to criminal prosecution and jail time. all of these cases that we have been talking about where the court recognize the fundamental right to marriage, there were other laws that prohibited if the states interest in fostering procreation between natural parents than it seems to me that issue did that. it said you can get married. we can't deprive the prisoner of that even if the prisoner and presumably those serving life sentences have no chance for procreation.

>> they've actually decided to prisoner cases. it said even someone in prison, who has prison, who has an expectation of getting out someday has a right to consummate their marriage. when someone serving a life sentence they can deny them the opportunity to marry because they never have the opportunity to consummate the marriage. let's take away all laws regarding cohabitation and intimacy outside of marriage so there is no criminal conduct. if the state today decided to have no marriage that wouldn't violate a fundamental right. the a fundamental right. the fundamental rate in those cases 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. there are two very different things and you can draw the

analogy to the abortion and i was reluctant to bring that up but in roe versus wade the government said they were not interested in that fundamental right. but a woman cannot force the government to participate. the government cannot interfere in private intimate conduct. our position is that the court as a constitutional matter, can say they can force them into these relationship by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anybody. that's not what our fundamental doctrine says. to get back to your point says. to get back to your point about how the constitution does enforce limits, there haven't been any identifiable limits that support the states interest. you would have to somehow change one of those doctrines. you'd have to change equal protection doctrines. when you change those you also change the balance between the federal court and the people

voting you are doing something very different that we've never done before. you were determining civil rights in terms of the people who can claim them. we have seen constitutional rights but we don't say these people can exercise it and these people can't. it would be like saying, and lawrence well there's only a right to intimate activity for heterosexual people and not a right for intimacy for gays and lesbian. of course we didn't do that.

>> >> how about the situation?

virtually all states would recognize cousins through marriage getting married so at least one state does not are you saying that --. >> back constitutional test is the one that the state set forth does it have a sufficient important interest not to recognize certainly in the case of incest. >> this is not incest they are not tied to. >> the state that i am aware of against cousin marriage to do so under the incest statute to define that in a broadway to encompass cousins but at some point certainly the familial relationship is to extenuated i don't think the state would have.

>> as it points out the assumption is the way these cases are presented that the state does have a sufficient interest to allow the marriage in that state for go there is a sufficient interest under our assumption to say this is not a fundamental right. why should the state to have to yield? >> you have to analyze differently for not allowing couples to enter marriage as related to a couple who was already married to. kentucky has asserted italy allows opposite sex couples to marry is to increase the birthrate now apply that

theory to those who are already buried in the states where they were married or in half the states of the country. kentucky has the court to believe it is sufficiently important interest to have that disregard the existing marriage vows to marry someone else in order to procreate biologically even though they may already have children together. i would say. >> with the long-term effects of same-sex couples in the kentucky to agree with counsel for what they've responded and argued will be a reduction with heterosexual marriages with children born to those

marriages. >> get has rejected that type of speculation as a basis but the states argued it was too soon if not for the biological. >> but maybe it assumes that we have that it is okay for a state not to permit same-sex marriage. >> that has an interest the stability that marriage provides for children. that does not justify what already exists. >> if the petitioner prevails then the argument is moot. >> so you suppose the situation and tell it can

marriage but doesn't recognize the marriage from out of state? doesn't make a difference if there is a ban on same-sex marriage then it comes back home again. >> it don't think there is said judge distinction because none of those wrote - - drives that type of wine added that is as the court observes the nonrecognition in lot is a stark departure from the traditional practice to recognize out-of-state marriages to celebrate within the state and precisely that circumstance where the law diverges warda

three states that have this issue between them to identify only five instances in which they did not recognize the marriage vow lead outside the state and those are incest which the state would have a justification much to recognize, not of precedent that the court would want to lie or that it would not survive today such as a rule against allowing a divorced person to read very. more importantly the most recent is from 1970. the rule that the state's site to disregard or dissolve marriages that already exist the they have already begun to build their

lives is less applied then the federal government allegory. >> but again you avoid that presumption that the state's policy for supporting same-sex marriages sufficiently strong as a matter of public policy that is so much weaker. >> so a charter chair distinguish it was very significant on a rational basis for that was to the question if they would be allowed to marry in the first instance. our practitioners are already very because the court held once married they have a constitutional and

interest in their marriage and we also know from windsor with a sovereign disregard extraordinary and out of character that that requires that the very least careful consideration. that undermines the state interest to say they must welcome people who are married elsewhere. to recognize we are in a very mobile society. one state would stem the policy for the entire nation >> there with heterosexual couples better raising

couples -- children but the argument is so under an inclusive at the same time because the state's for what they purport to there would never draw the line. >> pylos to there that led mismarriage for those who can procreate biologically without assistance. the states don't draw those lines that have adopted relationships that further support or give greater stability. >> i thought the states had never categorically passed a

