role. it is a victory for the allies and supporters and spent years and decades working and praying for change to come. and this ruling is a victory for america. this decision confirms what many believe in their heart that all americans are treated as equal we are all more free. my administration has been guided by that idea. that is where we start defending the so-called defense of

marriage act and we were pleased in the court struck down central division of the discriminatory law. it is why we ended "don't ask don't tell" from extending full marital benefits to federal employees and spouses to expanding rights for a train for patients and loved ones who may progress advancing equality for lgbt that was not manageable not too long ago. i know the change for many of our lgbt brothers and sisters must have seemed so slow for so long. as compared to so many issues, and america shift has been so quick. i know that americans good will hold a wide range of views on this issue. opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held leaves.

all of the should welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact. recognize different viewpoints revered deep commitment to religious freedom. but today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painful, real change is possible. shifts in hearts and minds is possible. and those who have come so far in their journey to a quality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join. because for all of our differences we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone. that has always been our story. we are big and fast and diverse a nation of people with different backgrounds, beliefs, different experiences and areas

that bound by our shared ideals that no matter who you are, what you look like, how you started off or who you love america is a place where you can write your own destiny. we are a people who believe that every single child is entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. there's so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of america to every americans. today we can say in no uncertain terms that we have made our union a little more perfect. that is the consequence of a decision from the supreme court, but more importantly it is a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of

millions of people across decade who stood up who came out. we talked to parents. parents who loved their children no matter what. folks who are willing to endure bullying and taunts and stayed strong and came to believe in themselves of who they were. and slowly made an entire country realize that love is love.

what an extraordinary achievement. what a vindication of the beliefs that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. i want to remind with rodney kennedy once said about how small actions can be like couples thrown into a still lake and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world. those countless, often anonymous here is deserve our faiths.

they should be very proud. america should be very proud. thank you. [applause] >> president obama reacting to today's supreme court ruling, the legality of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. the president now on its way to charleston, south carolina for the funeral of reverend pinkney. you can watch that on her companion network, c-span. on c-span2 we look at the sights and sounds outside of the supreme court for just over two hours ago the court announced that its ruling in a 5-for decision issued by justice anthony kennedy that same-sex marriage with a lot of the land making a constitutional in all 50 states. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] [chanting] [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] >> some other sounds just after the announcement that the supreme court had ruled in favor of the legality of same-sex marriage.

5-for decision made it legal throughout the states and district of columbia appeared for a little bit we'll listen in and then take some of your calls, give your reaction to today's supreme court ruling. ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪

we shall overcome. we shall overcome. ♪ ♪ ♪

[cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> live outside the supreme court building for almost two and a half hours ago we learned that the court had ruled in favor of making same-sex marriage legal throughout the country, all 50 states. it is constitutional. the ruling five to four in that case.

blue like to get your thoughts. call us now. republicans (202)748-8921. (202)748-8924 democrats. (202)748-8922 for all others. not all response has been positive. the number of 2016 presidential candidates weigh in him including republican mike huckabee to retain that this failed decision is an out-of-control active unconstitutional judicial tyranny. while i disagree with this decision we live in a republic and must abide by the law. we will continue to watch outside the core and get some of your calls and we will air the oral argument in the case here on c-span2 shortly.

first come at some of your response. chris in los angeles. what do you think? >> caller: thanks for taking the call. i respect them but the bible thumpers are the same people i think the earth was created in six days and that the big ring theory is just that, a theory. when i hear some of them can the rapture jesus will come down and it's the rapture. give me a break. when we stop caring about what happens in other people's bedrooms. let's just respect what this is and move on. on a side note did you see the note from a president obama missed the teleprompter and he was dumbfounded. he was like what is going on. ripples in the water. what was all that about. anyway i just want to say i

shout out to john oliver. >> host: thank you. out of corpus christi texas. ace joins us on the republican line. your thoughts on the supreme court ruling today. >> caller: verse about coming thank you for allowing us to see what is going on in our nations capital. some of us don't get to go there and to bring us in the screen or invest in the thick of it. i do have a conservative ideology by the callers respond make me feel where i am as i read an american to feel loved, acknowledged and part of a loving turn. i would like them to go look at some of this. the union between david and jonathan forced by god. the second king of israel between the kingdom of solomon. i would like them to see and describe with the union was set for by god.

god's love wins today and i think some of us republicans need to be on the right side of change. thank you very much. >> host: thanks for calling. donna go ahead. calling from virginia. >> caller: i am so excited because we have three adopted sons in our first son was on the 24th of june. he called me this morning. they say 28 years ago we were waiting in the parking lot for him to be placed in our arms and we are just so excited the supreme court has faded because god loves everyone no matter what their sexual orientation is. i am just so ecstatic. i saw your number and had to call whether it goes on air or not. this is very significant for my husband and i. especially today when our son at the age of 36 hours was placed in our arms.

thank you so much, supreme court. >> host: thanks for calling donna. join the conversation with us as well on twitter and facebook. we does@c-span or go to facebook.com/c-span. a couple folks weighing in on face the good life the federal government involved in marriage in the first place. cheryl says next at the supreme court would tell us to ban christianity and bibles. jean posts on facebook, this just in republicans are jumping off bridges and leaping from tall buildings because yesterday the supreme court held the affordable acton fair housing act and this morning we learned scotus approved same-sex marriage. zero the humanity. join the conversation. facebook.com/c-span or tweet speared dave you are up in massachusetts on the line for

democrats. >> caller: hi i want to say the supreme court did its job. he protected the minority against the tyranny of the majority. that's all i've got to say. gay donna in madison, wisconsin. go ahead. >> caller: hi i am donna and i think the it is only between one man and one woman and it's wrong -- it is only between one man and one woman. god made us to get married. it's really wrong for two men -- it is wrong between two men and

two ladies should not be married. >> host: things are calling. a reminder to turn on the volume on your tv. we will be out to converse a little easier that way. mike in brooklyn new york. you are up on the line. go ahead. >> caller: yes the president says the government shouldn't tell people who do love. that also applies to muslims and mormons who are polygamists. and have relationships with their teachers and schools. does that also mean i will tell them who to love there? and also the hasidic or belief in. does that mean that is also okay? these other things touch on

homosexuality and that is something that needs to be considered. .. to produce anymore people in the world. so seems like anybody with common sense that is the best thing but you know, everybody

got a right to choose which path they go down. you know what i mean? >> host: thanks for calling. we continue to watch the sites outside of the supreme court. still a crowd there. it has been an hour 1/2 after we got word that the supreme court had ruled that same-sex marriage is constitutional, legal now in all 50 states. david in illinois, live for republicans. what do you think? >> caller: now, about this, i am republican. i'm a christian. i don't believe in gay marriage. i don't think it is natural but who is us to stop them if they choose to? that is really all to say about this. it is their right to be happy. i don't agree with it but i'm not going to stop it either. >> host: all right. meeka in texas democratic caller. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i am calling from texas. i'm wondering why everyone is

saying, they have the right it is their choice, it is their freedom when everyone is overlooking the bible. how can you put mankind before what god says? and i don't understand that at all. because in the bible, it clearly states god made them male and female. he saw that adam was lonely he made a woman for him. he didn't make a male for him. he didn't make a female for them. the world has gotten so far from that today this is okay. everyone is uplifting that. and that is not okay. i just pray that god has mercy on us. when he comes back we are doomed. that is all. thank you. >> host: thank you. crystal, betsy lane, republican, line for republican callers. crystal, what do you think of today's ruling? >> caller: yes, sir, this is the way i think. god in the garden of eden he did not create adam and steve. he created adam and eve. this is an abomination.

because christians sat down on their butts and have not been praying this is why the country is the way it is. christians are the sleeping giant it seems. but, it is absolutely wrong for a man and woman to get married in god's eyes? sure. i heard a lady, god loves everybody. yeah god loves everybody but he hates what they are doing. he hates what is going on in this country. mr. obama said that he was going to fundamentally change america. he has done that. and the good folks have sat by and let that happen. my prayers is for all americans today. this is just blasphemy. it is wrong. sodom and fa more raw. -- gomorrah. this is the way i believe. >> host: hall, georgia franklin joining us on democratic line. >> caller: good morning. good morning on the supreme court ruling i'm glad they ruled and the people who are talking

about god and loving god in this christian nation that we have introduced us to slavery and i think what we need to do, we need to have all our war against the white lie and the false tongue that speaks it to all of the world. maybe we can all live like human beings because we are all human and we need to respect each other individual opinions and stop talking about god because the same god you serve cut babies out of women's womb, hung men, up on trees just for walking down the road. so when you talk about god, i think we need to look at it from a different perspective because you don't believe that much in pod. all you believe in is having your supremacy, your way. thank you. >> host: thanks for calling. the supreme court ruling today

5-4 that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. anthony kennedy justice kennedy, writing the decision for the majority. john roberts ant tin anyone scalia, lair recognize thomas, samuel alito in dissent in the ruling. coming up shortly on c-span2 we'll air the actual oral argument. you will get to hear how that went a few months ago before the supreme court. we'll show you some reaction on the steps of the supreme court building right outside of the court from earlier today. >> good morning. my name is jim obergefell. i'm from cincinnati, ohio. i have lived in ohio for most of my life. my late husband john and i were together for almost 21 years before he passed away as as a result of the complications of als. i am here today in front of our nation's highest court because my home state fought the

recognition of my marriage to john. when the man i loved and cared for an passed away from one. cruelest diseases known to humanity the state of ohio, the state which i have lived worked and paid taxes for most of my life continued to fight my right to list my name on john's death certificate. no american should have to suffer that indignity. that is why john and i and the 30 plaintiffs who are part of this lawsuit decided to fight. i know in my heart that john is with me today. that man cared for and loved me for 21 years through thick and thin. today's ruling from the supreme court affirms what millions across this country already know to be true in our hearts. our love is equal. >> it is. >> the four words etched on to the front of the supreme court equal justice under law, apply to us too.

all americans destroy equal dignity, respect and t atment when it comes to the recognition of our relationships and families. now at long last ohio will recognize our marriage and most important, marriage equality will come to every state every state across our country. it's my hope that the term gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past. that from this day forward it will simply be marriage. and our nation will be better off because of it. i also hope that this, that this decision has a profound effect in reducing the stigma the hurt the alienation and discrimination that lgbt people all too often feel when we live our lives openly and authentically. at the same time while we will celebrate today's victory my heart is also in charleston. these past few weeks and months have been an important reminder that discrimination in many forms is alive and well in america. it reminds us of the deeply

unfortunate reality that progress for some is not progress for all. and there can be equally significant steps backward as there are forward. if we're truly dedicated to our democracy and values we as a nation cherish we must be equally committed to insuring that all citizens are treated equally. that all americans deserve justice. that's when we're all united. i want to thank my legal team and especially gerhardt stein who stood behind me every single step of the way. thanks to aclu lambda, legal glad and mclr and litigators, organizations who fought for equality. today's victory our shared victory was only possible because of each and everyone of you. i would like to give a special thank you to mary and doug, who brilliantly argued our case before the court and eloquently apfirmed my life and relationship and those of millions of others like me across this country.

we owe you all a huge debt of gratitude. most importantly i would like to thank john. for loving me, for making me a better man and for giving me something worth fighting for. i love you. this is for you, john. thank you. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> this is mary benatto from gay and lesbian advocates defenders. >> hi, everyone i'm mary benatto. i argued question one. i want to say today was a momentous decision and it going to bring joy to millions of families, gay and straight across this land. and now every person in this country who is lgbt realizes they can marry tomorrow. they can marry some day the person they love and make that

unique commitment and take on that unique responsibility justice kennedy talked about this morning that is marriage. it is also a great thing for kids who no longer have to question why their parents were deemed unworthy of marriage and those kids can also have the same security and protections that marriage provides to families. this is also a great day for our constitution, make no mistake about it. today the court stood by a principle in this nation that we do not tolerate laws that disadvantage people because of who they are. so it is a day for equality, for liberty, and for justice under law. and as i say that, of course there are thousands of people gathered together, mourning in charleston, because it is still true in our nation that people sometimes are targeted and face unspeakable acts of violence because of who they are. so as we celebrate what is a

landmark ruling for love and for justice, let us also rededicate ourselves to insuring that every person in this nation can live safely and securely and have the freedoms and opportunities our constitution promises us. we need to do this for each other and we owe this to future generations. and i thank everyone who helped make this day possible, millions of people, the plaintiffs, the lawyers, everyone. thank you. [applause] >> douglas howard from ropes and gray. >> this is truly a great day for all americans. the court stressed in its opinion that marriage is fundamental. marriage is fundamental to couples, it is fundamental to the families they build around

their marriages. it is fundamental to society. it's hard to believe that just less than two decades ago gay and lesbian individuals faced the possibility of being jailed simply because of the person they loved. today the supreme court validates the full equality under law of all gay lesbian transgender individuals and the person they love and that they are entitled to the full measure of equality and dignity that the constitution promises. and by protecting the rights of gays and lesbians the court has proteched the rights of all americans because those rights that are fundamental should never depend on being able to persuade a majority that they should be tolerated. they are that is in fact the nature of being right.

but this victory did not come just by happenstance. it was the product of many decades of hard labor by many, many people led certainly by my colleague mary benatto who has been a leader in this movement for decades. it took the bravery of the plaintiffs willing to stand up and insist on their rights. and it took many, many organizations, the collective efforts of which today have realized this momentous decision, that we can all celebrate. thank you very much. [applause] >> have greg burke and michael. >> one two three whoo! >> i'm here with my husband

michael delion and our two adopted children isabella and isaiah. we're joined by a coplaintiff kevin johnson. his parents didn't quite make it but we're glad he did. we're just so grateful to be here. what i would like to start by saying is what i think everyone should say when something very good happens in their life. we need to pause and give thanks to god as lifelong practicing catholics that is how we feel. we feel like this is god's intention and god's work. so we embrace it and we thank god for it. michael and i have been together for 33 years. we've been legally married for 11 years. but not until today did the state of kentucky recognize our union. so this is a watershed day for our family. it is the same for all kentuckians and for all americans. it's been a long path for us in

our 33 years. we know that people have been fighting this fight for decades. many of them are here with us today. and we thank them all. we also thank so many people especially the aclu who has been so supportive of us, the stanford law clinic and our superb legal team back in kentucky who got us started. the faber law office and clay daniel walton, adams. we had so much support from some people including evan wolfson. we can't leave him out. he has been one of the founding fathers of marriage equality movement. none of us would be here without the foundation that has been laid over the last 30 years actually. so we're grateful to be here for the end. michael and i have been together through a lot of it. we never thought we would see this happen. we're so grateful today that we're here to be able to celebrate this. i'll tell you what this means for our family. this means that our children

will now be able to have two legal adopted parents two legal parents after 16 1/2 years being raised by the both of us. now we will finally be able to request from the commonwealth of kentucky, second parent adoptions. we will be a legal family in the state of kentucky. that means the world to us and it is very important for kentucky and the country. one last thing i would like to say. there is a song that we sing in our church. starts out, the stripe is oer the battle done. that is the way we feel today. we have overcome today. we are equal. we have earned equal rights to marriage and freedom to marry for all kentuckians for all americans and i will just tell you it feels very good, so thank you very much. [applause] >> director of the aclu-lgbt project.

>> hey there. hi everybody. i'm james essex director of the lgbt project at the aclu. this morning the supreme court welcomes same-sex couples into the american family. it recognized we make the commitment we expressed love and we need the protections that are at the core of marriage. and that makes today a watershed moment in the movement for lgbt equality and for the country as a whole. because today is an epic leap forward for equality, for humanity, for joy and for love. this journey started a long time ago at least as far back as 1967 when mildred and richard loving brought a case to the u.s. supreme court right here and supreme court struck down bans on interracial marriage. and it continued in 1970 when a couple named jack baker and michael mcconnell filed the first lawsuit in the country seeking the freedom to marry.

the aclu is proud and honored to represented milton and richard loving and jack baker and michael mcconnell as we represent jim obergefell and michael deleon. it is a day to celebrate and absolutely it is that. thanks to all the people that have been working on this issue such a long time. all the people that came out with their friends and employers and their churches. all advocates who worked in courthouses and legislatures and talking to the public because this is something collectively over time changed america's understanding of same-sex couples. we rejoice today because today's decision has made the country more fair, more free, more equal. in short more american today. and for that we are enormously grateful. thank you.