law to declare a particular kind of marriage was against public policy. >> they have never done that. these laws are out of character in an unprecedented in many respects. >> you say that the law in some state are contextual? >> i think the nonrecognition losses have the distinction between same-sex the opposite sex was the most dramatic variation it is a racial

marriage is the closest analogy but it goes to justice sotomayor question being. >> what is the most erratic variation in marriage laws of the state's. >> it probably is age. >> 13 through 18 but the tradition of the state is to recognize that is entered into that could not be entered into with in the state because of the nature once established recognizing the fundamental nature of that relationship is not one

the state should put asunder. >> guide that you said it could refuse to recognize with of minimum age was puberty? >> they could with the individual case it would show because of lack of consent. >> but that perception of such as state at age 13? vitter faq are right but 15 instead of 16 the courts probably would recognize it with the reliance of their marriage the couple already conceived of a child would do no one any good to destroy that marriage and the stable environment for the children

just as it does certainly does not advance the interest of the children of opposite sex couples to provide stability. >> i figure argument is the exact opposite of the petitioners of a prior case. but now you say you cannot recognize same-sex marriage because they never have not you have to decide whether or the other if you win. >> but what is essential is that we recognize the marriage the petitioners ever entered into is a marriage that same institution the most important relationship of

the life. >> but we only get to the second question if you lost on that point already that states do not have to recognize so assuming you lost on that idle see how your argument and could not say it isn't treated as a marriage if they don't have to in the first place. >> that highlights one of the problems end to decide against petitioners to forever relegate those marriages do second-class status to raise those questions if they are subjected. >> i am suggesting that even a win on question number two does not fully validate you

cannot disregard them with eggs all existing marriages without a reason to do so the court recognizes in the war in case mirrors and procreation air in a relationship child during our fundamental assets of the economy that same-sex couples can enter into faqs to the but it is opposite sex couples especially when they have done so to establish a of marriage but i think that brings to hold what is happening married in 2008 in 2009 now in reliance with the protection that is

afforded by marriage to give up his job to become the primary caregiver of their children. and the destruction what they had relied on to build their lives together there is no reason the state needs to disregard that marriage end with respect to the first question they knew the assistance of same-sex marriages erodes that

society regards heterosexual marriages. >> as i said before the i don't think that holds up because opposite sex couples who have no children or beyond childbearing years if they move into the state's their marriages are entitled to respect the yet they are situated precisely as the petitioners are. couples likewise have marriages but they can procreates to adoption to bring people just as opposite sex people to and when reliance on their own state the court relies on federalism the vertical client to identify something that is highly unusual it is

what is highly unusual as federalism but they have ceded some form of their authority to recognize when another state creates the enduring relationship in reliance the protection and it affords for families that other states are simply free to disregard what they created. once it is established it exists on all other states the same our petitioners have established to that same respect. i think, your honor, it is interesting to note to argue positions that are quite

astonishing those debtor capable love procreation and that they could abolish marriage altogether. those that take marriage seriously they take vows to tell each other from an institution that predates the bill of rights to offer something more to destroy it >> we treat outsiders the semi as insiders. >> but what the state ignores are these so-called outsiders are already married. this every has same-sex

couples in my state so we will treat you the same way. but they ignore we have already formed those relationships. in terms of the interest between the two with heterosexual couples to limit marriage to those that of part of procreation or women that are 55 but it would be a different and a violation for the state to to resolve those marriages when the woman reaches 55 a don't think that is constitutionally permissible and they never would do that. the essential protection laws that the majority has to live under the same law for the minority and there's a chance the majority could

subject themselves to such a lot as that for probably to reserve the remainder of my time. >> mr. chief justice of them may please the court the 14th and images are require states to a traditional marriage laws to recognize to recognize people of the same sex and equitable article for. >> it seems to be relevant it shall be given in each state to the public asks wreckers and judicial proceedings of every other state. why doesn't that apply? >> the court draws the extinction between desmids between states and though laws of each state in part

the court's decisions have said that otherwise it can legislate for every other state. >> that includes the act of marrying people. >> but the reference to public access is each state's law. >> there is nothing in the constitution that requires the states that requires those that are the same that is right that is as jurisprudence with allstate insurance and alaska or so forth that there is of minimal due process required >> the only marriage we acknowledge that concluded new york.

>> vacancy the marriage we had knowledge did new york are those made under the law of new york. >> yes your honor. >> really? >> what case would reduce site to support that proposition? >> i don't think i understood the question. >> what is the case that holds that the state of new york has the right to recognize all the marriages made it new york? and if you marry and virginia and new york has a constitutional right to say we treat you as if he were not. >> i did misunderstand the question. with your could decline to recognize the august a marriage that did not comport with their lot. >> because it is clear it is

the of law of the two states if you multiplied the other states law. >> even though it is the same? >> in new york i happen to know what has of law that a federal judge from washington and could not marry someone you cannot very to whether people in the district of columbia has the opposite. if i marry to people in washington d.c. and they happen to move to your queue say york does not have to recognize that marriage because it does not comport. >> i think if you people will get nervous about this. [laughter] >> my answer is based on nevada vs. hall because the

state's own boss sets its own policy the state would be in conflict. >> that would be that we discussed federal judges from outside the state and even then they would get away with it? because the next i would ask what is the difference between that policy and the one this is we don't recognize the gay couples for the reason that we fear if they get married even if they have children and adopt them, even if we allow people who are not a gate to get married or they don't have children despite that that, it is not recognized. >> i want to try to answer. i think the underlying focus is not a policy but a legitimate policy and as this court's questions earlier indicated i proceed

on the assumption that the court has decided the first question and the state's favor to determine that indeed they can maintain a traditional madwoman definition is legitimate and we agree that it is it if the court show - - so should decide. >> this has nothing to do with the article rollbacks for -- full faith and credit that provides background that indeed we have the right to recognize out-of-state marriage. >> as it applies to judgments because you find it offensive but full faith and credit. >> yes, your honor. in essence by deciding to

recognize another state's marriage it decides whether to recognize another state's law that the marriage was performed. >> i'm sorry you don't see a fundamental difference between between now creating of marriage and recognizing a marriage in terms of the rights of people? it states -- if the states say the prewar requisite for a marriage is not necessarily for the policy policy, they may have said that for a dutch differences or of lots of things but why did that a marriage issue be so fundamental to the them

to exclude a whole category of people from recognition and? >> it goes to the essence of both questions before the court the fundamental notion of what marriage is. the comparison between how the states have operated their recognizing their rage before -- before there was same-sex marriage cannot be compared to how states are responding across the board with the phenomenon of same-sex marriages and here is the reason. commentators have observed that when all states are on the same page about what marriage is, that is the celebration will evolves from that every state has the same definition had the same interest, a liberal policy of recognizing

marriages from one state to the other. >> you think marriage decree is closer to a law of damage judgment -- they and a judgment? you need that judgment in a divorce so makes the decree much closer to a judgment they and a law. >> performing of of marriages closer to a law because when the marriages performed all the rights that flow from this state flow to the couple. it does not deserve the same kind of treatment under the full faith and credit jurisprudence. >> what is the order under the constitution or the act act, that is not a judgment?

have reduced separate out the terms that justice scalia gave you? for different terms for used >> judicial proceedings is my understanding jurisprudence that refers to laws and records and judgments of other states. marriages have always been treated as a conflict of law throw all the years in fact, it gives rise to the entire law doctrine on which petitioners rely that the commentary on the conflict of law. >> outside of the present controversy when was the last time tennessee declined to recognize any marriage. >> 1970 with a stepfather and stepdaughter. but i would hasten to add

what i started to describe without regard to this point, while states were playing along but some states were changing the rules of the game if i could extend that metaphor. >> there were always distinctions based on age and of relationships a river not playing along under the same definition but despite that it is quite rare for a state not to recognize another state marriage. >> so long as we talk about what marriage is the fundamental man and woman marriage. that is my .1 states were confronted with the reality some states would redefine or expand the definition for same-sex couples for the

first time, it is not surprising they quickly determined to keep with their own laws that they would not recognize the other states. >> to put you in a very unusual situation and we have to assume the first question has been decided against the petitioner or we would not get to the second question so we told the state has a sufficient reason to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. and it was acknowledged a state could refuse to recognize the out-of-state marriage if it has a strong public policy if it is polygamist or of a very young individual. so could there be something in between? this is of sufficient reason for the state to say we will

not grant the license itself but not a strong enough reason to not recognize a marriage from out of state. is that possible? >> let me answer this way. let me be clear. the justification that has grown over time with a strong public policy reason have grown up around the man and woman definition. our position as long as we talk about a marriage from another state that is not the man woman definition but the state's cohesive and coherent policy that justifies not to break down those marriages otherwise the question that was put earlier indicated any president of the state could go to another state, get married, a comeback and

demand. >> that happens every day. >> people that are not permitted go and do that then come back to their home states and they follow the rule a celebration. >> but we talk about the distinction as the states see it traditionally and same-sex marriage. >> they have the prerequisite of the state's judgment about marriage. they make exceptions. >> your honor the difference is the landscape that we find ourselves. tennessee, ohio, kentucky with the traditional definition have done nothing but stand pat with a status quo but yet another states

made the decision it is there right to do so to expand the definition then to suggest other states that have done nothing now must recognize those marriages and poses a substantial burden on the state's ability to self govern. >> but as a divorce is a decree for the nation with the proper jurisdiction in one state must be recognized by every other state. as an act of marriages. >> i am understand the point but i think if falls within the court's recognition between the judgment and a lawyer really deal with the law but it wired -- it would

literally one state now minority states to legislate fundamental concerns about marriage for every other state quite literally. that is an enormous in position and intrusion on the state's ability to decide for itself public policy questions to talk a recognition there is an impact when one state is asked to recognize because of the fact that has been built around that exhortation and resumption of that man woman relationship that it observed that marriages the foundation to regulate domestic relations. one concrete example that