[applause] >> next we have pam, york, nicole. henry hodges in ohio. >> so we're one of the four plaintiffs for ohio. for us, this started out as a dream to add my name to our son's birth certificate. and it became so much more important and so much bigger than just that. i don't think anyone dreams more about having their marriage recognized in the state that we live in and the state that we work in and the state that we travel through than we do as a family. when you when you have kids, you do anything you can to protect them. and what we did was to protect them we brought this all the way to the supreme court. that is how much we love our kids. we're so happy that when we return home today that our marriage is recognized just the same as our neighbors marriage

is recognized. >> we are so proud and thankful to be a part of this case and be a part of you know, the historic movement that this is. i want to thank all of our attorneys. gearhardt branch, lambda legal and all the other attorneys that worked so effortlessly. without them we wouldn't be here and we owe a lot of gratitude and thanks to them. you know, so thank you. >> then also thank you to all the people that spent the last 50 years making this a dream come true. [applause] >> next is [inaudible] ♪ >> on death certificates, on bert certificates and we needed that done now -- birth

certificates. we needed that done now. turns out we ha to get marriage equality nationwide in order to solve this ohio problem. well we did that. we are so grateful to be part of this effort and proud to represent these plaintiffs and excited to be part of this historic moment. thank you. [applause] >> from lambda legal. >> today is a beautiful chapter in a love story. we saw wonderful decisions on this same date. lawrence versus texas. united states versus wind door, june 26th. a lucky day in the history of same-sex couples and gay rights. [cheering] and in this ongoing love story we see families families like the york smiths, mothers who care so much for each other and

for their children that they have come to the u.s. supreme court. today they sought justice. today they saw an affirmation of their dignity, of the commitment that they and so many other couples around this country have for one another. and their desire to support their children and their families on this joyous day in this american love story we can also celebrate what we have done as a society. our constitution has stood up for those long oppressed. and we also remember and grief for those in charleston who are suffering today. we were, are reminded until we have justice for everyone, until we have racial justice and we have justice for all gay lesbian, bisexual and transgender americans are work

is not over. so let wedding bells ring across the country. young people can know that if they're lesbian gay, when they grow up, they can marry the person they love. children will now grow up with the dignity and support of parents whose marriages are respected across the land. let wedding bells ring. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> host: some of the reactions from the steps from the supreme court today following the announcement of a supreme court ruling upholding same-sex marriage in all 50 states. a 5-4 decision. justice anthony kennedy writing for the majority opinion. they asked for equal dignity in the eyes of the law the constitution grants them that right. in a dissent dissenting view

from chief justice john roberts he writes, the majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. the right it announces has no basis in the constitution or this court's precedent. in a few minutes we'll get you will get a chance to hear the actual oral argument in the same-sex marriage case. you heard a few moments ago from james obergefell. he was the lead plaintiff in that case. we'll have the oral argument for you in a few moments here on c-span2. until then we would like to get more of your calls your response to today's supreme court ruling. numbers are on your screen. republicans 202-748-8921. if and independents auld others 202-748-8922. all right news from the associated press regarding gay couples getting married in atlanta. breaking news from the associated press that metro

atlanta court marries gay couple after ruling strikes down georgia's gay marriage ban. the ap though says, in mississippi, mississippi attorney general jim hood says that gay marriages can not take place immediately in that state. and john kasich, said that he accepted the marriage equality would be the new state policy in ohio following the decision, a case that started in the state. according to a spokesman for governor kasich, the governor has always believed in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman but our nation's highest court has spoken and we must respect the decision. earlier today the court made the decision 5 laugh 4 in this case but -- 5-4 in this cast but several more cases decided there were two decisions released today. of course the same-sex marriage

case on a 5-4 decision but the other case, 8-1 decision, the armed career criminal act was ruled unconstitutional. the rule, the court held that imposing an increased sentence under the acca's residual clause violates due process. so with that decision and the same sex decision today three more cases are yet undecided. and we could hear about those on monday. go to your calls. eunice up first from brooklyn, new york, on the line for democrats. >> caller: yes, i'm just calling in because i understand that our justices have spoken and it's what they had to do because government holds up so many things that they should be passing and what they should be passing they don't but they can't do anything about and then they go on he recess and all this. so now, the justices have to step in and do what they had to do. my objection is that same-sex

marriage i don't believe n first of all not only because i'm a christian, not only because i believe marriage is between a woman and a man. i also know that god does love everyone. he just hates the act. the thing i'm questioning right now, where do we go from here when it comes to our children their moral standards. where does it go from here when it comes to having children? what are we going to do? start inventing children for same-sex marriages? says between a woman and a man. that union is to be sacred. and then when you have these babies and things like that, how do you raise them in a right consciousness if you want to be this way and then they want to be another way? i don't understand that. this is my only argument with this. >> host: more live views from outside of the supreme court. the crowd thinning a bit, still almost three hours since the decision. quite a few supporters of the same-sex marriage decision on

hand. and opponents of course outside of the supreme court building. your calls continuing with austin, coming to us from vail arizona. go ahead. >> caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i'm so glad this happened today. really a day for the history books. under the constitution, the first amendment there is no, there is no discrimination against religion creeds, races. so this is just another way to further that idea in our democracy. thank you so much for the lgbt commune, aclu and the 30 plaintiffs that -- thank you so much. >> host: thanks for calling. michelle joins us from chicago illinois, on the line for democrats. go ahead michelle. >> caller: how are you doing? good evening. today is a sad day for me, because number one i have totally disagree with same-sex marriage number one. i'm from obama's home state

chicago, illinois, of course. and the mostly i'm concerned about is the morality for our children. and our kids are going to see. now i heard a previous caller early said, well, we shouldn't be involved in what goes on in their bedroom. they're bringings their bedroom out into the open and that gets everybody involved. . .

what do you think of today's decision by the court? >> caller: in the holy bible god says go to trial and multiplied unto me. there's nowhere in the holy bible that god wants us to have same-sex marriage or anything like that because to him that is an abomination of god and it is written in our holy bible under abomination and this is the way it is written. if guys like if you marry interracial it is an abomination of god. and also in leviticus if that any man who lays down with another man and has sex, we have to bring up much forward because

this is more like simon and gomorrah and it is like anything else. >> things were calling. north carolina jones is online for independence. but you think? >> our country is a republic. it is not a democracy and they need to go back through all the stations. you name it. number one, three bodies of government. judicial, legislative and executive. this is our agenda going on when they couldn't get era passed they went through the back doors of the courts and usurp the powers of the people in the data letting states rights prevail,

and all of this is really laying on the shoulders of those who have tried to usurp the powers of the states. i am not going to preach on the relative because i know what i believe, but i know my constitution and never in my life of 40 some years have i seen a more treasonous government than we have been wish the republicans ended democrat would look into the case of treasonous charges against the four people in washington. obama titan felicity and read. >> host: thanks for calling. one more call before we tear the supreme court oral argument in

the same-sex marriage case. time to join us in georgia. democratic caller. last word in this go around. >> caller: i was calling because everyone is talking about same-sex marriage and what god says in everything. a nobody's seen something -- [inaudible] created equal so everyone can be what they please. if they are have to bring all of our stuff into the open. [inaudible] yet they talk about all the things they do. if they don't like it they can do it they like. that is all you have to say. thank you feared >> host: thank you, tonya appeared all of this will re-air tonight at 8:00 eastern tonight on c-span2 as we look at the

crowd dwindling sunlight, but still in place three hours after the decision that the supreme court. today's ruling on same-sex marriage a five to four split decision that make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. anthony kennedy, the swing vote on the majority side decision. chief justice roberts and justices scalia, thomas and alito dissented in the decision. now on c-span2 we will reveal the audio in the arguments of the same-sex cage argued on april 28th of this year. >> we will hear an argument this morning in case 14566, obergefell v. hodges and consolidated cases. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court.

the internet committed relationships of same-sex couples just like those of heterosexual couples provide visual support are the foundation of family life in our society. if they commit in a responsibility and protection that his marriage is off limits to gay people at the class the stain of loneliness that follows individuals and families contravened the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. guiding purpose is to preclude classes of persons to second-tier status. >> what do you think in the windsor case when the court asks the federal government to start deference to state when it comes to domestic relations. >> they do have but they must respect the constitutional rights of persons in windsor could not have been clearer

about that. here we have a whole class of people denied the equal rights to be a lot to join for very expensive government institution that provides protection for families. >> eisai joined in the institution yet the argument on the other side as they are seeking to redefine the institution. every definition i like that prior to a dozen years ago to define marriage as unity between man and woman as husband and wife. if you succeed at core definition will no longer be operable. >> i hope not your honor. what we talk about here is the class of people who are by state laws excluded from being able to participate in this institution. does this really draws a sexual orientation line? >> my question is who are not seeking to join the institutions. you are seeking to change with the institution is. the fundamental core of the institution is the opposite of sex relationship and you want to

introduce into it a same-sex relationship. >> two points on that your honor. if you talk about the fundamental right to marry and a core male-female institution, we know it provides enduring guarantees and once we were viewed as the role of women as something that is changing our society. so in a sense, as the words court called out for not appreciating the liberty in stake in the same thing here come the question is whether gay people have the same liberty. >> one of the problems as you think about these cases anything about words and cases unaware that keeps coming back to me is millennia, plus time. there has not really been time

for the federal system to engage in this debate, the separate states. on a larger scale was about the same time between brown and loving lawrence in this case about 10 years. this time for the scholars and commentators in the bar of the public to engage in. but i don't even know how to count the decibels when we talk about millennia. the definition has been with us for millennia. it is very difficult for the court to say we know better. >> i don't think this is a question of the court knowing better. we are placing the debates have gay people are something contested for more than a century. in the last century immigration exclusions putting gay people in federal service is often

contested nuclear to 10 years of marriage from massachusetts but also the 1970s the baker case for minnesota reach the court over 40 years ago in over 20 years ago the supreme court seemed to indicate it would rule in favor of the american people have been debating and discussing and has been exhaustively. >> you arguing your brief that the primary purpose of the michigan law marriage to a man and a woman was to give me gay people. is that correct? >> the michigan statute amendment went out of their way to save say gay people were antithetical to society. >> did you say the primary purpose of that was to maintain people? >> i think it has that effect. >> as such are just a

michigander is that true of every other state? >> if we have the state that have constitutional amendments, a few states have statutes and inhabit my meds. some of them have none of the above. even if there's not a purpose to demean the commonality whether they were active long ago or more recently as they encompass moral judgment and stereotypes about gay people. even a hundred years ago gay people were not worthy of the concern of the government and the moral judgment. >> how do you account for the fact as far as i am aware until the 20th century there never was a nation or a culture that recognize marriage between two people of the same sex. can we infer from that those nations and cultures all thought

there is some rational practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is that your argument they were operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice. >> my position is time to blog. if you think about the example of discrimination by the 14th amendment took over 100 years for the court to recognize the constitution. in short order between reid and greg the wine we went from a basis approach to heightened scrutiny that this is in the dsm in the same vein would have the foundation for windsor. >> i don't think you're answering my question. can we infer societies out there is no rational reason for this and a practical reason for this. >> it takes time to see the

common humanity of people who had once been ignored or excluded. >> we would be asking for this if marriage was what it was millennia ago. a same-sex union would not have thought that into the pattern of marriage of their relationships of dominant and subordinate relationships as marriage between a man and a woman and whether it was their obligation to follow. there is a change in the institution of marriage when it wasn't egalitarian and a same-sex union and to what marriage was good >> that is correct. for centuries we had the system

where women's legal identity with the sword and you would then have different prescribed legal rules and again because of the changing of social circumstances, all of those differences in the rights and responsibilities have been eliminated and that of course is a system in which committed same-sex couples -- >> at not a universal aspect around the world. and the difference between a man and a woman does not always say in which the woman has subordinate legal respects. it's not a fair analysis of the situation. >> your honor the thing about marriages is controlled and related.

the states create the definition of liberal marriage. it certainly accountable in any exclusions and we all know cases in blocky and turner that people that are behind in their child support payments was a mixed rake up all who want to join the institution and even no exclusions or why traditional -- >> not all societies banned mixed-race marriages. in fact, not even all states in this country band. do you know of any society prior to the netherlands in 2001 that permitting same-sex marriage? >> as a legal matter? i am not. >> not a single other society until 2001. you're telling me they are all -- i don't know why.

>> taken the tradition of that was, the court still amazed the reason to maintain the tradition when it has the effect. >> the issue of course is not whether there should be same-sex marriage but who should decide the point. you are asking us to decide for this society when no other society in till 2001 never had it. how many states have voted to have same-sex marriage or legislature or by referendum. if the above income isn't it? >> i would count the state courts interpret constitutions. >> well, yes. the state courts all agree with you. once again, that is not the people. it is judges. >> in terms of this millennia, what has been the status of the

view of gay people in most of those countries. they been subject to the kind of discrimination they were subject to hear, where they welcomed into the worldwide community of was it free of discrimination? >> of rethinking of the world not every has the explicit constitutional guarantees for all persons of a quality that immediately sets the united states are from so many other countries. other now for 17 or 18 countries in europe and south america. >> there have been cultures and that is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. each increase as an example. was well accepted. do they have same-sex marriage

in ancient greece? >> i don't believe they have anything comparable. >> they have marriage, didn't it? >> yes. >> of the same-sex relations. people like plato wrote in favor of that, did he not? wrote approvingly of same-sex relationships. >> i believe so, your honor. >> at limiting to marriage of couples of the opposite sex was not based on gay people. >> i can't speak to ancient philosophers. >> marriage is different because they're controlled by the government. from an anthropological standpoint, justice khalil was careful to talk about societies. justice alito talked about cultures. if you read about the kalahari people were ancient peoples

they didn't have the government. they made it themselves. >> there were certainly prior to the united states would recognize that. but i nations to inform in 1787 and affirms the 14th amendment in 1868 that's when our nation made a commitment to individual liberty and equality. >> maybe are doing that. i would like the precise answer to the question you've been asked several times. it takes the form that the opposite view has been the law everywhere for thousands of years. among people not discriminating even make as gay people and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don't want to do it to change what you've heard, change what marriage is

to include gay people. why can't those states wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other state is or is not harmful to marriage. that same question has been put in many ways in the breeze on our subjects. we received it in three or four different ways. i would like to know so i can hear and understand just what your responses. >> i apologize if i haven't. and our system with the 14th amendment, which again sets forth principles with all the covered by and govern our lives. look at examples that cover chair. it is still something widespread in this nation for a very very long time and that changed in marriage was deeply unsettling to people. likewise, race is not used as a

basis for every single state is a matter of love but criminal law and constitutional law. changing that, virginia resisted 80% of the american public was west virginia on that. a question of individual liberty of the person considered a profound change in its time. >> as we roll in your favor in this case and after that a group consisting of two men into women apply for a marriage license would there be any ground for denying them a license? or would be the reason? >> one is better to stay but say such a thing as a marriage that beyond not concerns about coercion and consent and disrupt team relationships. i want to go back to the waiting a question for a moment if i may.

>> i didn't understand your answer. i hope you'll come back to the earlier one. >> what if there's two men into women that is not the sort of polygamist relationship existed in other societies and still exists in some societies today. but say they are all consenting adults highly educated. they are all lawyers. what would be the ground under the logic of the decision you like us to hand in this case. it would be the logic of denying them the same way? >> i assume the state would rush in and say we did talk about multiple people joining into a relationship that it's not the same with having marriage which is the mutual support and consent it to people. setting that aside -- >> i don't know what kind of distinction not as because the marriage between two people at

the same sex is not something we have had before. recognizing that if a substantial break. maybe a good one. why is that a greater break? >> assuming the question becomes one of justification i assume the states would comment and say there's concerns about consent and coercion if there's a divorce in the second life does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child. who is it that makes medical decisions in a time of crisis. lots of family disruption issues setting aside coercion and consent in someone that don't apply here. talking about two consenting adults who want to make the commitment. that is my answer on that. if i may turn to the wait and see wait and see has never been considered a legitimate justification under the 14th amendment. while we talk about here is the

petitioners being denied marriage and a second-class status. >> waiting to see if to ascertain what they do social science studies are accurate but it seems to me then we should not consult at all the social science on this. you say we don't need to wait for changes. it seems to me if we are not going the way it is only fair for us to say we are not going to the old social science. >> 2.19 if i may. in terms of waiting, it does can find same-sex couples. setting that aside vis-à-vis social science, in the michigan

case in arkansas and florida these issues have been aired repeatedly and there is a social science consensus that there's nothing about the sexual orientation of the parent that will affect child outcomes. this isn't just research about gay people. it is the same genders for 50 years. >> you are quite right the consequences of waiting are not mutual. on the other hand one thing that is extraordinary about the issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society. i don't know what the latest opinion polls have shown. the situation is cared to wristed. in 2009 by referendum day band gay marriage. 2012 they enact it as law. that sort of quick change has been a characteristic of debate.

if you prevail there would be no more debate. closing the debate can close minds. we will have a consequence on how the new institution is accepted. people feel differently if they have a chance to vote on it than if it is imposed on them by courts. >> there is a few points and i hope i get them all. with respect to me one thing that separates me from the states we talk about here is the constitutional amendment in place largely shuts down the process is extraordinary difficult in an opinion was a measure in any way in approving an amendment so there's some serious structural problems that did not apply. in terms of acceptance, i think about the nation as a whole and

there are places where there's no protections for gay and lesbian people in parenting. the michigan petitioners are not allowed to the parents of their own children so the children have approved of their adoptions. >> i'm concerned about the ways done in the constitution a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many citizens for religious reasons. they are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists. the states adopted by law, they could make exceptions to what is required for same-sex marriage who has to honor at and so forth.

once it is made constitutional law, those constitutions, for example is it conceivable that a minister authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if in deed the court holds that have a constitutional right to marry. is it conceivable that would be allowed? >> your honor, the constitution will apply and they marry any couple they don't want to marry. >> to this day would never held a constitutional right for these people to marry and administered to the extent his conduct during a civil marriage, he is an instrument of the state. i don't see how you could possibly allow the administrator that will only marry a man and woman. i will not marry two men, which

means you could have ministers who conduct real marriages that are simply enforceable at the national cathedral but not at st. matthew's downtown because that minister refuses to marry two men and therefore cannot be giving the state power to make a real estate marriage. i don't see any answer to that. i really don't. >> counselor, there have been discrimination laws in various states, correct? antidiscrimination laws and in any of those states have ministers been forced to do gay marriage? >> of course not. >> there are laws. they are not constitutional requirements. the whole point of the question. if you let the states to come

you can make an exception. two men can marry. ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will be authorized to conduct marriages. you cannot do that once is a constitutional prescription. >> i believe it is firm under the first amendment that a clergy person cannot be forced to officiate a marriage he or she does not want to officiate. there were other questions if i may. >> he is just not giving the states power unless he agrees to use the power in accordance with the constitution. seems to me you have to make that exception. you can't appoint people who would then go ahead and violate the constitution. >> of ever talk about government individual claire judge is a

different matter they have to follow through and make some exceptions after the court permitted marriage to pass a law to deal with the issues including ms. liberty issues. >> if it is a state law he can make exceptions. a constitutional requirement and every state allows ministers to marry people they are affected under state law. that will not be the case if we hold a constitutional matter that the state must marry two men. >> ms. chernomyrdin, maybe you're not understanding justice scalia's question. many rabbis will not conduct marriages between jewish and non-jewish notwithstanding they have a constitutional decision against discrimination and make it all the powers and privileges of the state even if they have

that rule. many rallies won't do that. >> it leaves the question open. >> do you agree that ministers will not have to conduct same-sex marriage? >> i believe that is affirmative . who decides it is not about the court versus the state. inmates the choice of whom to marry. >> thank you, counsel.