comes up in this case itself, one of the incidents is the perception of the parentage that comes with a marriage. for the state to be required to recognize another state's marriage if there is a child of the same sex situation will fundamentally alter the definition of marriage. >> vendor stand your argument it is a policy question to recognize same-sex marriage or not that i see a difficulty to follow the consequences under domestic relations law the first question is is a big step but then how you to power dash supply that law is straight forward. >> mention this in particular because a large part of petitioners' focus has been on the impact of

the children involved and it is important to recognize in many states and tennessee that definition apparent is always biologically based that marital presumption of parity is as a foundation in biology of the man and woman relationship. if the state was required to recognize the same-sex marriage to change the program and terminology. >> but what about adoption? what is the problem? this is a big deal? >> because you change the way the state defines epergnes. in the adoption context understand the traditional definition it works in tandem, together. s described with marriage to

link children with their biological parents when that breaks down there is adoption. >> t think estate can fail to recognize a birth certificate of another state ? do you think the word records in the constitution includes birth certificate? so california without any reason of suspicion or fraud or anything, could refuse to recognize another state's birth certificate? >> i have to read mitt i cannot speak to that. >> record has a meaning. the reason i am hesitant there is disagreement in the case about the impact of

that if that means we have to read knowledge the existence of a record or if the effective of the record yesterday acknowledged. >> i recognize that is an issue but a weber certificate were to be a record shouldn't a marriage certificate as an official act of a state? it is a record. >> it certifies the facts there was a marriage the laws that allow that to occur when different fundamentally preclude that application of the state from one to another. >> with regard to to the effect it is important to consider the fact that

petitioners have complained about the impact when they move from one state to the next from your gore california -- new york or california. federalism is the strength of our structure to accommodate the different viewpoint and approach this fundamental debate we're having generates. and it makes all the sense in the world with respect to that with accommodates

points of view that is why i asked the court to to disrupt the balance to recognize the law and the marriage of a different state. >> you will acknowledge if the state loses on the first question it also loses on the second? >> yes, your honor. >> you have five minutes left stairmaster with the assertion with biology is not so. tennessee law and i will quote from 1036, sorry

referred to on page 15 provides the child born to a married woman as a result of the artificial insemination with consent of a married woman's husband the father is deemed to the illegitimate child of the husband and wife although he has no biological relationship with the child said tennessee reinforces the bond of parent and child regardless of biology as long but the import of that that they who phelan love and married while in graduate school as academic couples, at the state university that they have

given birth to their daughter in tennessee. in recognition of the losses their daughter is passed -- hospitalized that there is no right to visit her child or make medical decisions they are for real people and as the council would suggest to make different laws that is the cost of federalism but the sergeant did not have a choice united states army moved them to tennessee and given the location of freebases it is 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. to go back to a categorical and how unprecedented it is. but such judges purposes of the state to a get out the proceeds but easier they're given no effect for any reason even the husband's death certificate will not reflect the fact he was married or the name of his has been the state has no legitimate interest for the dignity of that aspect regarding his life. the import of the state's

argument i believe is this. even went same-sex couples are married, in their view are not very for constitutional purposes. the states can discriminate against these marriages even raise the constitution would not permit the states to disregard of and opposite sex couples i urge the court not to enshrine in the constitution a second-class status. thank you very much. >> thank you. the case is submitted. [cheers and applause] . . earlier today:

[cheering] [cheering] [cheering]

>> some of the initial reaction. before the ruling 14 states banned same-sex marriage and 36 states p >> they recognized gay marriage. just after there were marriage is happening across the nation. posting videos. here is the first couple to get married in dallas texas after being together 54 years. this is from cobb, georgia and the columbus dispatch

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

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

>> good morning, our nation was brought -- founded on a bedrock principle. the project of his generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times and never ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every single american. progress comes in small increments. sometimes two steps forward one step back propelled by the persistent effort. and then sometimes there are days like this when that slow steady effort is

rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt this morning the supreme court recognized that the constitution guarantees marriage equality. in doing so they reaffirmed at all americans entitled to equal protection of the law. all people should be treated equal regardless of who they are there like. this decision will and patchwork system we currently have and the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples not knowing whether their marriage legitimately as of wednesday will remain if they decide to move or even visit another.