[shouting] >> would you like to take a moment? >> i will. thank you. >> mr. chief justice, the court is ready. >> rather reflash in actually. >> mr. chief justice, you may please the court. the opportunity to marry excluding gay and lesbian couples demeans their children and denies the couples and their children the stabilizer structure that marriage affords.

the principal argument of what we've been discussing this morning so far is whether this discrimination should persist is something that to the political process or whether something decided by the court. i'd like to make three points about that if i could. first it is important to understand if this court concludes the issue should be left to the political process, but the court will say is that the meaning taking class status victory in two and lesbian couples now inhabited in states that do not provide for marriage is consistent with protection of the laws. that is a validation. second, the thought is this could be left to the process because we take care of it up over time because attitudes are changing. although no one can see the future it seems much more likely the outcome would end up with a something that will approximate

racial segregation. many states can limit equal dignity and status but a minority of states in which gay couples will be relegated to the second class status. i don't know why we would repeat the history. >> i want to expand on what ms. bonauto said. you did recognize the position to be this to the political process is going to impose enormous cost of constitutional stature in windsor. thousands and thousands of people about their lives and go to their deaths without their states ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationship. >> you could've said the same thing 10 years ago. how about we learned a

tremendous amount? >> your honor, that's quite a critical point. i think lawrence was an important catalyst. but lawrence did was provide insurance for gay and lesbian couples could live in society as free people and start families and raise families and participate fully in their communities without fear. it has brought us the point where we understand in the way we did not understand the gay and lesbian people in gay and lesbian couples are full members of. we now understand do not justify. >> the difference of course is the state cannot intrude on the personal relationship.

it seems to me different with the argument the state must sanction and must approve the relationship. >> it is different. i agree. the second thing catalyzed for societies was gay and lesbian people lay claim to the abiding 14th amendment in a way that is impossible and ostracized. this is about equal participation unequal terms in the state conferred status. i think what it's allowed us to see the justifications excluding gay and lesbian couples just told. the court has raised the question whether what we talk about here is a fundamental change in the nature of marriage

and the answer to the question is this case can be decided by thinking about marriage in exactly the way the states have defined marriage now. it's important to think about it this way. heterosexual couples can enter marriage and have families through a biological procreation and have families through assisted reproduction. they cannot have families at all. >> what you think are the essential elements of that exist today? >> the essential elements of marriage are the obligations of mutual support and responsibility and benefits surrounding marriage that state law provides to ensure there is an enduring bond that continues over time unless hopefully till death do us part through the end of life. certainly child-rearing is bound up in what i would suggest is

the way in which is quite different than what my friends on the other side. >> would think about two groups up to people. the first is a same-sex couple who've been together for 25 years and they get married either as a result of the change in state law or as a result of a court decision. the second two people are unmarried siblings to put together for 25 years. their financial relationship is the same as the same-sex couple. they share household expenses household chores in the same way. is there any reason the law should treat the two groups differently? >> the law allows 100% of heterosexual people to enter into a marriage consistent with their sexual orientation and

then they state the verb is 100% of gay and lesbian people entering into a marriage consistent -- >> as far as the benefit and married people such as windsor. what would be the reason for treating the two groups differently? >> marriage is something more fundamental than that. a bond between two people. i think this is quite important. i understand the argument that what respondents are saying here is they want to exercise caution and welfare of children raised in same-sex marriage households. there is a problem with the rationale. right now today, hundreds of thousands of children are being raised in same-sex households. the number is only going to

grow. all of the evidence shows you there isn't a problem. the state's argument is quite ironic that it will deny marriage -- >> all the evidence shows -- all the evidence -- >> i think all of the leading organization to say to you there is a consensus. >> some of the breeze contradicted that. >> beyond that the fundamental point in trying to drive back here 50 of hundreds of thousands of people in same-sex households now own workers on his positions caution leads u2 is the conclusion that those children don't get the stabilizer structure in the many benefits of marriage. >> i would like to follow-up the line of questioning justice scalia started. we have a confession from your friend that clergy will not be required to perform same-sex

marriage. but they are going to be hard questions. what a religious school that is married housing be required to afford same-sex couples? >> i would like to make three points about that. i'm a muggle right at the question. >> the first one is of course the scores ruling addresses with the state must do under the 14th amendment in the second point when they get to a question like the one your honor asked, that is going to depend on how states work out the balance between civil rights laws, whether they decide they will be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not and how they decide the accommodations they allow under state law.

>> how states use their powers first in the states. >> that is certainly true. there is no federal law banning discrimination based on orientation and that is where the issues workout. these issues are going to arise no matter which way you decide this case because the questions of accommodation will arise in situations in state where there are and in fact commitment ceremonies were they denied just a few months back. that arose out of a commitment ceremony and the commitment ceremonies need -- >> the court held that college is not entitled to tax exempt status and opposed interracial

marriage were interracial dating. with the same apply to university or college. >> i don't think i can answer the caution without knowing more specifics. it will certainly be an issue. i don't deny that. is going to be an issue. >> i have one question. i'm interested in your comments assessor should have to defined a fundamental right in its narrowest terms. a lot of the questions we are asking your colleague in the earlier part of the argument had that in mind. what do we have to defined in a narrow way? >> we recognize the profound connection between liberty and equality. the united states is at an end the fundamental rights. i'm not appropriate having break the commenting.

>> on the way to make it. >> what we do see is this profound connection. for reasons like the ones in the chief justice question that this issue sounds an equal protection because the question is equal participation in the state confers status and institution and we think of an equal protection in terms. in the little time i have left out the usage with the respondents are ultimately sane is with respect to marriage they are not ready. yes, gay and lesbian couples can live openly in society and yes they can raise children. yes they participate fully as members of their community. the petitioners

>> they are saying they were to the people. will that work out later or not. >> what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying promise to the 14th amendment now and it is the duty of the court in this case as it was in lawrence to decide what the 14th amendment requires. but i would suggest a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, raise their children side-by-side with the rest of us. they contribute fully as members of the community and is simply untenable to suggest and they can be required to wait until the majority decides it is ready to treat tran gay and lesbian as

peoples. they are equal and they deserve equal protection of the law and deserve it now. >> thank you general. >> mr. byrd. >> respondents are not saying we're not ready yet. they are echoing questions just as i was asking. the cases and how to define marriage. it is who gets to decide the question. the people in the democratic process or the federal court that we are asking you to affirm every individual's fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage. the whole case turns on questions -- >> nobody's taken that away from everybody. every individual in the society chooses their orientation or who to marry or not mary.

i suspect even with a scathing gay rights to marry that there is some lesbian gay people who will decide not to. some people who are heterosexual choose not to marry. >> we're talking about the fundamental liberty in deciding the question of what marriage means. >> i thought i heard the answer to the question being given in respect to tradition of 2000 years in the democratic ballot boxes so forth is quite simple. what i heard was marriage is fundamental. that is true for 10,000 years. and marriage as the states administer it. to vast numbers of people who adopt children, don't have

children. but there is one group of people who they won't open marriage too. so they have no possibility to participate in the fundamental liberty. that is people of the same who wish to marry. so we ask why. the answer is people have always done it. you could've answered that the same way we talk about racial segregation. because certain religious groups there is no question about sincerity but as a purely religious reason on the part of some people sufficient and then i look for reasons three four and five i don't find them. what are they. so therefore i put a long question that gives you an opening to say what all those

reasons are. >> justice breyer those dancers wanted to or not her answers. answer number one is the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or second-class status to anyone. it developed to serve purposes that by their nature arise from biology. imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. men and women would still get together and creating children that would be attached to each other in any social institutions. the marriage on the other side is all about love and commitment i made this agree it's important. if we try to solve the problem where there's no marriage we would solve that by saying let's have people identify and recognize those relationships. >> i understand that argument in your brief but same-sex marriage does in advance the interest in

regulating procreation. let's assume for the moment that obviously same-sex partners cannot procreate themselves. but are you saying recognizing same-sex marriage will impinge upon the state interest will harm the state interest in regulate appropriation through marriage? >> we are saying that. this is not a question you need to decide. >> all the incentives, all of the benefit would still be available. they are not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. they would have the same incentive to marry in all the benefits that come with marriage if they do that.

>> justice kagan and justice ginsburg this is a much bigger idea than any particular couple and what marriage might mean to them or to their children. when you change the definition of marriage to dealing with the idea that we are binding children with her biological mom and dad has consequences. for example of -- >> at the problem. marriage doesn't do that on any level. how many married couples to fathers of the benefits or requirements of marriage walk away from their children. it is not that the institution of loud does that and without a doubt father is going to stay in the marriage. he made a choice. >> it would be gender-neutral. some others do the same thing. the point is i am not sure how i get to the point that justice breyer is making and how does

marriage with one group was same-sex couples increase the value to the other group. >> justice sotomayor, all sort of societal pressures are dealing keen keeping kids in biological moms and dads together when possible. >> excuse me, just answer that question? is it important to show that it will harm marriage between a man and a woman if you allow will have to matter women to marry. the reason for this institution is reason that has nothing to do that is an applicable to same-sex couples. >> you're exactly right.

i want to answer the question. >> before something as fundamental to a society of individuals that marriage before an exclusion of this kind could be made in a dictation this statement some reason reason for the exclusion. it's a real opportunity to tell me what the reason is. what is the reason for the exclusion rather than the reason for the noninclusion. >> it was the definition to solve a particular problem. the reason there's time if you change the definition because in people's minds of marriage and creating children don't have anything to do each other, what do you expect. you expect more children outside of marriage. >> do you think that is what he would do if one allowed same-sex marriage, one would be announcing marriage and children have nothing to do with each other? >> not in the abstract.

>> not in the abstract, not in the concrete. >> and we talk about something will change the institution over generations and no-fault divorce and it has consequences over the long-term is some people did expect. two couples identically situated have been married for five years of age have a 3-year-old child. one grows up believing marriage is about keeping a couple bound to that child forever. the other couple believes that marriage is more about emotional commitment to each other and they do not stay together. a reasonable voter could believe they would be a different outcome if the two marriages were influenced by two different belief systems. ideas matter in the out of wedlock birth rate -- >> that assumes same-sex couples could not have a more noble purpose and that is the whole

point. same-sex couples they of course we understand the nobility and sacredness of the marriage. we know we cannot procreate but we want the other attributes of the two show we too have a dignity that can be fulfilled. you are arguing to say this harms the brief as i said it. >> justice kennedy, the state of michigan.use the word of every human being in the matter orientation or how they choose to live their lives. our point when you change the definition as chief justice roberts is saying the definition existed for millennia applied over generations, the change is not her. >> true. the fact is a very high

percentage of opposite that people don't have children and everybody knows they can't. i'm sure it's pretty high up is to get married do have children. so where's this going. what are they to do with it? >> how to get from what we just said. some kind of rational or important decisions. >> we are concerned about the children of opposite couples and same-sex couples. 73 million in this country if this court ensconce is a new definition of marriage and reduces the rate opposite couples stay together bound to children because of the understanding. >> a reasonable voter with the two couples i describe believing it's all about staying with kids, the other believing it's about commitment could have different results. >> the problem is even under

rational basis standard, do we accept the feeling? i think justice kagan put it quite clearly with something as fundamental as marriage why would that feeling which doesn't make any logical sense controller decision-making? >> it doesn't make any logical sense that if people think marriage is about love and commitment and standdown your child forever that there might be different consequences. >> i think people who get into marriage are heterosexual couples. >> everyone has their own vision. they are bound to that child.

voluntarily and meaning they don't want to. but i same-sex or heterosexual couples. >> what are you are describing are different ways people think about marriage and a harm to a child of an opposite not couple if they get divorced to stay together forever. we can all agree in general that they want to stay bound to their biological mother of other whenever possible. >> i think they should be bound to their parents because there's a lot of adopted children and they are -- >> that's completely different. that is a situation where the child doesn't have their biological mom and dad anymore for whatever reason. that's a different state interests. >> suppose there's a state within a preparation view of

marriage of the kind you're talking about. emotional commitment and support all of these the state thinks is not the purpose of marriage and they want their marriage licenses to be addressed only to the thing which served as procreation purpose. ..

that states interest is in finding those -- >> what is your answer to the question? >> would it be constitutional? i think would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy to ask the question. >> to ask if you want children is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy speak with this like it would be unconstitutional -- >> suppose a couple, a 70 year old couple comes in and they want to get married. [laughter] you don't have to ask the many questions. you know they're not going to have any children. >> a 70 year-old man is still capable of having children and you'd like to keep that within the marriage. but leaving that aside there's a tailoring issue under rational basis which we submit applies here. and overinclusive this is not something you need to worry about. even if you applied some heightened scrutiny, many people get married thinking they can't have kids or won't have kids and

end up with children. the inclusion of those couples advances the states interest because of this great idea. >> you are the one who said rational basis, pure rational basis applies and this is the state that decided that it's a wants this procreation center view of marriage that is going to exclude people who don't want children. it's going to exclude people who can't have children. and the question is would that be constitutional? it seems to be that close directly from your argument that it would be constitutional. but the problem is we hear about those restrictions and every single one of us said that can't be constitutional. i'm suggesting that the same might be true here. >> that it can't be constitutional to keep the marriage definition as to what justice is as mentioned has been applied for millennia. >> keep the definition as you describe is for procreation centered that states can exclude

everybody that does not serve the purpose for that reason alone. that's the reason you've given. >> that's the primary interest. if you concerned about the over inclusiveness underinclusiveness, the plaintiff's definition of marriage, other definition of marriage us suffer from the same flaw. the plaintiffs definition excludes relationships, families that have been discussed this morning for my benefit from having state recognized marriage. it includes people who have no real emotional love or commitment towards each other. they get married for other reasons. if those are the reasons why -- >> a reason for marriage is to provide a lasting bond between people who love each other and make a commitment to take care of each other. go do you see a way in which that logic and limited to two people want to have sexual relations? why that would not extend to larger groups from the one i

mentioned too many to women come or why would not extend to unmarried siblings who have the same sort of relationship? >> it would be over and under. the underlying point is that there doesn't have an interest in love and emotion. if justice kagan and i had a close friendship the confidence of regulate when the friendship begins or ends. a government so interest isn't about love. it's about binding children to their biological moms and dads the possible. >> i think we can accept that kind of definition, and so they point out that many gave people want to have children, and they do. i'm not certain how that works here, but i'll think about it. the other thing that you will have a view on and will be helpful to me is it is an argument being made if not by the government, and i'd like to respond to it but after all, marriage is about as basic a

right as there is. that the constitution an amendment 14 is a you cannot deprive a person of liberty certainly of basic liberty without due process of law. and had to take a group of people were so little distinguishes them from the people you give the liberty to at least in terms of a good reason for not two and you don't let them participate in this basic institution, that that violates the 14th amendment. now, the reason i'm interested in that is we don't get into this more scholastic effort to distinguish between rational basis and middle tier and some higher tier and so forth. and it's not going to get into all these questions of balancing free religion rights versus gay rights and so forth. we avoid that in this case.

perhaps that's why his if not legally required, which it may be. i'd like your response to that aspect of the other side's argument. >> i think with respect to the right of privacy which identify this court answered that question in his majority opinion in windsor when you said that the limitations of marriage speed it wasn't a right of privacy. what i said was that the right to be married is as basic to liberty as basic and fundamental liberty not the right of privacy the right to be married, which has existed for all of human civilization, that is the right which is fundamental. and therefore when a state offers down to almost everyone but excludes a group -- i'm just repeating myself but i want that question answered to the best of your ability, please.