this will strengthen the dignity of marriage across this great land. the lovely commit to one another must be equal as well. it is gratifying to see the principle enshrined in the llamas decision. the victory for gay and lesbian couples who fought so long with the basic civil rights, victory for the children, children, families will not be recognized as

equal to any other. the victory for allies and friends and supporters who have spent years, years, even decades working and praying for change to come. and this ruling is a victory for americans. this affirms of millions of americans are a believe in their hearts all americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. my administration has been guided by this idea and why we were pleased with the striking down of the general provision of that discriminatory law, while we had don't had -- don't ask

don't tell. spending more marital benefits of federal employees and espouses, extending visitation rights and it made real progress in advancing equality with ways that were unimaginable not too long ago. i know that change for many of our lg bt brothers and sisters must have seemed so so for so long but compared to so many other issues the path has been so quick. i know that americans have been lying to express a wide range of views on this issue opposition in some opposition in some cases has been based on sincere deeply held beliefs. today's new should be mindful of that fact. recognize different viewpoints review our deep commitment to religious freedom. today should also give us hope that on the many issues

with which we grapple real changes possible. ships in hearts and minds those have come so far have a responsibility to reach back and help others join. we are big and vast and diverse, people diverse people of different backgrounds and beliefs, experiences and stories but bonded by our shared ideas that no matter who you are what you look like or how do you love america is a

place where you can write your own destiny. vi people believe that every single child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of america to every american. today that we can say in no uncertain terms that we have made our union a little more perfect. that is a consequence of decision the supreme court but more importantly, a importantly, a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up came out to talk

to parents of parents who love their children folks who were willing to endure bullying and talk and stayed strong and came to believe in themselves for who they were. and suddenly made an entire country realize that love is love. what an extraordinary achievement but what a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do

extraordinary things. a reminder of what bobby kennedy once said about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still like ripples about the cascade outwards and change the world. those countless often anonymous heroes deserve our thanks. they should be proud. america should be proud. thank you. [applauding]

quakes some of the scene outside the supreme court after justices ruled five to four to legalize same-sex marriage. [inaudible conversations] justice ruled 5-4. [inaudible conversations]

>> after the decision millions >> after the decision millions of people responded on social media, media facebook in the first hour after the announcement. 3.8 million people in the us have more than 10 million responses from likes to post a comment and shares related to the decision. a times magazine posted history. ky w news radio rights the republican party presidential candidates have uniformly condemned the supreme court ruling that in trying same-sex marriage as a nationwide reality.

statements from the gop candidates running for president in 2016, former florida governor jeb bush writing guided by my faith and believe in traditional marriage and that the supreme court should have allowed the states to make this decision. he is seeking the republican presidential nomination. former texas governor rick perry fundamentally disagrees with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the tenth amendment. founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench. new jersey governor chris christie who is reportedly planning to announce his intent to run for president on tuesday i believe marriage is between a man and a woman. if there's going going to be changes it should be by a vote of the people. the cases before the court included lawsuits from kentucky, michigan, ohio, and tennessee. they have not allowed same-sex couples to marry and have refused to recognize marriages from other states. that now changes with the

supreme court ruling. immediately following the decision some of the complaint is reacted reactive and talked about the decision. >> my late husband and i were i were together for almost 21 years before he passed away as a result of complications of als. i am here today in front of our nation's highest court because my home state sought the recognition of my marriage to john. when the man i love and care for passed away from one of the cruelest diseases known to humanity the state of ohio, the state in which i have i have lived worked, and pay taxes for most of my life continued to fight my right. no american should have to suffer the indignity. that is why i know in my

heart got is with me today. today's ruling from the supreme court they reserve equal dignity, respect, and treatment. now at long last ohio will recognize our marriage and most important marriage equality will come to every city across the country. it is my it is my hope that i'm gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past and 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 in reducing the stigma that her the alienation and discrimination lg bt people too often feel. at the same time my heart is also in charleston. these past few these past few weeks and months of been an important reminder that discrimination in many forms is alive and well in america money of the deeply unfortunate reality the progress for some is not progress for all and that there can be equally -- equally significant steps backward as forward. a truly dedicated all americans deserve justice. that's what were united. posted by me every step of

the way. in clr and our 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 would i would like to give a special thank you to those who brilliantly argued our case before the court and eloquently affirmed my right and relationship and those of millions of others like me across the country. real you all a huge debt of gratitude. most importantly, i would like to thank john for loving me for making me a better man command for giving me something worth fighting for. i i love you. this is for you. [applauding] thank you.

>> i want to i want to say today was a momentous decision that will bring joy to millions of families to my gays and straights across the land and then now every person in this country who is lg bt realizes that they can marry tomorrow, 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 have the same security and protection that marriage provides the families.

this is also a great day for our constitution. make no mistake about it. today the court stood by a by a principal in this nation that we do not tolerate laws that disadvantage people because of who they are. so it is a day for for equality liberty, and justice under law. as i say that there are thousands of people together gathered in morning that it is still true that we are still sometimes targeted and face unspeakable acts of violence because of who they are. at least celebrate what is a landmark ruling for love and for justice. let us also let us also rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every person in this nation can live safely and securely and have the freedoms and opportunities that our constitution promises us.

we need to do this for each other, and rio this to future generations command i think everyone who has helped make this day possible possible, millions of people the plaintiffs, lawyers, everyone. thank you. [applauding] [applauding] >> this is truly a great day for all americans. the the court stressed in its opinion that marriage is a fundamental. marriage is fundamental to couples, the families couples, the families they build around their marriages, fundamental to society. it is hard to believe that just less than two decades ago gay and lesbian individuals face the possibility of being jailed simply because of who they loved. today today the supreme court invalidates the foley quality 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. that is in fact, the nature of being right. this victory did not come just by happenstance. it happenstance. it was the product of many decades of hard labor by many, many people that certainly my colleague who has been a leader in this movement for decades it took the bravery of the plaintiff willing to stand up and insist on their right and it took many

organizations the collective efforts of which realize this momentous decision that we can all celebrate. [applauding] >> you with my husband and our two adopted children. also joined by a co- plangent. they are just grateful to be here. i would like to start by saying what i think everyone should say when something very good happens in the lives. we we need to pause and give thanks to god as lifelong practicing catholics that is

how we feel this is god's intention and does work. we thank god for it. michael and i can't put the together for 33 years, legally married for 11 years not until today in the state of kentucky you recognized our union. this is a watershed day for our family the same for all kentuckians and all americans. it has been it has been a long path for us and our 33 years. we know that people have been fighting this fight for decades. many many are here with us today, and we thank them all we also think we also think so many people, especially the aclu who has been so supportive of us, the stanford law clinic and our superb legal team back and take you got us started chairing the cyber law office. we have had so much support

from so many people including evan wilson none of us would be here today without the foundation that has been laid over the last 30 years. so we are grateful to be here for the end. we have been together through a lot. we never thought we would see this happen so grateful that we are here to be able to celebrate this. i will tell you what this means for all families. our children will now be able to have to legal adoptive parents to legal parents after 16 a half years. now we will be able to request second parent adoptions and will be illegal family and the state of kentucky which means the world to us and is important for the kentucky in the country. one last thing i would like to say there is a psalm we

sing in our church that starts out 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 the freedom to marry for all kentuckians from all americans and i'd that's a it feels very good. thank you very much. [applauding] >> director of the aclu. >> i, everybody. i everybody. director of the lg bt project at the aclu. this morning the supreme court welcomed same-sex couples into the american family recognizing we make the commitment expect the love and the the protections that the core of marriage. that makes today a watershed moment in the movement for lg bt equality at least as

far back as 1967. a couple filed the first lawsuit in the country seeking the freedom to marry the aclu is proud and honored to have represented jack baker and michael mcconnell just as we represent jim, rick, and michael and many of the other plaintiffs today. ..

more fair, more free, more equal equal, in short more american today and for that we are enormously grateful. thank you. [applause] >> next we have dan and nicole north smith of ohio. >> we are one of the four plaintiffs for all 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 straight -- state that we work in and 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 and they brought this all the way to the supreme court. that's how much of a love our kids and we are so happy that when we return home today that our marriage is recognized just the same as our neighbors marriages recognized. >> we are so proud and thankful to be a part of this case and be a part of the historic movement that this is. i want to thank all of our attorneys and all the other attorney said it worked effortlessly.

without them we wouldn't be here and we owe a lot of gratitude and thanks to them so thank you. >> and then also thank you to all the people that have spent the last 50 years making this a dream come true. [applause] ♪ >> 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. we did that 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. >> today is a beautiful chapter in a love story. we saw wonderful decisions on this same date lawrence versus texas, united states versus windsor june 26. a lucky day in the history of same-sex couples and. [applause] and in this ongoing love story we see families families like new york smith's mothers who care so much for others and their children they come to the u.s. supreme court. today they sought justice. today they sought an affirmation of their dignity, of the commitment that day 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 are reminded that until we have justice for everyone, until we have racial justice and and we have justice for all transgender gay americans are work is not over. let wedding bells rang across the country. young people can know that if they are 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 the wedding bells ring. [applause] thank you. >> some more of the sights and sounds as the ribbon was released. ♪ ♪ [applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> just some of the sights and sounds outside the supreme court and the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in all the states. in a 5-4 ruling justice anthony

kennedy wrote for the dissents. here are some of what justice kennedy wrote. no union is more profound than marriage for it embodies the highest ideals of love fidelity devotion and sacrifice and family. in forming a marital union to people become something greater than they once were. has some of the petitioners in the cases demonstrate marriage embodies a love that may endure past death. it would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. they are pleased that they do respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. and justice antonin scalia wrote, one of the dissenting opinion saying the nature of marriage is that through its enduring bond to persons together can find other freedoms such as expression intimacy and spirituality. really? whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality whatever that means were freedoms and intimacy