>> i'm using right to privacy interchangeably with the fundamental right that you're speaking about. in windsor this court said that the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples has always been thought to be fundamental. now, you could change -- >> i suppose i don't accept for arguments sake your notion that the right of privacy and the right to be married our the same thing. okay now, we'll do is my hypothetical, please. and my hypothetical is they are different things. and on that assumption i would like to know what you think of the argument. >> i think windsor compared with mr. chief justice, is dispositive on the because of the limitation -- >> the problem is that i don't actually accept your starting premise. the right to marriage is i think is embedded in our

constitutional law. is a fundamental right. we said it in a number of cases. the issue is you can't narrow it down to say but is gay marriage fundamental? has black and white marriage being treated fundamentally? the issue was starting from the proposition of calm come is the right to marry fundamental? and then is it compelling for a state to exclude a group of people? and that for me is as simple as the question gets. >> justice sotomayor, i'm not arguing with you or justice breyer about how broadly or narrowly we should be defined the fundamental marriage right. i point out under this court's long-established precedent and fundamental rights area which is designed to great the ballots were federal courts are not always anything but the state democratic process, back in windsor you already answered that. it does doesn't have broadly or narrowly redefined. what's been fundamentally understood as a limitation is

the opposite sex nature of marriage. >> i'm not sure it's necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. i mean, if sue loves joe and tom loves joe, sue came near him and tom can't. the difference is based upon their different sex. why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination? >> all of this court's lead of our precedents in this area and sexual discrimination law have always involve treating classes of men and women differently. that's not what we have. even more fundamentally than that, this court has recognized that it's appropriate to draw lines based on sex if it's related to biology. if you'll indulge me just for a minute, that case is important. you recall that's the case where we had a law that determines citizenship children born to divorced or unmarried

individuals overseas. a lawsuit if there was the child of a citizen mother and automatically and citizenship. but if it was the father then the father had to prove paternity and child support payments up to age 18. that's an obvious sex determination. >> the court rationale for that was we know who the mother is. we are fearful that the father is claiming to be the father for some benefits that is going to get from that status but we can't be sure he is the father. >> that was the justification for the proof the pair to. i would like to quote from the opinion about the second interest, the child support. the court said the company had an important interest in ensuring an opportunity to have a meaningful parent-child relationship between the biological father and the child, and the law advance that interest and this is why. is almost axiomatic that a policy which seeks to foster the

opportunity for meaningful parent-child bonds to develop has a close and substantial bearing on on the governmental interest in the actual formation of that bond. that is the exact same interest that the respondents are advancing here when they talk about the definition of marriage. >> is not in the nguyen case the father could get the status of a parent. he just had to do some things that the mother didn't have to do. it wasn't difficult. here it's a total exclusion. into nguyen case, the father was complaining that he shouldn't have to do anything other than what he mother did and the court said yeah you do have to do something. it's not much. >> but the gist of the court opinion, justice ginsburg was that the state had an interest in the biological father child bond not only improving it but also ensuring that it is sustained.

it against sustained. it is the exact same interest that the states have an attractive inextricably bind kids to the biological moms and dads. the few change the meaning over the long haul, it has consequences. i started to take a few minutes ago that the out of wedlock birthrate in this country has gone from 10% to 40% from 1970. i think everybody would agree that's not a good result for children. to the extent that you're changing the meaning of marriage is -- >> that was in chains because of the recent gay marriages. >> no. i'm not saying that at all spent in massachusetts we've got data that the rates have remained constant since they change their laws spent right but as several justices have noted that safer short timeframe. >> but you're the one who bought the statistic up. [laughter] >> and under your view it would be very difficult for same-sex couples to adopt some of these children. i think the argument cuts point against you.

>> what i'm talking -- >> it goes to the big -- the basic point where you begin where you have some premise that only opposite sex couples can have a bonding with the children that was very interesting, but it's just the wrong premise. >> that's not my premise. the premise is we want to encourage children to be bonded to the biological mother and father. we don't did not at all disagree at all that same-sex couples can be bonded to the chilly. we hope that's the case. >> this is what i think it's difficult for some people with your argument, is that it's hard to see how permitting same-sex marriage discourages people from being bonded with her biological children. if you would explain that to me. >> if you're changing the meaning of marriage from one where it's based on the biological bond to one where it's based on emotional commitment, then adults could think, rightly this relationship is not about adults do not about the kids. not the case with the plaintiffs in this case. we agree their body to the kids and have the best interests at

heart. when we're talking about over decades when laws change, when societal views on marriage change there are consequences. what this comes down to is whether, not whether you agree or disagree with me on a reasonable vote on whether that could happen. enjoy these policy lines, every marriage definition excludes and includes some people. the possible harm is when you change that definition is -- >> want to read what is your response to the fact that if we assume a basic purpose of marriage is to encourage an emotional and rearing bond between parents and children, that allowing gave people to marry will weaken it? after all some non-gay couples have children mimi and some don't. some gave people married have children and some don't. so what's the empirical connection? that's what i have a problem with in your argument.

>> justice breyer is relatively simple. if you delink marriage from creating children, you would expect to have more children created outside the bonds of marriage. a reasonable voter -- that's government conduct. >> right now take -- >> the empirical part of what you just said, if you believe that marriage is i just heard you say it, but i didn't follow it. >> and because you're changing slightly the states interest. you're talking about the states interest in bonding parents and children generally. if that was the interest that motivated this definition to come into being, there would be a different answer. >> but i've never heard of a state that said it is our state policy that we don't like adoption. i've heard of many states you say it's very important to treat about the children and same way that you treat natural children.

i've never heard the contrary. >> yes, we agree. >> if your argument depends upon god, i'm stuck. >> let me be clear. we love adoption. adoptive parents are heroic. there you are talking the children who have for whatever reason death disability abuse, have already been separated from the biological mom and dad are when we're talking about adoption that's an entirely different social issue that gets solved with different state interest. what we're talking about here is that world where there is no marriage -- >> they are connected spent they are related sure spent if you think about who are of the potential adoptive parents many of them are same-sex parents who can't have their own children into the want to experience exactly the kind of bonds you're talking about. how does it make those children better off by preventing that from happening? >> we allow someone regardless of their sexual orientation to

adopt. >> but you yourself are saying that the recognition of marriage helps the children aren't you? i mean you would rather have the whole basis of your argument -- >> correct. we want it to be the glue. that's correct. >> more adopted children and more marital households, whether same sex or other sex seems to be a good thing. >> that's the policy argument and reasonable people can disagree simply and compassionately. >> i'm asking how it's not a good thing. i'm just saying it just seems to be inexplicable given what you said on your policy interest. >> because if you change the societal meaning of what marriage is and society has always started to move away from what we always understood marriage debate that linkage between kids and her biological mom and dad. the more the link is separated the more likely it is when

you've got an opposite sex couple, that link will not be maintained because it's more adult centric and less child centric. you get more kids being raised without her biological mom event. more kids being raised that both parents can give up without a father but that's always the case. it's not unreasonable for the people in thinking about the consequences of changing the definition which has existed as justice kennedy said for millennia, might have real consequences. to say otherwise is to say it's irrational for person to think that changing an idea and about something one effect about, i know people think about that idea. >> you change party about marriage is the point i made earlier. marriage today is not what it was under the common-law tradition, under civil law tradition. marriage was a relationship by dominant male to a subordinate female. that ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982 when

louisiana's head and master rule was struck down. no state was allowed of such a marriage anymore. would that be a choice that a state should be allowed to have? to cling to marriage the way what's most? >> absolutely not because the state didn't have a legitimate interest in making anyone subservient to anyone else. the states entire interest springs out of the fact we want to forever linked children with her biological mom and dad when it's possible. i want to get back to this point of line drawing and the marriage definition of the plaintiffs and the federal government proposed. no matter where you draw the lines they're going to be someone out. what you're asking to do is take an institution which is never intended to be dignitary selling, and make it dignitary dustin. us to argument or when you do that tens of thousands of other children who don't meet their definition but likewise he left

out and suffer those exact same dignitary out. we are talking about the specter of marriage definitions different places to drop a line and potential harms on both sides, that is the quintessential place for the democratic process to work. >> just interest to you, i don't understand is not dignity bestowed. i thought that was the whole purpose of marriage, if this does dignity of both men and women in a traditional marriage. it's dignity bestowing and his party say they want to have that same nobleman. am i missing the point? >> i think you're missing my point. if we go back to the world where marriage doesn't exist and thus it is time they got how do we link together these kids with the biological moms and dads the glue our benefits and burdens, but not necessary dignity. dignity may have grown up around marriage as a cultural thing, but the status of interest in

bestowing are taking the dignity from anyone. certainly is not the states intend to take dignity away from same-sex couples or from anyone based on their sexual orientation. >> many states would be surprised with reference to traditional marriages cannot enhancing the dignity of both parties. i'm puzzled by the. >> the main point is that states don't intend to bestow dignity but if you turn into a dignity bestowing institution, other family structures and children were excluded from the definition would suffer a to b. terry harmon. you can't draw the line there. when you talk about balancing harms and imports are letting people decide the most fundamental of questions, how do we define marriage, it has other important things to think about. one of those is when people at act through the democratic process, it forces neighbors to sit down instantly discussed an issue and try to persuade each other through reason, love and logic. we've seen that happen in 11

states. if you read some accounts that could happen in many more quickly. when you enact social change of this magnitude through the federal courts, it's cutting off a dialogue and a decent one group gets their definition and the other is maligned as being irrational were filled with animus. that's not the way our democratic process is supposed to work and our long-term harms to our country and to the fundamental liberty interest to govern ourselves. although thinks this court talked about if you take away that dynamic, if it's a court imposed definition as opposed to one enacted by the people for the democratic process. >> of course, mr. bursch come we don't live in a pure democracy. we live in a constitutional democracy. the constitution imposes limits on what people can do and this is one of those cases. we see them every day, when have to decide what those limits are of whether the constitution speaks to something up against

the democratic processes from operating purely independently isn't that right? >> it is right. as we discussed in a brief, that isn't a constitutional limit that tells people one, a marriage definition that it had for millennia is so irrational that it's unconstitutional. we haven't seen that under this court's sex discrimination jurisprudence that these laws should be struck down. under the fundamental rights doctrine -- >> that's the question of whether there are equality limits or liberty limits. let's go back to the liberty limits that you just talking about. now the rights to marry. we've had love in we had zablocki. we interpret in all these cases what we talked about is right there. we didn't try to define the rights. is the right to interracial marriage? is their right to marry if you're a prisoner? we just that there's a right to

marry. that is fundamental and everybody is entitled to it unless there's some good reason for the state to exclude them. so why shouldn't we adopt the exact same understanding? >> you walked through those same cases that you just mentioned, scanner, maynard griswold, loving, zablocki. every single one of those talked about marriage in the context of men and women come together and creating children. >> they were dealing with testing fugitive in with men and women come together but the question was there might be a black woman, a black man or a bi woman and a black woman and a white man. there was no inquiry into whether that was a traditional form of marriage. if there had been such an inquiry in this country they would have come up pretty short. >> right. historically that was a part of the tradition. and more importantly -- >> historically it's not a part

of the tradition, that's right. because there's no good reason for not to be part of the next edition. >> because india is this commission based on race had absolutely nothing to do with the states interest in linking children to the biological -- >> unloving was very clearly not just a racial case. it also was a liberty case and, indeed, loving was exactly what this case is. it's a case which shows the liberty and equality are intertwined wasn't? >> no. in loving if the couple could not get married they could not have they cannot enjoy private intimacy at all because it was subject to criminal prosecution and jail time. all of these cases that we've been talking about whether this court recognized a fundamental right to marriage, there were other laws that prohibited -- >> what did that have to do with prisoners?

if the states interest is in fostering procreation between natural parents, it seems to me that the prison who at issue today. it said you can could get rid if there's a child on the way. and that would foster or promote the interest. we said that's not enough. the fundamental right to marry does bestow an important connection that we can't deprive the prisoner of even if the president at least at the moment and presumably those serving life sentences, have no chance of procreation. >> as you will wear this court decided to present a case of the one was taylor, the one thing to refer to. the others bother. even to imprison us in expectation of getting as and has right to consummate their marriage. in butler you said when someone is serving a life sentence is

appropriate for the state to deny them the opportunity to marry because they never had that opportunity. you were time vested interest that we are asserting here to marriage. let's take away all laws regarding cohabitation and intimacy outside of marriage so that there is no criminal conduct the underlay for all those things. if a state decides that no marriage, that wouldn't violate a fundamental right. the fundamental right at stake was the right to be left alone not the right to force the government to come into your home and recognize something and to give you benefits. those are two very different things. you can draw the analogy to the abortion context. i'm reluctant to bring that up but in roe v. wade and casey this court says the government cannot interfere in the private choice. that's a fundamental right. the court says that a woman cannot force the government to come purchase the impact by paying for. likewise lawrence said the

government cannot interfere in private intimate conduct. our position is that the court cannot say but yes, you can force the state entities relationships by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone. that's not the way our fundamental rights doctrine works. justice kagan, to get back to point again about how the constitution test the limits there haven't been any identifiable limits that defeat the states interest that you have to somehow change one of those doctrines. you have to change the fundamental rights doctrine change equal protection doctrine. when you change those you also change the balance between the federal courts and the people voted in the democratic process. >> to me it seems as though you were doing something different that we have never done before which is you are defining constitutional rights in terms of the kinds of people that can exercise them. i don't think we have ever done that.

are we seeing a constitutional right we have not defined by these people can exercise it but these people can't come especially in the case where the claims are both rights-based and equality base. it would be like saying in lawrence, there's only a right to intimate activity for heterosexual people and not a right to intimate sexual activity for gays and lesbians. we didn't do that. once we understood that there was a right to engage in intimate activity, it was right for everybody. >> absolutely but that's the states all point, is that we're were not drawn distinctions based on the identity, orientation of the choice of anyone. the state has drawn lines the way the government has always done, to solve a specific problem. it's not meant to take away dignity. >> it must be. that's what you're drawing distinctions based on sexual orientation. >> no because the state doesn't care about your sexual orientation.

what the state cares about is a biological reality. >> i'm not asking about your reasons and we have any or not. but when you have any or not, you're drawing distinctions based on sexual orientation. >> no. a statute that facially classified based on sexual orientation would look very different. what the to do is that disparate impact and you'd have to demonstrate them under washington v. davis backers of animus that motivates this. the court has said repeatedly -- >> it is not to starting back. is leading a group of altogether. it's not that more of this group and less of that group. >> right but as you said 100% impact doesn't necessarily mean animus. >> what did we say? something about if you prevent people from wearing yarmulkes you know that it's discrimination against? is that we said in bray?

>> the case i was on the was one that affected abortion and you're going to have that. >> sorry. the case that a document said what i said. >> right. [laughter] >> should i read anything other than come also to go back and read windsor again and i'll go back and read glucksberg begin. i don't believe there's anything in those cases that says the basic liberty of right to be married is a right that extends only to opposite sex couples. those weren't really issues indicates as they are here so i'm surprised if this court actually wrote that. but if it did write that and you immediately call that page to mine, i'll double look at it. i just doubt it's there but i'll take a look at it. >> i apologize for not having page. >> that's quite all right. i read the whole opinion. >> you will find the court majority said is the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples is lisbon thought fundamental. >> is the limitation.

>> that was then and this is now. >> the fundamental right has the right to marry and you said it's the limitation -- >> this court acknowledged -- >> did justice breyer join that opinion that said that? >> i believe he did. >> my lord. [laughter] >> sometimes context matters. spirit if i could briefly continue. >> i'm surprised we have this case in front of us. it's been so clearly decided spent do you want to wrap up? >> i do want to wrap up. these are very emotional issue for people can disagree. the states generally, michigan specifically, has no animus. it doesn't intend to take away dignity from anyone. we respect all parents to help they love their children. this court taking this important issue away from the people will have dramatic impact on the democratic process, and we ask that you from.

>> thank you counsel. ms. bonauto, you three minutes remaining. >> first i want to say that the idea that the ideas of marriage will change is a false dichotomy. right now different sex couples can choose to marry and we are children. they can choose to marry at 70 or 90 because of their commitment to one another. we honor both marriages. it is like same-sex couples who are foreclosed from marrying under a division. we agree these restrictions are, in fact linked to gender. there's official classification and their sex link in an additional way. that is i just do what is a proper relationship for a man to have, a real and for a real woman, and that is not what the person of the same sex. onto the nation loves adoption and and, in fact, michigan has placed intensely vulnerable children with these petitioners who have nurtured and to help each other. does michigan tonight emerge

because they didn't concede those children together, when michigan would let other adoptive parents who are different sex couples marry? no. michigan is trying to buy because it does not approve of the adult relationship that matter what the protestations they follow. next we hear a line is not disrespectful because it's a drawn based on biology. one casualty of the marriage litigation is an impoverished view of what is marriage and what is the role of biological procreation. the states entire premise is that if same-sex couples marry, then different sex couples will not and have their children in a marriage. those two could not be further apart. people make their own decisions. it is beyond attenuated. the idea also that there of the people who raise children, and good for them, if something of course i hope policymakers would support but it's adult relationship we're talking about at the foundation are different adult relationships. telling same-sex couples who have made the commitment and

have committed to raising children that they can't is what is stigmatizing. if i may, my last point is that the only way i can really understand michigan's points about procreation and biology and so on this when i look, for example, at page 31 of their brief. they say what they care about is people who have children together staying together and providing a long-term, stable situation for their children. that interest applies full force in this context, because by denying marriage to same-sex couples, you're denying not only the protection for the adults which is independently important, you are denying those protections and that security that would come from having marriage. so with that thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the court will take a brief

break and return to the bench in five minutes of argument on the second question presented. >> we will now here are on the second question presented in this case. mr. hallward-driemeier. >> mr. chief justice, and it please the court. the question to petitioners already married. they have established those enduring relationships and they have a liberty interest that is of fundamental importance to these couples and their children are a state should not be allowed to effectively dissolve that marriage without a sufficiently important justification to do so. these petitioners have built their lives around their marriages including bringing children into their families just as opposite sex couples have done. but the nonrecognition laws undermine the stability of these families, though the states purport to support just such

stability. >> i was somewhat surprised by the argument you made in your brief because they are largely what -- i thought the point of question two was whether there would be an obligation to recognize a same-sex marriage entered into in another state where that is lawful even if the state itself constitutionally does not recognize same-sex marriage. i thought that's the question in question to. wrung? >> it is the question in question to. this court's decisions establish that there is not only a right to be married, but a right to remain married, that there is a protected liberty interest in the status of one's marriage once it has been established under law. >> even if that marriage is is not lawful under the receiving state law, bright?

>> that's right. there is definitely -- >> is that right? i suppose well, let's say someone gets married in a country that permits polygamy or does a state have to acknowledge that marriage the? >> the state could assert justification for not doing so and i think they would be justifications for not recognizing such -- >> what would they justification be? that is contrary to the states public-policy? >> i think a they justification would be that the state doesn't have such an institution. a polygamous relationship would raise all kinds of questions that the state's marriage laws to address. >> it would be the same argument. we don't have such an institution. our marriage in this state which we constitutionally can have because the second question assumes that the first question comes out the way the united states does not want to come out, the state says we only have the institution of heterosexual

marriage. we don't have the institution of same-sex marriage. >> the institution is the institution of marriage. >> you say that. the state doesn't. estates is the only institution we have this heterosexual marriage. >> the point i'm making i think is devastated by what has happened in the states where by court order states that you permit same-sex couples to marry. all that has happened under their law is that it had to remove gender specific language and substitute it with a gender-neutral language. >> could i because i don't come if you want to finish answering justice scalia. >> i was going to say that will relationships raise all manner of questions that are not addressed by this states current marriage laws. what if one state says that individuals can marry at the age of puberty? so a 12 year old female canary. would end of the state be obligated to recognize that marriage is? >> i think probably not.

the state would have in that instance a sufficiently important interest in protecting the true consent the married person. most states don't recognize the miner's ability to consent certainly not do something that is as important as marriage. what we see is quite in contrast to the nonrecognition laws, the states do recognize the marriages of person who, by age would not have been able to marry within their own state. that's the long-standing practice of all of the states precisely because of the abomination as it was referred to in the old treatises of the notion that persons could have a different marital state in some jurisdictions than others. >> how about their consanguinity situation? virtually all states would recognize cousins through marriage getting married, but there's at least one state that

doesn't, right? are you saying that that state is -- >> i think that the constitutional test is the one that the court set forth in zablocki, which is does the state have a sufficiently important interest not to recognize that? in the case of incest the state does have a sufficiently important interest is that this is not incest. they are not biologically guided. >> the states that i'm aware of that have the roles against cousin marriage do so under their incest statute and they simply define incest in a broadway that would encompass cousins to marry. certainly the familial relationship is to extenuate i don't think the state would have a sufficiently important justification. >> the assumption of his hypothetical is and of the way these cases are presented, is that the state does have a sufficient interest so that you need not allow the marriages in

that state. so there is a sufficient interest under our arguendo assumption, to say that this is not a fundamental right. suddenly if you're out of state it's different. why should the state have to yield? >> at the very least you have to analyze differently the interest that the state may assert for not allowing couples to enter marriage versus the interest that they assert as related to a couple who is already married. for example, kentucky has asserted that its interest in only permitting opposite sex couples to marry is to increase the birth rate. apply that theory to same-sex couples were already married. they are already married in the states where they were marriage. they are already married and have the state in the country. kentucky would have the court believed that it is a sufficiently important interest

to have that couple disregarded their existing marriage vows and obligations to each other to marry someone else in kentucky go to procreate biologically even though the couple may already have children together. that is not a rational justification, much less a sufficiently important one. >> i think what kentucky is saying is that the long-term effects of having same-sex couples in kentucky will be which you didn't agree with but what counsel for respondent argued in the prior case, in heterosexual marriages a reduction in the number of children born to those marriages. >> your honor, this court has rejected that type of speculation as a basis for drawing these distinctions you for as it did in loving. the state in loving argued that it was too soon to know what the effect of interracial marriages

would be and what the stigma would be on their children if not the biological -- >> we will not have rejected it todidn't come out the way this question presented assumes we have come out. saying that it's okay for a state not to permit same-sex marriage. >> the state deserves it has an interest in the stability that marriage provides for children to that interest does not justify extinguishing marriages that already exist. >> may be clear this one thing. if the petitioner prevails in the first case, then the argument is moot right? >> that's absolutely right your honor. >> so you are supposing a situation where the plaintiffs do not prevail and so a state can retain its ban on same-sex marriage. the question is does it have to recognize marriage from out of state likes wouldn't make any

difference if the couple came from the state where there is a ban on same-sex marriage goes to a neighboring state that allows it, and then comes right back home again and? >> no, your honor. i don't think that would be such a distinction. none of these four states draws that kind of line that your honor presupposed. that's one of the points that so important here is that as the court observed with respect to doma in windsor the nonrecognition laws are a stark departure from the state's traditional practice of recognizing out of state marriages even though they could not have been celebrated within the state. it's a circumstance where the laws the verge of issue arises. the three states that have this issue, tennessee, ohio and kentucky are the two been able to identify only five instances in which they did not recognize

a marriage that without outside the state can you do not could not have been celebrated inside. inand those instances are incest which we think this they would have sufficiently important justification not to recognize, miscegenation laws, but at present which i think the court would want to live in this instance, or of interest i think probably would not survive today such as the rule against allowing a divorced person to remarry. and more importantly, the most recent of those cases is from 1970. so the rule of the states fight about their ability to disregard, to effectively dissolve marriages that already exist, around which people have already begun to build their lives come is less applied than the federal government owns authority to define the -- >> but again, i think you're avoiding the presumption on which we are starting, on the assumption, which is at the

states policy for supporting same-sex marriage is sufficiently strong. they came, as a matter of public policy prohibit and own state. you are saying it's about so much weaker when you're talking about marriages from other states. >> i think there are a couple of points i'd like to make in order to distinguish the situation from the question in the first case. in the first case it was a significant case it was significant that respondent's counsel is emphasizing he thought it was merely rational basis scrutiny that would apply. that was to the question of whether people should be allowed to marry in the first instance. our petitioners on question two already married. we know from windsor because the court held that once married a couple has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their marriage. we also know from windsor now where a sovereign disregard the marriage in a way that would be extraordinary and out of

character with tradition that requires at the very least careful consideration. and that's what we have. >> survey undermines the state interest that we would have recognized in the first case to say that they must welcome in their borders people of being married elsewhere. it will simply the be a matter of time before they would in effect be recognizing that within the state. because we live in a or a mobile society and people move all the time. in other words, one state would basically set the policy for the entire nation. >> they would be many fewer such couples raising children with -- within their borders that heterosexual couples who are raising children were not biologically linked to them. i have to say think the arguments state has made are so over and underinclusive at the same time that they leave the feeling that it can only be pretax.

we know that's true. the state not only can't draw the lines that they are purporting to come a don't draw the lines that it would suggest and they would never draw the lines that they -- >> i've lost you what lines are you talking about? >> a line that limits marriage to those couples were able to procreate biologically without any assistance. that states don't draw those lines. the states have laws that treat adoptive relationships with the same legal effect as biological once. they actually have laws to further support and give greatest ability to marriages that use the state said reproduction. >> i thought you argument would be different. i thought the states had never categorically pathological and a particular kind particular kind of marriage as against public policy. that is certainly another -- >> one of the four states had ever done this. they had never done that.

until the doma issue. out of the law and precedent in many respects. you are saying that the laws in some states, the state you referring to that recognize only opposite sex marriage are pretextual? >> their nonrecognition laws are pretextual because the long-standing practice of the states is to recognize marriages that are so but i'll swear precisely because of the fundamental -- >> we have the distinction. what is the next post dramatic variation that exists in the marriage laws of the state? >> certainly interracial marriage when -- >> the present time. what is the next most dramatic difference of? >> i think if i could the anti-miscegenation laws actually are the closest analogy, but

what's different between them if i could because the coast of justice sotomayor's question -- >> i asked a simple question. at the present time what is the next most dramatic variation in the marriage laws of the state? >> it probably is age. >> what's the range of? >> i think it goes from 13 to 18. as i said before the tradition of the state the issue does not come up that much but the tradition of the state is to recognize a marriage that was entered into by someone of an age that could not intended within the state because of the nature of the marriage once that's established recognizing the fundamental nature of the relationship is not one that the state should put asunder. spent that you answered that a state could refuse to recognize a marriage contracted in another state with a minimum age was

puberty? >> they could and i do believe that if any individual case that was shown that it was because of lack of consent, the state could decide not to recognize a marriage. but with respect to the categorical nature of -- >> he would have to be shown the presumption would be in secretary of state that someone aged 13 can't consent. >> i think probably the right to if it's a matter of 15 instead of 16 the court probably would recognize it especially if it relied on their marriage the couple had already conceived of a child it would do no one any good to destroy that marriage and a stable environment that might provide for the children. just as it does no one any good, it's really does advance the interest of the children of opposite sex couples to destroy the marriages that provide stability to the children of same-sex couples who are already

married under the laws of other states. >> your argument is pretty much the exact opposite of the argument of the petitioners in the prior case. we've never done this before, recognize a same-sex marriage. now you're saying they can't not recognize same-sex marriages because they've never not recognize marriages before that were lawfully performed in other states. you've got to decide one or the other if you win. >> no, i don't think so at all. was essential in common between us is that we recognize that the marriage that our petitioners have entered into is a marriage. it gives the same institution, the same most important relationship of one's life that this court has held out as fundamental in other cases. >> we only get to the second question if you've lost on that point already. if we said states do not have to recognize same-sex marriage as a

marriage. assuming you've lost, i don't see how you argument, you can't say that they are not treating a marriage as marriage went to have to do that in the first place. >> i think that highlights one of the problems of trying to decide the two cases differently. decided against petitioners on question one would forever real -- forever relegate those marriages to second class status and would raise all kinds of questions whether those marriages could be subjected to laws that are not quite so favorable as opposite -- >> ewart we are doing question one of? >> i'm suggesting -- >> i thought you were. >> question to disappoint valid our petitioners marriages but we think the state cannot effectively dissolve existing marriages without a sufficiently important reason for doing so. this court recognized in the

lawrence case that marriage, procreation, family relationships, child rearing our fundamental aspects of autonomy that same-sex couples can enter into, can choose for purposes of autonomy to the same extent as opposite sex couples, especially when those couples have done so have established a marriage have brought children into -- like to give an example if i could, because i think that it sort of brings so much really happening. matthew and john married in california in 2008. in 2009 they adopted two children. in reliance on the protection that is afforded by marriage, and john was willing to give up his job to become the primary caregiver of their children. matthew is the primary breadwinner. his job in international an international

law firm was transferred from california to tennessee, and the cause of the transfer for that job for them was the destruction of the family relationship all that they had relied on in building their lives together. in support of that the states offer exactly nothing. there is nothing that the state needs to disregard that marriage. no reason the state needs to destroy the reliance. they are doing everything -- >> it would have been in the argument made with respect to the first question, namely, that the existence of same-sex marriages erodes erodes the giving of society regarding heterosexual marriages. >> i don't think that hold holds up because opposite sex couples who have no children, who may be beyond childbearing years winning the into the states,

their marriages are entitled to respect, and yet they are situated precisely as our petitioners are. our couples have marriages. they may not be able to procreate biologically together but they are able to procreate through assisted means through adoption. they bring children into their families just as opposite sex couples do. in reliance on their own state where they live they move into these states, that marriage is destroyed. this court relied on federalism the vertical kind in windsor to identify something that was highly unusual. it's horizontal federalism that identifies the something that's highly unusual. as part of a federal form of government in which the states are equal the states have exceeded some form of their authority. to recognize that when another

state creates an enduring relationship, encourages people to come in reliance on the protections the law affords, to establish families, that it is not that other states are simply free to disregard that which those states have created. in the corporate context once a corporation is established under the loss of one state that corporations exist in all of the states. the families that our petitioners have established are entitled to at least the same respect. i think that it is quite interesting to note that in the first argument, michigan was forced to argue some positions that i think are quite astonishing, that the state could limit marriage to couples who are capable of procreation without assistance or indeed that it could abolish marriage altogether. it's our clients to take marriage seriously.

they took bows to each other and bought into an institution that predates the bill of rights that is the most important and fundamental in our lives, and the state should offer something more than mere pretext as ground to destroy it. >> the state's rationale is we treat outsiders the same way we treat insiders. >> well, thank you, your honor. they certainly have offered that, but what the state ignores is that these so-called outsiders are already married. the state says we have same-sex couples in our state and we don't allow them to marry so going to treat you the same way. they ignore that our clients have already formed those relationships, and i think that it would be, in terms of the interests that distinguish between the two questions, it's

helpful to think again about heterosexual couples. we don't think that a state could limit marriage to only those couples who are capable of procreation. we don't think they could preclude marriage by women who are 55, but it would be quite a different and distinct constitutional violation for the state to dissolve the marriages of opposite sex couples when the woman reaches 55. i don't think that's constitutionally permissible. that states don't do that and of course, they never would do that. the essential protection against arbitrary laws is that the majority has to live under the same laws that they would subject the minority to. there is no chance the majority would subject themselves to such a law as that i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. whalen.

>> mr. chief justice and make it please the court. the 14th amendment does not require states with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other states between two persons of the same sex. >> what about article for? i'm so glad to be able to pull up a portion of the constitution that actually seems to be relevant. full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. now why doesn't that apply? >> this court cases have made clear that the court draws a distinction between judgments between states and the laws of each state. the reason in part that the court's decisions have said that is that otherwise each state would be able to essentially legislate for every other state. >> public acts? they would include the act of marrying people i assume. >> my understanding the

reference in the constitution to public acts is that each state's laws. >> there's nothing in the prosecution that requires the state to acknowledge even those marriages in other states that are the same. >> that essentially correct. >> really? >> under this court decisions that's essentially right. there has been under the jurisprudence with regard to allstate insurance and alaska packers and so forth that there's a minimal due process requirement to decline to the one and other states substantive law. >> we can say the only marriages we have knowledge in new york are marriages concluded in new york, is that possible? >> i'm sorry? >> new york can say the only marriages we acknowledge the new york are the marriages that have been made under the laws of new york. >> yes your honor. >> really? >> if i'm understanding your

question correctly. >> what case is that? what case would you cite to support that proposition? >> i'm not sure i understood the question correctly. >> i would have several cases to read. i might as well get another one last night what is the case that holds that the state of new york has the right to recognize only marriages made in new york? if you were married in virginia, new york has the constitutional right to say we treat you as if you were not married, whoever you are. >> i did misunderstand the question. my interest in the question was whether new york could decline to recognize and out of state marriage that did not comport with new york's law. >> that's not what i said. >> because it is clear that the law of the two states is the same, that was used against federer, that the state cannot say we will apply the other states law even though it's the

same as our own. >> even though it's the same as ours speak with just. >> like new york. i happen to know has a lot of federal judge in washington couldn't marry someone. you can get married to your own wife but you can marry two of the people but the district of columbia has the opposite law. if i marry two people in washington, d.c. and they happen to move to new york you are saying that new york doesn't have to recognize that marriage because it doesn't comport with the marriage of new york. is such a point? >> i think -- >> and what case is that? i think the our i.t. people going to get nervous about this. [laughter] >> my patch is based on potentially the court's decision in nevada versus all. because the states own law -- would be in conflict. >> the policy would be we distrust federal judges from outside the state.

even that they would get away with in your view. because i'm next going to ask, and what is the difference between that kind of policy and the policy that says we don't recognize that gay couples marriage for the recent that we fear that if gay couples get married, even if they have children and adopt them, even if we allow people who are not gay to get married and they don't have children, to spite all that, this policy which i've had a little trouble understanding warrants not recognizing it? did you follow that question? >> i probably could not but i'm going to try to answer. i think the underlying focus is not just that there's a policy but there's a legitimate policy. i proceed now on the assumption that the court has decided the first question in the states favorite and is determined that the policies osha maintain traditional man and woman definition of marriage is indeed legitimate and we agreed it is.