is one would think freedom of intimacy is a rich rather than expanded by marriage. ask the nearest hippie. just sum up what justice scalia is dissent was in the gay marriage decision before they are argument that led to the ruling here are some of justice scalia rather -- from 2009 on the supreme court series on why he enjoys writing dissents. >> to center more fun to write that got to say that is enough for dissent, it's yours. you say what you want great if somebody doesn't want to join it who cares? it's my dissent and this is what i want to say. when you are in the majority don't have that luxury. you have to craft it in a way that at least four other people can jump on and actually you try to correct it in a play that as many people as possible can jump on which means accepting some suggestions that are stylistic and otherwise that you don't think are the best but in order

to get everybody on board you take it. >> and they look at the white house with the rainbow colors in the same-sex marriage lgbt -- projected on the walls of the white house. after the decision 70,000 couples who live in states that did not allow same-sex marriage will get married with the next three years according to the williams institute at ucla. there are already 390,000 married same-sex couples in the u.s.. in the same-sex marriage case to questions, one does any part of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection and due process compel states to perform same-sex marriages and the second question our states required to recognize same-sex marriages from on in other states? here is the oral argument from april. >> the argument this morning in

case 14556 roberta felt versus hodges in the consolidated cases. >> mr. chief justice may it please the court. the intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples just like those of heterosexual couples provide mutual support are the foundation of family life in our society. if a real commitment responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment. indeed the abiding purpose of the 14th amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons just like a deer status. >> what you do in the case where the court stressed the federal government's historic deference to states when it comes to

matters of domestic relations? >> states do have domestic revelations but their laws must respect the constitutional rights and windsor could have been clearer. we have a whole class of people who are denied equal rights to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families. >> you say jointed institution. the argument on the other side is that they are seeking to redefine the institution. every definition that i looked up prior to a dozen years ago defined marriage as the unity between man and woman as husband and wife. obviously if you succeed that core definition would no longer be applicable. >> i hope not your honor because we are talking here about a class of people who are by state laws excluded from being able to participate in this institution and if your honors question is about does this really draws sexual orientation lined?

>> no my question is you are not seeking to join the institution. you are seeking to change with the institution is. a fundamental chord institution as the opposite sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship. >> two points on that your honor. to the extent if you look at the fundamental right to marry as a core male-female institution i think if you look at the 14th amendment we know that provides enduring guarantees in that once we once viewed as the role of women and the role of gay people is something that is change in our society so in a sense just as the lawrence court called out the bowers court for not appreciating the extent of the liberty at stake in the same vein. the question is whether gay people share that same liberty. >> one of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases and a

word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia plus time. first of all there is not an eight times of the respondents say for the federal system to engage in this debate. but on a larger scale it was about the same time between brown and loving between lawrence and this case. it's about 10 years. so it's time for the scholars and the commentators in the bar to engage but 10 years i don't even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. this definition has been with us for a millennia. and it's very difficult for the court to say oh well we know better. >> i don't think this is a question of the court knowing better. the place of gay people into the

society something that has been contested for more than a century in the last century immigration exclusions placing gay people in federal service are all things that have been contested. you can see 10 years of marriage from massachusetts but it's also the 1970s that the case from from minnesota reach this cordon that's over 40 years ago. that was over 20 years ago that the supreme court seem to indicate that it would rule in favor of marriage and the american people have been discussing this. it's been exhaustively aired and the bottom line is gay and lesbian families live in communities as neighbors throughout this whole country. >> you are arguing in your brief that the primary purpose of the michigan law and marriage to man and woman was to domain gay people. is that correct? >> the michigan statute and amendment went out of their way to say that gay people were

antithetical to the good of society. >> deducing a brief the primary purpose was to demean gay people? >> i think it has that effect your honor. >> is that churches in michigan or true of every other state that has a similar definition of marriage? >> up we are talking about the states that have constitutional amendments many of them are similar. there are a few states that have statutes and didn't have amendments and there are some that had none of the above but even if there is not a purpose to demean i think the common commonality and all the statues whether they were enacted long ago or more recently is that they encompass moral judgments and stereotypes about gay people people. even if you think about years ago people were not worthy of the concern of people. >> how do you account for the fact that as far as i'm aware until the end of the 20th century, there never was a

nation or a culture in that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. now can we infer from that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice? >> your honor my position is if you think about the example of sex discrimination again protected by the 14th amendment but it took over 100 years for this court to recognize that a sex classification contravenes. but then short order between reid and -- they went from rational basis approach to heightened scrutiny acknowledging this discrimination is insidious and the same thing here we have the foundation of roemer, of lawrence and windsor. >> i don't think you answered my

question. can be inferred that these societies all thought there was a rational reason for this and a practical reason for this? >> i don't know what other societies assumed but i do believe that he takes time to see a stereotypes and see the common humanity of people who had once been ignored or excluded. >> you wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was and it was impossible. same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage. if the relationship dominant and a subordinate relationship. yes it is a marriage between a man and a woman but the man decided it was her obligation to follow him. there was a change in the institution of marriage to make it voluntary when it wasn't

voluntary. same-sex unions wouldn't fit into what marriage was. >> that's correct and for centuries we had this coverage or system where women's legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband and women have different prescribed roles and again because of equality and changing social circumstances all of those gender differences in the rights and responsibilities have been eliminated. that of course is the system in which committed same-sex couples -- >> it's not a universal aspect of marriage around the world. there again if you look at the basic definition, it is between a man and a woman. it does not always say between a man and a woman in which the woman is subordinate in legal respects. i'm not sure it's still again

there are analogy to your situation. >> well your honor think about about -- the thing about marriage is its control to make a bid to buy the states. the states create the definition of civil marriage and certainly are accountable for those definitions and exclusions which follow. of course we all know explosions in cases like loving and turner were in each case with prisoners. the people behind on their child support payments and a mixed-race couple who wanted to enjoy this institution even though these exclusions were traditional they could not fit in. >> not all societies banned mixed-race marriages. in fact not even all states in this country band it but i don't know of any, do you know of any society prior to the netherlands in 2001 that permitted same-sex marriage? >> as a legal matter no.

>> as a legal matter. not a single other society until 2001 and you are telling me they were all, i don't know. >> what i'm saying is taking that tradition as it is one still needs, the court still needs a reason to maintain that 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 it for this society when no other society until 2001 ever had it and how many states have voted to have the same-sex marriage or their legislature or by referendum? i think it's 11, isn't it? >> i would also help the state courts that interpreted the constitution. >> well yes the state courts will agree with you but once

again that's not the people deciding. its judges deciding it. >> in terms of this millennial what is then the status board the view of gay people in most of those countries? have they been subject to the kinds of discrimination that they were subject to hear or they welcomed into a world by the community? was it for you discrimination? >> if you are speaking of the world not every legal system around the world has the kind of system where they explored constitutional guarantees for all persons of liberty and equality and sets it off from so many other countries. there are 17 or 18 countries that authorize marriage for same-sex couples europe south america new zealand. >> there are been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality

and it is not the universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. ancient greece as an example. it was well accepted within that once but did they have same-sex marriage in ancient greece? >> i don't think they had anything comparable to what we have your honor. >> they had marriage, didn't they? >> yes. >> and they had same-sex relations. people like plato wrote in favor of that did he not? >> in favor of? >> opposing way of same-sex relationships, did he not? >> i believe so your honor. >> air there are limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people was it? >> i can't speak to what was happening with ancient philosophers. >> you said marriage is different because it controlled the government. but from a historical and

anthropological standpoint justice scalia was careful to talk about societies and cultures. the kalahari people are ancient peoples. they didn't have the government rule. they made it themselves and it was man and woman. >> there are certainly were prior to marriages the united states forming and we recognize that but when our nation did form the scene in an affirmed the 14th amendment in 1868 as when we made our nation collectively made a commitment to individual liberty and equality. >> maybe you are doing that but i would like to hear the precise answer to the question you have been asked several times. to me it takes the form the opposite view has been the law everywhere for thousands of years. among people who are not discriminated against 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 have heard change what marriage is to include gay people. why cannot the 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 many ways in the briefs on her subject. you have perceived in three or four different ways. i would like to know so i can hear and understand it just what your responses. >> i apologize if i have it. in our system with the 14th amendment which again sets forth principles that we all are governed by and govern our lives when you look at examples like the coverage or even if it

wasn't universal it was something that was widespread in this nation for a long time and that changed in marriage was deeply unsettling. likewise even if race was not used as a basis for discriminating in every single state is a matter of law by criminal and constitutional law. it was incredibly pervasive and begin changing that as virginia resisted in the loving case and said please wait and see. 80% of the american public was with virginie on that but again was the question of the individual liberty of the person to do something that was considered a profound change in its time. >> suppose we bowl in favor of 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? >> i believe so your honor. >> what would be the recent? >> there would be too. there would definitely be concerns about commercial

consent and disrupting family relationships talking about multiple persons. i want to go back to the wait-and-see question if i may. >> i didn't understand your answer and i hope you will come back to mine. >> these are for people to men and two women. it's not the sort of polygamist marriages that exist in other societies and still exists in some societies today. let's say they are all consenting adults highly educated. they are all lawyers. [laughter] what would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? what would be the logic of denying them the same right? >> number one i assume the states will rush in and say when you talk about multiple people joining into a relationship that is not the same thing we have

had in marriage which is mutual support and consent of two people. setting that aside even assuming assuming -- >> i don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people at the same sex is not something we have had before. recognizing that a substantial break. maybe it's a good one. why is that a greater brake? >> assuming it's up within the fundamental right the question becomes about justification. there were concerns about consent and coercion. if there is a divorce from his second wife does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child? who is it that make the medical decisions in a time of crisis? i would assume there would be family disruption issue setting aside issues of coercion and consent. they don't apply here when we are talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be.

so that is my answer on that and if i may turn to the wait-and-see for a moment wait and see by itself is never being considered a legitimate justification under the 14th amendment. ..