>> none of this has anything to do with article iv. none of this has anything to do with article for? full faith and credit, right? >> full faith and credit provides the background for the states to be able to assert. >> full faith and credit has never been applied to choice of law. >> in essence by deciding whether not to recognize another state's marriage the state is deciding whether not to recognize the other states law under which that marriage was performed.

>> you don't see a fundamental difference between creating a marriage and recognizing a marriage? you don't think there's any difference? if states don't say that the prerequisites to marriage in our state are not necessarily against public policy, and they have set up for age differences, they have set for a lot of things, why would the gay marriage issue be so fundamental that that can lead them to exclude a whole category of people from recognition? >> it goes to the essence of what i think those questions before the court today get out. and let me answer the question if i could in this way. the comparison between how states have operated with regard

to recognizing or not recognizing marriages before, in other words, before there was any idea of same-sex marriage, can't be compared at all to how states are responding across the board with regard to the phenomenon of same-sex marriage. here's the reason. commentators have observed that when all states are on the same page about what marriage is that's where the place of celebration rule evolved from, that every state had the same definition. every state shared the same interest and so there is a liberal policy of recognizing marriages from one state to the other because -- >> you think marriage -- >> i'm sorry? >> you think marriage decrees are closer to laws than they are to judgments? i mean you need to get a

judgment to divorce. that in my mind makes the decree much closer to a judgment that it does to a law. >> i think the performing of a marriage is closer to all is because when the marriage is performed all the rights that flow from the states lost the ball to the couple. it's different than judgments and so does not deserve the same kind of treatment that judgment would because of the reason that this court has drawn a distinction. >> so what is the border under the constitution, or act under the constitution that's not a judgment? >> i didn't catch the first part of your question. >> how do you separate out the terms that justice scalia gave you? they're not all judgments. three different terms were used or four different terms were

used. >> acts, records, and judicial proceedings is what i understand what i recall and that, my understanding of the court jurisprudence has been that refers to lost the records and judgments of another state. marriages have always been treated as a conflict of law matter throughout all years. in fact it gives rise to the entire conflict of law doctrine on which petitioners rely which is joseph stories commentaries on the conflict of laws. >> outside of the present controversy when was the last time tennessee declined to recognize a marriage from out of state? speak with 1970s of the last one i could point you. that involved a stepfather and stepdaughter. i would hasten to add, what i was starting to describe with regard to how they got to this point, while states were all playing along under the same definition of marriage, what they confronted in an unprecedented fashion with some

stage changing the rules of the game. >> but they were going along with the same definition. there have been distinctions based on age and family relationship. so they weren't going along under the same definition. it apparently is quite rare for a state not to recognize and out of state marriage. >> it was and is quite rare so long as we're talking about what marriage is. so long as we're talking about the fundamental man and woman marriage. that's my point, is about as soon as states were confronted with the reality that some states were going to redefine marriage or expand the definition to include same-sex couples for the first time, it not surprising that they would determine, in keeping with her own laws that they would not recognize those other states marriages in tennessee.

>> the second question put to both you and mr. hallward-driemeier in a very unusual situation. we have to assume that the first question has been decided against the petitioner. we have to assume that we would hold that a state has a sufficient reason for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples your and mr. hallward-driemeier acknowledged that a state could refuse to recognize and out of state marriage debate has a very strong public policy against that marriage, if it's a polygamist marriage, if it's a marriage of their young individuals. the question is whether there could be something in between. for the state to say we're not going to grant these licenses ourselves, but not a strong enough reason for us not to recognize a marriage performed out of state. i suppose that's possible, isn't it? >> let me answer it this way and answering your question in

doing so. let me be clear. the justifications that have grown over time and the requirement for a strong public policy reason to decline to recognize a marriage have grown up around the man, woman definition. our position is that so long as we're talking about a marriage from another state that is not the man, woman definition, it is so that the states interest in maintaining a cohesive and coherent intro state policy with regard to marriage that justifies not recognizing those marriages. asked the question that was put earlier indicated, any resident of the state could go to another state, get married, come back and demand to have their marriage recognized. >> that happens already. people who are not permitted to be married in a lot of states go into debt, and to come back to their home states and the home states follow the rule of marriage celebration.

>> and again we're talking a fundamental distinction between marriage as a state secret the traditional definition, and the same-sex marriages that other states have adopted. >> the prerequisites are always based its judgment about marriage, about what should be a recognize marriage. >> but, your honor -- >> they make exceptions. >> the difference here is the landscape that we find ourselves in. tennessee, ohio, kentucky, and other states with the traditional definition of marriage have done nothing here but stand pat. they have maintained status quo and yet other states have made the decision and it is the right and prerogative to do so, to expand the definition, and then to suggest that other states that have done nothing but stand pat now must recognize

those marriages imposes a substantial burden on the states ability to self govern. >> it is odd, isn't it that a divorce does become the decree for the nation? a divorce with proper jurisdiction in one state must be recognized by every other state, but not the act of marriage. >> i understand the point falls within the court's recognition of a distinction between judgments and laws. i think we are dealing only with the laws. allow one state literally one state, a minority of states to legislate fundamental state concern about marriage for every other state quite literally. that's an enormous imposition and an intrusion upon the states

ability to decide for itself important public policy questions. particularly when you're talking about recognition. there is an impact that occurs when one state is asked to recognize another state same-sex marriage because of the fact that its entire domestic relations policy has been built around the expectation and the presumption that there is a man, woman relationship. ..

>> there is a child of that marriage in a same-sex situation would fundamentally alter the state's tiff in addition of plant -- definition of parentage -- >> i understand your argument that it's a fundamental policy question about whether you're going to recognize same-sex marriage or not, but i don't see the difficulty in following the consequences of that under domestic relations law as treating a couple as married. the first question's a big step but after that it seems to me the question of how you apply the domestic relations law is pretty straightforward. >> there's part of the reason why i wanted to mention this in particular was a large -- because a large part of the petitioners' focus has been on the impact on the children that are involved. and i think it's important for the court to recognize that in many states -- and i can tell you in tennessee that the definition of "parent" has always been biologically based. that marital presumption of

parentage has its foundation in biology, it has its foundation in the man/woman relationship. so when -- and if a state were required to recognize a same-sex marriage and so, therefore change the pronouns and change the terminology -- >> but you do that for adoption adoptions. what's the problem? >> because -- >> this is a really big deal? >> it is a big deal can, your honor, because you are changing the way the state defines a parent. and in the adoption context b you have to understand adoption and the traditional definition of marriage, they work in tandem. they work together. and as mr. birch described the objective with regard to marriage is to link children with their biological parents. when that breaks down, then there's adoption. and so yes there's an effort to -- >> do you think that a state can fail to recognize the birth certificate of a particular, another state?

>> i'm not -- >> just that. do you think the word "records" in the constitution includes birth certificates? >> yes. >> so california without any reason, no suspicion of fraud no anything, could it refuse to recognize another state's birth certificate? >> i have to admit, your honor i can't speak to that intelligently. >> records, to me have to have a meaning. >> record has a meaning -- can it does, your honor. the reason that i'm hesitant is i know there is disagreement in the cases about exactly what the impact of that is between whether that just means we have to acknowledge the existence of the record for an evidentiary purpose, or whether the effect of the record has to be acknowledged. and as i stand here -- >> i recognize that that's an issue. but if a birth certificate were

to be a record, don't you think a marriage certificate -- it's an official act of the state. >> well the marriage certificate -- >> it's a record. >> -- certifies, and i guess it goes exactly to the point. it certifies the fact that there was a marriage. i think that the laws that allowed that marriage to occur when they are different fundamentally with the laws of a state like tennessee preclude the application of that same principle from one state to the other. with regard to the effect of requiring recognition on a state, i think it's important also to consider the fact that petitioners have complained about the impact that it has when they move from one state to the next with regard to the rights that they enjoyed under

the marriage as it was defined in new york, for example or california. federalism accommodates this situation. it is the strength of our federal structure to accommodate the very difference of viewpoint and the very difference in approach that this fundamental debate that we're having about same-sex marriage generates. and so it makes all the sense in the world with respect to that to allow the federal structure to do what it was designed to do and to accommodate those different points of view. and that is why we can the court to determine that the 14th amendment does not come in and then disrupt that balance and impose a duty on one state to recognize the laws and recognize the marriage of a different can state because of the intrusiveness it would have on

that state's public policy. >> mr. whalen, just a quick question. >> yes your honor. >> you acknowledge that if the state loses on the first question, then the state also loses on the second question? >> i do, your honor. yes, your honor. >> okay. >> if there are no further questions, we ask you to affirm. >> thank you counsel. mr. hallward dry meyer, you have five minutes left. >> thank you your honor: if i may start with the assertion that tennessee law has always rooted tennessee relations in biology, that is not so. tennessee law, and i'm going to quote from chapter 36-1 -- i'm sorry, it's 68-3-306 referred to on page 15 of our reply provides that a child born to a married woman as a result of an artificial insemination with consent of the married woman's husband, the father is deemed the legitimate child of the husband and wife. though the husband has no

biological relationship with the child. tennessee, in other words, just as it does with adoption, reinforces the bonds of parent and child irregardless of biology as long as a parent -- as long as the couple is of opposite sexes. the import of that for real people like dr. tanco and jessie is that they who fell in love and married while in graduate school in new york as many academic couples were only able to find a position at a same university in tennessee. they moved there, and dr. tanco has given birth to their daughter in tennessee. now, as a result of the nonrecognition laws when as occurred last week, their daughter is hospitalized, tennessee would treat dr. jessie not as mom, but as a legal stranger with no right to visit

her child no right to make medical decisions for her. these laws have real import for real people. and although i think that counsel was suggesting that federalism and allowing states to make different laws if you choose to get married in your state, just don't move to ours that's the cost of federalism. well sergeant -- [inaudible] and his husband didn't have a choice. the united states army moved them to tennessee. and given the location of army bases in this country, it's almost a certainty that anyone serving in the army for any length of time will be stationed at some point in a state that would dissolve their marriage as a matter of state law. i want to get back, justice sotomayor, to your comment about categorical and how unprecedented it is. because even in the age of anti-misonly nation laws --

misonly nation laws, the state would give some purposes to interracial marriages such as for purposes of estate giving out the proceeds after a death or otherwise. here, however, the state statutes provide that a marriage shall be given no hefect for any reason -- no effect for my reason even jim obergefell's husband's death certificate will not reflect the fact that he was married or the name of his husband. the state has no legitimate interest for denying them the dignity of that last fact regarding his life. the real import of the state's argument is, i believe this: that each when same-sex couples -- that even when same-sex coup cls are married they are not in their view, married for constitutional purposes. that the states can discriminate against these marriages even in

ways that the constitution would not permit the states to disregard the marriages of opposite-sex couples. i urge the court not to enshrine in our constitution a second class status of these petitioners' marriages. thank you very much. >> thank you counsel. case is submitted. >> the case argued on april 28th of this year and decided today. in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court declaring that same-sex marriage is the law of land. same-sex marriage constitutional in all 50 states. taking a look at "usa today"'s supreme court decision tracker it shows the members of the high court who voted in favor with the majority, anthony kennedy who wrote the decision, the opinion for the majority, the

others in the majority, ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan. those dissenting, chief justice roberts and justices scalia, thomas and alito. as far as the opinions go, justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision. he said no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love fidelity, devotion sacrifice and family, in forming a marital union two people become something greater than once they were. as some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. it would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage, their plea is that they do can respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. in his dissent chief justice

roberts said in part: if you are among the many americans of whatever sexual orientation who are more expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. celebrate the achievement of a desired goal, celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner, something -- celebrate the availability of new benefits. but do not celebrate the constitution, it had nothing to do with it. justice scalia in his dissent said: the nature of marriage is that through its enduring bond two persons together can find other freedoms such as expression intimacy and spiritually. really? whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality, whatever that means, were freedoms. and if intimacy is one would think freedom of intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. ask the nearest hippie. here on c-span2 over the next half hour or so we're going to show you some of the reaction to today's supreme court ruling at

the court itself, outside on the steps. we'll hear from some of the participants in the case. we'll also show you the president's statement at the white house. first up, though, we want to show you those very first moments outside the supreme court just after 10 a.m. this morning when the ruling came down from the court. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa!

[cheers and applause] >> some of the reactions immediately following the announcement of today's supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage, a 5-4 decision upholding same-sex marriage throughout the u.s., all 50 states now constitutional for same-sex marriage. devon dwyer of abc news tweeting this image: obama's emotional call to supreme court plaintiff jim obergefell captured by cameras on both ends. you see the picture of the president in the white house and jim obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the same-sex

marriage case, taking the call. we'll hear from the president in just a short while. first, though, we're going to show you some of the participants in the case and their statements, their reaction to today's ruling including a statement by jim obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the case. back to the steps of the supreme court building from earlier today. >> good morning. my name is jim obergefell and i'm from cincinnati, ohio. i've lived in ohio for most of my life. my late husband john and i were together for almost 21 years before he passed away as a result of the complications of als. i'm here today in front of our nation's highest court because my home state fought the recognition of my marriage to john. and when the man i loved and cared for passed away from one of cruelest diseases known to humanity, the state of ohio, the state in which i've lived

worked and paid taxes for most of my life continued to fight my right to list my name on john's death certificate. no american should have to suffer that indignity. that's why john and i and the 30 plaintiffs who are part of this lawsuit decided to fight. i know in my heart that john is with me today. that man cared for and loved me for 21 years through thick and thin. today's ruling from the supreme court affirms what millions across this country already know to be true in our hearts; our love is equal. that the four words etched onto the front of the supreme court "equal justice under law," apply to us too. all americans deserve equal dignity, respect and treatment when it comes to the recognition of our relationships and families. now at long last ohio will recognize our marriage, and most

important, marriage equality will come to every state across our country. it's my hope that the term "gay marriage" will soon be a thing of past that from this day forward it will simply be marriage. and our nation will be better off because of it. i also hope that this decision has a profound effect on reducing the stigma, the hurt, the alienation and discrimination that lgbt people all too often feel when we live our lives openly and authentically. at the same time, while we will celebrate today's victory, my heart is also in charleston. these past few weeks and months have been an important reminder that discrimination in many forms is alive and well in america. it reminds us of the deeply unfortunate reality that progress for some is not progress for all. and that there can be equally significant steps backward as there are forward. if we're truly dedicated to our democracy and the values that we as a nation cherish, we must be

equally committed to insuring that all citizens are treated equally, that all americans deserve justice. that's when we're all united. i want to thank my legal team and especially elle who stood by me every single step of the way. and thank you to aclu, lambda legal, glaad and all of the litigators, plaintiffs and organizations who fought for equality. today's victory, our shared victory, was only possible because of each and every one of you. i'd like to give a special thank you to mary and doug who brilliantly argued our case before the court and eloquently affirmed my life and relationship and those of millions of others like me across this country. we owe you all a huge debt of gratitude. but most importantly, i'd like to thank john for loving me, for making me a better man and for

giving me something worth fighting for. i love you, this is for you john. [cheers and applause] thank you. [applause] >> this is mary benato. >> hi, everyone, i argued question one and i want to say today was a momentous decision, and it is going to bring joy to millions of families gay and straight across this land. and now every person in this country who's lgbt realizes they can marry tomorrow, they can marry someday the person they love and make that unique commitment and take on that unique responsibility justice kennedy talked about this morning that is marriage. it is also a great thing for kids who no longer have to question why their parents were

deemed unworthy of marriage and those kids can also have the same security and protections that marriage provides to families. this is also a great day for our constitution, make no mistake about it. today the court stood by a principle in this nation that we do not tolerate laws that disadvantage people because of who they are. so it is a day for equality, for liberty and for justice under law, and as i say that, of course, there are thousands of people gathered together mourning in charleston, because it is still true in our nation that people sometimes are targeted and face unspeakable acts of violence because of who they are. so as we celebrate what is a landmark ruling for love and for justice, let us also rededicate ourselves to insuring that every person in this nation can live

safely and securely and have the freedoms and opportunities our constitution promises us. we need to do this for each other, and we owe this to futuregen b rations. and i -- future generations. and i thank everyone who's helped make this day possible, millions of people, the plaintiffs, the lawyers, everyone. thank you. [applause] >> and now douglas hallward-driemeier. [applause] >> this is truly a great day for all americans. the court stressed in its opinion that marriage is fundamental, marriage is fundamental to couples it's fundamental to the families they build around their marriages, it is fundamental to society. it's hard to believe that just less than two decades ago gay and lesbian individuals faced the possibility of being jailed

simply because of the person they loved. today the supreme court validates the full equality under law of all gay, lesbian transgendered individuals and the person they love and that they are entitled to the full measure of equality and dignity that the constitution promises. and by protecting the rights of gays and lesbians, the court has protected the rights of all americans. because those rights that are fundamental should never depend on being able to persuade a majority that they should be tolerated. they are, that is, in fact, nature of being right. but this victory did not come just by happenstance, it was the product of many decades of hard labor by many, many people, led

certainly by my colleague mary benato, who has been a leader in this movement for decades. it took the bravery of the plaintiffs willing to stand up -- [cheers and applause] and insist on their rights. and it took many, many organizations, the collective efforts of which today realized this momentous decision that we can all celebrate. thank you very much. [applause] >> and now we have greg -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> one, two three! [cheers and applause] >> i'm here with my husband michael, and our two adopted children isabella and isaiah. we're also joined today by a co-plaintiff kevin back here. his parents didn't quite make it, but we're glad he did.

away just so is grateful -- we're just so grateful to be here. what i'd like to start by saying is what i think everyone should say when something very good happens in their life. we need to pause and give thanks to god. as lifelong, practicing catholics, that's how we feel. we feel that this is god's intention and god's grace. and so we embrace it, and we thank god for it. you know, michael and i have been together for 33 years we've been legally married for 11 years. but not until today did the state of kentucky recognize our union. so this is a watershed day for our family, it is the same for all kentucky items and all americans. it's been a long path for us in our 33 years. we know that people have been fighting this fight for decades. many of them are here with us today, and we thank them all. we also thank so many people

especially the aclu who has been so supportive of us, the stanford law clinic and our superb legal team back in kentucky who got us started the faber law office and clay daniel. we've had so much support from so many people including evan wolfson, we can't leave him out. he's been one of the founding fathers of the marriage equality movement. none of us would be here today without the foundation that has been laid over the last 30 years, actually. so we're grateful to be here for the end. michael and i have been together through a lot of it. we never thought we'd see this happen. we're so is grateful today that we're here to be able to celebrate this. i'll tell you what this means for our family, this means that our children will now be able to have two legal adopted parents two legal parents after 16 and a half years of being raised by the both of us. now we will finally be able to

request from the commonwealth of kentucky second parent adoptions, and we will be a legal family in the state of kentucky. that means world to us, and it's very important for kentucky and for the country. one last thing i'd like to say there's a song that we sing in our church, it starts out the strife is over, the battle done and that's the way we feel today. we have overcome today. we are equal. we have earned equal rights to marriage and the freedom to marry for all americans. and i'll just tell you, it feels very good, so thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible] director of the aclu lgbt project. >> hey there. hi everybody. i'm james essex director of the lgbt project at the aclu. this morning the supreme court

welcomed same-sex couples into the american family. it recognized that we make the commitment, we express the love and we need the protections that are at the core of marriage. and that makes today a watershed moment in the movement for lgbt equality and for the country as a whole. because today is an epic leap forward for equality, for humanity, for joy and for love. this journey started a long time ago, at least as far back as 1967 when mildred and richard loving brought a case to the u.s. supreme court right here, and the supreme court struck down bans on interracial marriage. and it continued in 1970 when a couple named jack baker and michael mcconnell filed the first lawsuit in the country seeking the freedom to marry. and the aclu is proud and honored to have represented mildred and richard loving and jack baker and michael mcconnell just as we represent jim obergefell and many of other

plaintiffs today. so today is a day -- not just a day to celebrate although it is absolutely that -- it is also a day to say thank you. thank you to all the people who have been working on this issue for such a long time, all the people who came out for their friends and families and churches. all the advocates who worked in courthouses and in legislatures and talking to the public, because this is something that has collectively over time, changed america's understanding of same-sex couples. we rejoice today because today's decision has made the country more fair, more free, more equal. short -- in short more american today. and for that we are enormously grateful. thank you. [applause] >> next we have pam yorksmith and nicole yorksmith, climates in henry v. hodges in ohio. >> so we're one of the four plaintiffs for ohio.

for us this started out as a dream, to add my name to our son's birth certificate. and it became so much more important and so much bigger than just that. i don't think anyone dreams more about having their marriage recognized in the state that we live in and the state that we work in and the state that we travel through than we do as a family. when you have kids, you do anything that you can to protect them, and what we did was to protect them we brought this all the way to the supreme court. that's how much that we love our kids. and we are so happy that when we return home today that our marriage is recognized just the same a as our neighbors' marriage is recognized. >> yeah. and we are so proud and thankful to be a part of this case and be a part of, you know, the historic movement that this is. i want to thank all of our

attorneys, all of the other attorneys who have worked effortlessly. without them we wouldn't be here, and we owe a lot of gratitude and thanks to them, you know? so thank you. >> and then also thank you to all the people that have spent the last 50 years making this a dream true. [applause] >> next is -- [inaudible] ♪ ♪ >> on death certificates, on birth certificates. and we needed that done now. but it turns out we had to win marriage equality nationwide in order to solve this ohio problem. well, we did that. [cheers and applause] so we are so grateful to be part of this effort and proud to

represent these plaintiffs and excited to be part of this historic moment. thank you. [applause] next is susan summer from lambda can legal. >> today is a beautiful chapter in a love story. we saw wonderful decisions on this same date can k united states v. windsor, june 26th a lucky day in the history of same-sex comes and gay rights. [cheers and applause] and in this ongoing love story -- [cheers and applause] we see families, families like the yorksmiths, mother who is care so much for each other and for their children. they come to the u.s. supreme court. today they saw justice today they saw an affirmation of their dignity, of the commitment that

they and so many other couples around this country have for one another and their desire to support their children and their families on this joyous day in this american love story, we can also celebrate what we have done as a society our constitution has stood up for those long oppressed. and we also remember and grieve for those in charleston who are suffering today. we are reminded that until we have justice for everyone, until we have racial justice and we have justice for all gay lesbian, bisexual and transgender americans, our work is not over. so let wedding bells ring across the country. young people can know that if they're lesbian, gay when they grow up, they can marry the perp they love -- the person they

love. children will now grow up with the dignity and support of parents whose marriages are respected across the land. let wedding bells ring. thank you. [applause] >> that from the steps of the supreme court earlier today following the 5-4 supreme court ruling upholding same-sex marriage throughout the united states. an interesting graphic from the national be -- national journal on line showing the legal the i of same-sex marriage over the years. here just the last few years actually, they show it from 1996. you see the last couple of years the gray and black states in 20 and where -- 2013 where same-sex marriage was either illegal or constitutionally banned by state, then you see 2014 and, of course 2015 as of today, same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

some congressional reaction from the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. he said: i disagree with the court's ruling. the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said in a statement: regardless of one's personal view on this issue the american people through the democratic process should be able to determine the meaning of this bedrock institution in our society. i also believe that america's big enough to accommodate the views of all citizens, that's why going forward i hope the courts will continue to defend the important principle of religious liberty for all regardless of their views on marriage. and then a tweet from senator harry reid, the minority leader: the court ruled on the right side of history. i look forward to the marriage celebrations across the country in the coming weeks. a number of jurisdictions immediately beginning to issue marriage licenses including atlanta, but in some jurisdictions not so fast. this story in vox policy and politics to avoid marrying gay

couples, some alabama counties have stopped marrying everyone. some alabama counties have found a bizarre trick to avoid the supreme court's same-sex marriage ruling, they are not issuing marriage licenses to anyone at all. probate judge wes allen explained it to the eagle.com's reporter greg phillips: i'm saddened that the united states court ruled as they decade, but this ruling does not invalidate code 30-1-9 which states marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of several counties, the word "may" provides probate judges with the option of whether or not to engage in the practice of issuing marriage licenses. and this tweet from the huffington post: obama calls today's legalization of gay marriage a big step toward equality. and we're going to use that to move on to a statement from mr. obama, the president, speaking outside the white house

a short time after the ruling by the supreme court to uphold same-sex marriage in all 50 states. >> good morning. our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal. the project of each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with realities of changing times. a neverending quest to insure those words ring true for every single american. progress on this journey often comes in small increments. sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the

persistent effort of dedicated citizens. and then sometimes there are days like this when that slow steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunder bolt. this morning the supreme court recognized that the constitution guarantees marriage equality. in doing so they've reaffirmed that all americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. that all people should be treated equally regard rest of who they are -- regardless of who they are or who they love. this decision will end the patchwork system we currently have it will end the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples

face from not knowing whether their marriage is legitimate in -- legitimate in the eyes of one state will remain if they decide to move or even visit another. this ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering the all-loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land. in my second inaugural address i said that if we are truly created equal then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. it is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision. this ruling is a victory for jim obergefell and the other plaintiffs in the case, it's a

victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights, it's a victory for their children whose families will now be recognized as equal to any other. it's a victory for the allies and friends and supporters who spent years, even decades working and praying for change to come. and this ruling is a victory for america. this decision affirms what millions of americans already believe in their hearts. when all americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. my administration has been guided by that idea. it's why we stopped defending the so-called defense of marriage act and why we were pleased when the court finally

struck down a central provision of that discriminatory law. it's why we ended don't ask, don't tell. from extending full marital benefits to federal employees and their spouses to expanding hospital visitation rights for lgbt patients and their loved ones we've made real progress in advancing equality for lgbt americans in ways that were unimaginable not too long ago. i know change for many of our lgbt brothers and sisters must have seemed so slow for so long. but compared to so many other issues, america's shift has been so quick. i know that a americans -- that americans of goodb will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply-held beliefs. all of us who welcome today's

news should be mindful of that fact, recognize different viewpoints revere our deep commitment to religious freedom. but today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully, real change is possible. shifts in hearts and minds is possible. and those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. because for all our differences we are one people; stronger together than we could ever be alone. that's always been our story is. we are big and vast and diverse a nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, different experiences and stories but bound by our

shared ideal that no matter who you are or what you look like, how you started off or how and who you love, america's a place where you can write your own destiny. we are a people who believe that every single child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. there's so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of america to every american, but today we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect. ..

our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal. the project of each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times _ a never-ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every

single american. this morning, the supreme court recognized that the constitution guarantees marriage equality. in doing so, they have reaffirmed that all americans are entitled to the equal >> what a reminder how small actions can be thrown into a still lake and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world. those countless often anonymous

heroes deserve our thanks. america should be very proud. >> the president's reaction to today's supreme court ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. shortly after the ruling the white house making changes to their twitter and facebook pages. you can see the white house colored in the rainbow colors. again, the white house twitter and facebook pages being changed today after the same-sex marriage ruling by the supreme court. we are going to reair today's coverage of the supreme court ruling. our coverage outside of the court and president obama's reaction other reactions that is all coming up tonight at 8 eastern on c-span2.

you can watch it in our video library at cspan.org. another chance to hear the oral arguments in the same-sex marriage case argued on april 28th of this year. >> we will hear argument in case 4556 obergefell v. hodges and the consolidated cases. >> mr. chief justice, may i appease the court. the inimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples just like those of hetero couples provide support and foundation to society. the protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class. the stain of unworthyness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the commitment.

the abiding purpose of the 14th amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to second tier status. >> what about the windsor case where the federal government had stark differences when it comes to matters of domestic relations? >> states do have privacy over the regulation but they must respect the constitution. here we have a whole class of people who are denied equal rights to be able to join in this very expensive government institution that provides protection for families. >> you say join in the institution -- the argument on the other side is they are seeking to redefine the institution. every definition i looked up to prior to a dozen years ago defined marriage between a man and woman and husband and wife.

if you succeed that core definition will not be longer fit. >> i hope not. we are talking about a class of people excluded from being able to participate in this institution institution. if your question is does this draw lines -- >> no you are not seeking to join the institution. you are seeking to change what the institution is. the fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship. >> two points. if you are talking about the fundamental right to marry as core male-female institution the 14th amendment provides guarantees the role of women and gay people has changed in societies.

just as the court was called out for not appreciating the extiptoeextent of the liberty at stake and the question is do gay people share the same -- >> you think about words or cases, and a word that keeps coming back and millennial and time. there hasn't been time for the federal system to engage in this debate. the separate state. but on a larger scale, it was about the same time between brown and loving as lawrence and this case. so about ten years. that is time for the scholars and commentitate -- commentors

to talk about it. this definition has been with us since millennial. it is difficult for the court to say we know better. >> the place of gay people in our civic society has been contested for more than a century. in the last century, immigration exclusions took place of gay people in public employment and federal service, these are things they contested and you could say ten years of marriage for massachusetts but it is also in the 1970's that the baker case from minnesota reached this court. that is over 40 years ago. it was over 20 years ago that the wide supreme court seemed to indicate it will rule in favor of marriage and american people have been debating this and it has been aired. the bottom line is gay and lesbian families live in communities as neighbors -- >> you argue in your brief that

the primary purpose of the michigan law was to demean gay people. >> the michigan statute and amendment went out of their way to say gays were against the good of society. >> would you say your brief was to be mean to gay people? >> i think it has that affect. if we are talking about states with constitutional amendments many are similar. some have statutes and some some none of the above. even if there is no purpose to demean, i feel it is a common

commonally commonally commonal commonality. they have stereotypes about gay people. a hundred years ago gay people were not worthy of the concern of the government. >> until the end of the 20th century, there was never a nation or culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. can we infrer that they thought there was a rational practical purpose for defining marriage? or is it your argument they were operating independently based on irrational stereotypes and prejudice? >> the position is times are blind. if you think about the example of sex discrimination it took over a hundred years for the court to recognize a sex

classification went against the constitution. we wasn't from the rational approach to acknowledging this discrimination is incidious. >> we infer societies thought there was a rational and practical reason for this. >> i don't know what other citessumed but i believe time is changing and it takes time to see stereotypes and the common humanity of people that were ignored or excluded. >> we would not be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was millennial ago. same-sex union would not have adopted into the trust with the

dominant and suborded relationships. there was a change in institution of marriage and maybe it was galitarian but it wasn't if same-sex unions wouldn't fit into what marriage was. >> that is correct. for centuries we had discovered a system where the absorbed and men and women had different prescribed roles. and because of the circumstances, all of those gender responsibilities have been eliminated and that is of course is a system where same-sex couples fit well. >> this is not a universal

aspect of marriage around the world. if you look at the basic definition between a man and a woman it doesn't always say between a man and women being which the woman is subordanite. >> the thing about marriage is it is controlled and regulated by the states. the states create the definition of civil marriage and are accountable for the definition and exclusions that follow. of course we know there were exclusions in cases of loving and turner where each case the prisoners and people behind in their child support payments and a mixed race couple who wanted to join in institution and even though exclusions were traditional they grew. >> not all societies banned mix-

mixed-race marriages or even all states. but i don't know -- do you know of any society prior to the nethlerands prior to 2001 that allowed same-sex marriage as a legal matter? >> no i am not. >> not a single other society until 2001 but the netherland. >> you are asking us to decide us for this society when no other society until 2001 had it. and how many states have voted

to have same-sex marriage or their legislature or by referend referend. i think it is 11? >> yes, sir. >> that is not the people deciding. it is judges deciding. >> in terms of this millennial what is in the status or the view of gay people in most of those countries. have they been subject to the kinds of discrimination they were here? welcomed into the worldwide community? was it free of discrimination? >> well if you are thinking of the world, not every system in the world has the kind of system they have constitutional guarantees for all people of

liberty and quality and that immediately sets the united states off from other countries. there are 17-18 countries that do authorize marriage for same-sex marriage couples in europe south america, new zealand. >> homosexuality bans is not accepted all over. greece was one of them. but did they have same-sex marriage in greece? >> i don't think they have anything close to what we have. >> they had marriage didn't they? >> yes. >> and they had same-sex relations, did they not? >> yes. >> people like plato wrote approvingly of same-sex relationships, did he not? >> i believe so your honor. >> they are limiting marriage to the couples of the opposite sex

wasn't based on prejudice against gay people was it? >> i cannot speak it to what was happening with ancient philosophers. >> you said marriage is different because it was controlled by the government. but from a historical standpoint justice scalia was very careful to talk about societies. justice alito talked about cultures. if you read about the ancient peoples they didn't have a government rule. they made it themselves and it was man and woman. >> prior to marriages of the united states there were marriages forming. but when our nation formed into the this union in 1787 and afirmed the 14th amendment in 1868 that is when our nation made a commitment to equality.

>> i would like to hear the answer to the precise question you have been asked several times. the opposite has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating against gay people even. and suddenly you want nine people outside of the battle box to require states that don't want to do it to change what you have heard, change what marriage is to include gay people. why cannot those states wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage? that same question has been put in many ways on the brief in our subject, you received it several ways and i would like to know and hear and understand what your response is. >> okay.

and i will try to answer. in our system right now with the 14th amendment that sets forth principles we are governed by and govern our lives, and look at examples like covington, and that change in marriage was deeply unsettling to people. likewise even race wasn't used as a base of discrimination in every state by criminal and constitutional law. it was incredibly persuasive and 80% of virginia was with american on that but it was the question of the liberty of the individual to to do something

that was a profound change. >> say a group of two men and two women apply for a license, would there be any reason to deny them? >> the state could say if there was a marriage and then questions about consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiply persons. i want to go back it the original question -- >> i didn't understand your answer. >> i hope you will come back to mine. if you want to go back it the early ones -- >> these are four people. two men and two women. it is not the sort of polygmist relationships that existed in other cites -- societies -- and still exist in some societies. let's say they are all educated -- they are all

lawyers -- what would be the ground of the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down? what would be the lodging of denying them the same right. >> i assume the states would rush in when you talk about multiple people join rushing to join in marriage is not the same people as marriage between two people. even assuming it is a fundamental right -- >> a marriage between two people of the same-sex is not something we have had before so i don't think about that definition. recognizing that is a break. maybe it is a good one. why is that a greater break. >> the question is again assuming it is fundamental rights and it is a question of justification. i assume there could be consent and cohearsing.

who makes the medical decisions in the time of crisis? i assume lots of family disruption issues setting aside consent and cohesion. that is my answer on that. and if i may say, wait and see by itself has never been considered a free standing justification under the 14th amendment. we are talking about here is waiting and seeing. and we are talking about the petitioners being denied marriage. we are talking about a second-class status -- >> part of wait and see is to ascertain whether the social science and studies are accurate. but that seems to me then that we should not consult at all the

social science on this. because it is too new. you say we don't need to wait for changes. so it seems to me we will not wait and it is only fair for us to say we will not consult social science. >> i think the affects of waiting are not neutral. so there are profound consequences that follow from that. there have been trials in the michigan case with arkansas and adoption bans with the issues aired repeatedly and there is a social science and nothing about the sex or social orientation that will affect child outcomes. this isn't just research about gay people. it is research about what affect of gender goes back 50 years. >> you are right the

consequences of waiting are not neutral. one of the things that is truly extraordinary about how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society. i don't know what the latest opinion polls show. the situation is characteristic in 2009 they banned gay marriage. in 2012 they enacted it as law. that sort of quick change has been a characteristic of this debate. if you prevail there is no more debate. closing the debate can close the minds. it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. people feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it were imposed by the court. >> with respect to maine, one

thing that separates maine is there is no constitutional amendment in place that largely shutdown the process. it is difficult to change the constitution and an opinion poll is not a measure of what a legislature will do in terms of approving an amendment to go out to the voters. so serious structural problems didn't apply in a place like maine. when i think about acceptance i think about the nation as a whole. there are places where there are no protections for gay and lesbian people. in parenting, the michigan petitioners are not able to be parents to their children until the state approves of their adoption. >> i am concerned about the wisdom of this court imposing through the constitution a

requirement of action which is unpalletable to many of our citizens for religious reasons. they are not likely to change their view about what marriage is itself. were the states that were adopted by law, they could make except except except exceptions on what is required and who has to honor. but once it is a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions for example is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds they have a constitutional right to marry? is it conceivable that would be

allowed? >> your honor, of course the constitution will continue to apply and to this day no clergy is forced to marry someone. >> but until this day there was no constitutional way for these two people marry and the minister is an instrument of the state. i don't see how you could allow the minister to say i will only marry a man and woman and not two men which means you could have ministers who conduct real marriages that are enforceable at the national cathedral but not at saint matthews downtown because that minister refuses to marry two men and therefore cannot be given the state power to make a real state marriage.

i don't see any answer to that. i really don't. >> counselor, there have been anti-discrimination laws in various states correct? >> yes your honor. >> anti-discrimination laws regarding gay people, correct? >> correct. >> in any of those states have ministers been forced to do gay marriages? >> of course not your honor. >> they are laws. they are not constitutional requirements. that is the whole point of my question. if you let the states do it you can make exception. the state can say, yes, two men can marry, but ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state. you cannot do that once it is a constitutional prescription. >> if one thing is firm i believe it is firm under the first amendment, that a clergy person can't be forced to e

officiate the marriage. >> he is not given the state's power unless he agrees to use that power in accordance with the constitution. seems you have to make that exception. you cannot appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the constitution. >> i think if we are talking about a government individual, clerk, judge who has the power to authorize marriage that is a different matter and they will have to follow through unless the state makes exceptions. in connecticut, there was a law passed to deal with this. >> because it was a state law. if it is a state law you can make those exceptions. their marriages are affective under state law and that will

not be the case if we hold as a constitutional matter that the state must marry two men. >> yes your honor, maybe i am not understanding justice scalia's question. there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between jews and non-jews, not withstanding we have a prohibition against religious discrimination and those rabbis get all of the power and privileges of the state. many many rabbis will not do that. >> congress shall make no law respecting the religious freedom but leaves this open. >> i will say briefly -- >> do you agree that ministers will not have to conduct same-sex marriages? >> if they don't want to that is correct.

i believe it is based on the first amendment. and in terms of the question of who decides. it is not about the court v the state. it is about the individual making the choice to marry and who to marry. >> thank you council. [inaudible yelling] >> would you like to take a moment? >> i will thank you mr. chief justice. >> if the court is ready --

>> we are ready. >> that was rather refreshing actually. [laughter] >> the opportunity to marry is worth of human dig ninity and excluding same-sex marriage denied the couples and children the stabalizing structure they deserve. we are talking about whether this discrimination should persist is something that should be let to the political process or something decided by the court. i would like to make three points about this if i could. first, i think it is important to understand that if this court concludes that this issue should be left to the political process what the court is saying the demeaning second-class status that gay and lesbian couples

inhabit in states that don't provide for marriage is consistent with equal protection. that is not a wait and see. that is a validation. the extent this should be left to the political process because the issue will take care of itself over time and attitudes are changing what i respectfully admit is no one can see the fiche future but it seems the outcome we end up with be similar to the racial segregation. you may have many states most states where gay couples can live with dignity but you will have a minority of states where gay couples are relegated to second-class status and i don't know why we would want to repeat that history and third i want to expand on what was said earlier and i think mr. chief justice you did recognize this that the

decisions to leave this to the political process is going to impose enormous cost that this court thought were cost of constitutional stature in windsor. thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their state ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationship. >> you could have said the same thing ten years ago when we had lawrence. haven't we learned a lot since lawrence? >> i think that is a critical point. i think lawrence was an important catalyst that brought us to where we were. i think it provided an assurance that gay people can live in a society, raise families and participate in communities without fear. and two things flow from that. one is that has brought us to

the point where we understand now, in a way we didn't fully understand in lawrence that gay and lesbian people and couples are full and equal members of the community and what we once thought of as necessary and proper reasons for ostracizing and marginalizing gay people we now understand do not justify that impression. >> lawrence is the state can't intrude on that personal relationship. this seems different in that what the argument is the state must sanction and approve the relationship. it is two different questions. >> it is different i agree. lawrence capitalized for society and put gay and lesbian people for the first time in history to lay claim to the abiding props of the 14th amendment. you are right, mr. chief

justice, this is about equal participation in a state conferred status and institution. that is different than lawrence but i think what lawrence allowed us to see is that the justification for excluding gay and lesbian couples from equal participation just held up. i think it is important to raise the question about whether what we are talking about here is a fundamental change in the nature of marriage and i think the answer to that question is this case can be decided by thinking about marriage in the way states and responding states and other states define marriage now. i think it is important to think about it this way: hetero couples have can families through assisted reproduction through adoption or not families

at all. >> what do you think are the essential elements of marriage that exist today? >> i think they are the ones that obligations of mutual support and responsibility and the benefits surrounding marriage that state law provides to insure that there is an in enduring bond that continues over time until hopefully death due us part at the end of life. and certainly child rearing is bound up in that. but i would suggest, justice alito, the way childbearing is bound up in that is different than what my friends on that side face. >> let's think about two groups of people. the first is the same-sex couples who have been together 25 years they get married as a result of the change in state law or the court decision. the second two people are unmarried siblings and lived together 25 years their

financial relationship is the same as the same-sex couple they share household expenses and household chores in the same way and care for each other in the same way, there is any reason why the law should treat the two groups differently? >> the law allows 100% of gay people to enter into a marriage that is consistent with their sexual orientation. it probids a hundred percent of gay and lesbian people from entering into a marriage that is consistent with their sexual orientation. >> as far as the law and the affect on taxes and such what is the reason for treating them differently? >> marriage is something more fundamental than that. it is an enduring bond between two people and for child rearing i think it is important.

i understand and part of the caution argument that respondants are saying here is that they want to exercise an attitude of caution because of concern about the welfare of children raised in same-sex married households. but there is a problem with that rational. right now hundreds of thousands of children are being raised in same-sex households and that number is only going to grow. all of the evidence shows there is no problem and the state's argument is ironic. it is going to deny marriage -- >> all of the evidence shows there is no problem -- >> i think all of the leading organizations that filled briefs said there is a consistanceency in that. >> the point i am trying to

drive is you have hundreds of thousands of children raised in same-sex households now and this leads the conclusion that those hundreds of thousands of children don't get the stabalizing structure and benefits of marriage. >> i would like to follow up with the line of questioning justice scalia started. we have a concession from your friend that clergy will not be required to perform same-sex marriage. but they are going to be harder questions. will a religious school with housing be required to afford housing to same-sex couples? >> >> i would like to make three points. the first one is of course this court's ruling addresses what the state must do under the 14th amendment and the second point is that when you get to a question like the one your honor

asked that is going to depend on how the states work out the balance between the civil rights law and whether they decide there is going to be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not and how they decide what kinds of accommodation they will allow under state law and different states could strike different balances -- >> it is a federal question if it becomes a matter of constitutional law. >> but the enforcement power is up to the states. >> you have enforcement power too. >> that is true but there is no federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and that is where those issues have to be worked out. and the third point is these issues will arise no matter which way you decide the case because they will arise in states where there is no

same-sex marriage, and in fact they have risen. there are commitment ceremonies a new mexico case this court denied didn't arise from a marriage. that arose from a commitment ceremony and these commitment ceremonies need florist and such. >> it was not able to get tax exempt status if it was opposed to interracial marriage. so would the same apply if the school opposes same-sex marriage? >> i don't think i can answer without knowing more specifics. it will be an issue, i don't deny that, justice alito. >> let me ask one question because your time is going up. i am interested in the comments saying we should define a

fundamental right in its narrowist terms. a lot of the questions asked had that in mind. >> justice kennedy, forgive me for answering this way. we recognize the connection between liberty and inequality. we have not made the fundamental right comments and i am not sure it is appropriate to brief on this. >> can you tell me why we didn't make the fundamental connection? >> we think for reasons like the one in the chief justice question is we understand the question is equal participation in a state conferred status and institution. if i could just in the little time i have left, i would like to suggest this: that what the

respondants are ultimately saying to the court is with respect to marriage they are not ready. and yes gay and lesbian couples can live openly in society, and yes they can raise children yes, they can participate fully as members of their community but marriage not yet. leave that to be worked out later. but the petitioners, these gay and lesbian couples -- >> or not. that is not what they are saying. they are saying leave it to the people it would be worked out later or gnaw not. >> these gay and lesbian people are laying claim to the promise of the 14th amendment now. it is the duty of this court in this case as it was in lawrence to decide what the 14th amendment requires.

respondents were not saying we are not ready yet. we are echoing the questions the justice was asking.

it's about who gets to decide that question is that the people in the democratic process or the federal court and we are asking you to affirm every fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage and i think this whole case turns on the question -- >> nobody is taking that away from anybody. nobody chooses their orientation or who to marry or not mary. i suspect there are some people who choose not to just as there are some heterosexual couples who choose not to marry so we are not taking anybody's liberty away. we are talking about the interest in deciding the question of what marriage means. >> i thought i heard the answer to the question being given with

respect to the tradition. what i heard was marriage is fundamental. that is true and as the state to administer it is open to numbers of people who both have children adult children don't have children all over the place. but there is one group of people who they want open marriage to. so they have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. that is the people of the same sex who wish to marry a.

when we talk about the racial segregation or because the certain religious groups do think it is a scene. is it on the part of some people sufficient. three, four and five. i have put a long question and it gives you an opening to say that all those reasons are. >> those answers are not our answers. our answer number one is the marriage institution doesn't tell us to deny dignity or to give the second-class status to anyone.

in the social institution now the marriage on the other side here is all about love and commitment and as a society we can agree that it's important. if we try to solve the social problem i just described where there is no marriage we would not solve it by saying let's have people identify who they are committed to and recognize those relationships. >> i understand the principle argument that you make in the brief but same-sex marriage doesn't advance this state interest in the regular procreation. let's just assume for the moment that is so. obviously they cannot procreate themselves. but is there in addition to that are you saying that recognizing same-sex marriage will impinge upon that state interest and harm that state interest in the procreation.

>> in a rational basis that the rational basis that is the question you need to decide. all the benefits marriage affords would still be a. they would have the same incentives to marry or the benefits that come with marriage it has to do with the societal understanding. it is than any particular coupling and what marriage might mean to them or their children. it's the idea the idea we are binding them with their biological mom and dad that has consequences. so for example --. how many married couples to

fathers with the benefit with the requirements of marriage walk away from their children? some mothers do the same thing but my point is i'm not sure how i get gets to the point that justice breyer is making. how does withholding marriage from one group of same-sex couples increase the value to the other group. >> there's all kinds of societal pressures that are already delinking the state of defense is keeping kids together whenever possible. >> is important to show that it

will harm marriage between a man or a woman. i thought it was simply to show that the state's reason for this institution is a reason that has nothing to do that is inapplicable to same-sex couples. >> you are exactly right. i want to answer the question if i could. >> i think before something is fundamental to a society and to individuals before in exclusion of this kind could be made in the institutions of state needs some reason for that exclusion. so i'm giving you an opportunity to tell me what that reason is. what is the reason for the exclusion rather than the reason for the noninclusion? >> it wasn't the reason for the

exclusion of us to solve a particular problem. but the reason why there is harm if you change the definition is because in people's minds if marriage and creating children don't have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect? you expect more children and i want to give you a hypothetical. >> do you think that that is what they would be that if one allows same-sex marriage one would be announcing to the world that it has nothing to do with each other? >> let me give you an example. we are talking about something that is going to change the meaning of the institution over generations. you have to retreat what it means and have consequences that some people didn't expect. i want you to think about two couples that are identically situated. they've been married for five years and each of the 3-year-old child. one grows up deleting that area just about keeping that couple

bound to that child forever and the other couple believes that it's more about their emotional commitment to each other and it's that commitment phase than they may not see together. a reasonable voter which we are talking about here could be leave that there would be a different outcome if those marriages were influenced by those different belief systems. ideas matter and the out of wedlock birthrate birth rate -- >> but that assume that they wouldn't have a more noble purpose and that is the whole point. of course we understand the sacredness. we know we can't procreate but we want the other attributes to show that we have a dignity that can be fulfilled. but you argue in your brief and justice was quite correct to say that this harms conventional marriage. that is the argument that you made in the brief as i

understand it. >> to be clear the state of michigan values the state and dignity and worth of every human being no matter their orientation or how they choose to live their life. that is not what this case is about. our point is that when you change something as fundamental as the marriage definition us chief justice roberts is saying the definition that has existed in the millennia and you find that over the generations those changes matter and -- >> the fact is a high percentage of people don't have children and everybody knows they can't and they are in a certain percentage i'm sure probably pretty high. same-sex people do get married and have children, so where is this going? what are the couples to do with? how do we get from what i just said with some kind of rational or important distinction? >> we are concerned about all the children of opposite sex couples and same-sex.

if this court offers a new definition and reduces the way that opposite stay together bound to their children because the different understanding even 1% -- again looking at those that i just described one believing that it's all about staying with their kids into the and the other believing it's all about emotional commitment could have different results. >> even under the rational basis standard do we accept a feeling i think that the justice put it quite clearly with something as fundamental as marriage and live with that feeling which doesn't make any sense control our decision making?

>> it doesn't if people think it's more about love and commitment and about staying bound to your child forever that there might be different consequences. >> i think people that go into marriage think that. everybody has their own vision of what marriage is. that's what the state preserves are certain obligations. and they are willing to accept those. whether or not that couple stays together, they are bound to the child. they have to support the child. they have to care for him or her and choose voluntarily not just because they don't want to come up at the patterns whether it is same-sex or heterosexual couples. >> what you are describing are different ways people think about marriage and certainly it is the harm to the child in an opposite sex couple if they get divorced as opposed to stay together forever. i think that we could all agree that in general we want to stay

bound to the biological mother and father was never possible. that is the whole definition. what i hear on lots of other -- >> they should be down to their parents because there are a lot of adoptive children and they are not thinking of biological. that is a completely different situation. >> that's the situation where the child doesn't have the biological mom and dad anymore for whatever reason answer that is a different state interest. >> suppose that there is a state with a view of marriage of the kind that you are talking about. and so, emotional commitment and support from all of these the state thinks is the purpose of marriage and they want their marriage licenses to be addressed only to the things that surfaced procreation purpose. and so they say we are not getting marriage licenses to anybody that doesn't want children so when people come in and ask for a marriage license they ask a simple question deal

of children if the answer is no, the state says no marriage license. would that be constitutional? >> .gov against the state interest as you just described. >> the state isn't a perfect correlation, but it says that the best way to promote this procreation center view of marriage is dressed to limit marriage to people who want children. so, that's what it does. would that be constitutional? >> that even people that come into marriage thinking they don't want to have children often end up with children. >> but this -- >> what is your answer to the question? >> what is the constitutional? i think that it would be an unconstitutional invasion to ask a question. >> to ask if you want children is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy?