and after congress passed the 1964 1964 act that said you can discriminate based on sex we early on gun charges, charge from a transgender person who had been discriminated against that said this is because of sex. no, it's not. we got charges from gay people that said this is discrimination because of sex because of the sex of the person that i'm involved with that of getting this morning against. after we said that the core started court started saying it also and had these two rationales. well no, it is not sex discrimination because the employer discriminates against a man who is gay and against a woman who is lesbian. so lesbian. so they treating men and women equally. that is a poor argument then , clearly a clearly a poor argument now command we have a supreme court case.

but the other reason they said was that wasn't really the intent of congress. the intent of the intent of congress was basically to protect men and women. and that shifted when in 1989 the supreme court held that it does not matter if you treat some women find. if you don't treat other women okay they are not matching up to your stereotype of what a woman should be like. evidence that they did not want her to be a partner because she was too masculine and told to wear more make up, go to charm school, whatever. that that is a form of sex discrimination. a few years later justice scalia said yeah, there is no protection if that the it

the sex discrimination happens in a same-sex situation and said very clearly obviously they were not thinking about same-sex sexual harassment harassment, but we are governed by the words of the subject. congress feels differently congress can change. those two cases started to change what courts were doing. in a few court started to say that discrimination against a transgender person was a form of sex discrimination because it was based on gender stereotype. when the eeoc when the eeoc get this case we got cases in the federal sector. applicants for federal jobs can come to us with claims of discrimination and there was someone who was discriminated against or wanted to bring a claim that she was discriminate against her her name was me and macy, and in 2012 we ruled that discrimination against a transgender person is inherently based on gender

stereotype. a base other than you are stereotype that someone designated as mail at birth should stay that way and it is plain simple sex discrimination because you are taking sex and of account regardless of the reason. you thought he would hire this person when you thought he was a man and we will not now when you know she is a woman. we will take in and claims of discrimination by transgender folks. then also, 2011 going through recently we will take and claims of discrimination by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people why? because it is a gender stereotype that men should be dating or marrying women and that women should be

dating men marrying women. most of the court has said gender stereotyping if a game as to masculine and he is are asked. if a gay men is too feminine and his arrest, an epitaph you can.to girly walk like a woman, that game and will be protected or a lesbian who is very masculine and his arrest was cremated against on that basis, that lesbian is protected. how many of you thought that must be the first lesbian commissioner of the eeoc. not. a violate the most basic of gender stereotypes, the

person whom i i want to live with, be involved with and mary. we have been we have been taking in charges of gay people since 2013 have gotten hundreds of charges. instead of being shown the door we have taken their charges, investigated and have felt 223 people. not one of those was in court. this is an entire administrative process that you can go through in the eeoc and go through in the eeoc and get some relief through mediation, settlement. now, is that enough? no. of course it would be good to have an explicit federal law that says you may not discriminate based upon sexual orientation or gender identity, employment housing, public accommodation. why? it is clear that you will

not have to go argue in court that you should agree with the eeoc. it is clear. it is guaranteed. much more much more visible. along with that employers across the country know. employers, the fortune 500 what they know the eeoc will take these charges, that we consider lg bt people to be covered right now under federal law and are taking that into account in the employment decision. most of the people in this country are employed i small businesses businesses with more than 15 employees so they are covered by title vii but not businesses that now that they should not be discriminating. that is what an explicit law would do get visibility out there. quakes here is one of two last questions which comes back into the feel of the case.

can you discuss now how will it impact existing statute in the context of divorce, adoption? >> okay. so, one of the things that did happen in the windsor case two years ago when the supreme court struck down the section of the defense of marriage act that says even if you are validly married in your state, we at the federal level will not recognizing. 1,100 whatever benefits that come to you from federal law, everything from social security to how much estate tax you will pay for we are not going to consider you espouse. that was struck down two years ago. anyone who did get married in any state, we want to think that the office of personnel management sent

out as a really early on if you lived in mississippi and you could not get get married in mississippi by ghana messages is an gotten married and have were now back in mississippi for the federal government would view that marriage is valid and you could get federal rights. but lots rights. but lots of people and lots of states -- but you are not going to get any right that mississippi would've given the married couples to read all you can do is get the federal rights. it will not change the definition of spouse. there is not something there like a gay spouse. it's a spouse. and you can choose to get married heterosexual or gay, you can choose to get married and get the benefits and the responsibilities or you can choose not to get married and then your not anyone spouse.

clicks your question or answer races another issue which i think we should put on the table. as much as we may celebrate this decision, and it is a landmark decision by any standard. this is a decision that will forever change how we in our country both of you marriage and the issue of same-sex marriage. is a groundbreaking decision having said that individuals who got married immediately after the decision was rendered to go home at the end of the day and find out is so states that they had been dismissed from their job with no potential consequence that they could pursue, no protection pursue, no protection under federal law for job discrimination in many states even though they are now required to

recognize the sanctity and legality of your marriage. >> this is -- you guys all witnessed a very important moment in washington politics. take? >> drumroll, please clicks one of the things that a lot of the group say is exactly what you just said. you put the picture of your spouse on the desk and you get fired and have no recourse under federal law. i need people to stop saying that. because you do not have sufficiently clear and guaranteed recourse under federal law. absolutely. but do not believe you have no recourse. we have 53 offices around the country kemal

1800 number we have had 900 people come to our doors. they people come to our doors. they came because they are not even part of the gay community and have not heard that they are not protected because they haven't been giving money to organizations. they just filed a complaint. 87% think it's illegal to discriminate. well, that 80% was walking in the door. it is door. it is not fair to some individual person in mississippi, to some individual person in any other state that do not have explicit laws to say you have no recourse because the eeoc's eeoc is taking and complaints and doing investigations under existing law command i think we are right. obviously i think i am right. i voted for these cases. and i cases. and i think that the courts are beginning to agree with us. we will there be a difference of opinion?

certainly. will the supreme court ultimately have to decide the case? of course. course. what i have loved it in this opinion the court had said yes, it's a violation of the equal protection clause because following up on justice roberts question, it is a form of sex discrimination. sextus cremation gets heightened scrutiny and it is a violation of sex discrimination. we would have jumped over everything and clearly sex and every law would have been interpreted to include sexual orientation, but that did not happen. i i call this a race between congress and the supreme court as to how we get these rights. >> well, here is the problem even assuming that you are correct the decisions that the eu sees handing down based in part on your own statements of mediation

inquiry investigation, cajoling businesses in some instances. the argument cuts against congress being faced with the choice in which they need to respond. to the extent that you provide a safety valve for a kind of discrimination we believe is a board and argue that the safety valve exists even for a small number of individuals who may live in states where they would otherwise have no protection, you have cut against the argument that the congress itself must step into this void because to do so, failure to do so heightens the disparities that exist between individual citizens whose rights to accomplish or achieve certain benefits have now been established and it flows naturally from that.

if we were looking for areas of protection we would argue that individuals should be protected in their job because we take the view that characteristics that cannot go to the performance of one's job extraneous characteristics should not be considered. if you argue that race should not be a factor in determining whether an individual can perform a certain function for job that same argument should apply to sexual orientation. you would evaluate the standard. a very important safety valve even during his current position of uncertainty job protection. i'm concerned about title vii related discrimination. i am concerned about housing discrimination that normally would be prohibited under title viii. i am concerned about violations of public accommodation.

and so in seeking to make fear that a a statute as you suggested, would provide additional clarity it is also important to argue that if even you can receive benefits without the statute that the benefits one receives are circumstances that don't affect the majority. >> the washington political. clicks the innovation, we still want you to pass this new law. the nuance and complexity is not what people necessarily like in this town. however, from my perspective it is the reality.

let's be strategic and smart about the reality. so i do not think the way to think about the eeoc is as a safety valve. in the federal sector we issued the opinion and that's it. that's very straightforward. in the private sector we can try to cajole and none of those companies wanted to be the ones that the use he was going to sue. clearly they made a decision even though they knew they did not want to be the poster child. of course in the transgender situation we did sue to companies one settled and the other is still fighting. i expect that will be the case. it is not a possible little bit of help to you can get.

think of get. think of the eeoc in terms of the role that it has played after the 1964 act passed in helping to explicate the meaning of the law. you cannot discriminate based upon sex. the eeoc says that means you cannot read to -- refuse to hire a if you're going to hire a married man. the the eeoc says if you say that you will hire men who have below school's children that is sex discrimination. radical ideas. the eeoc the eeoc said sex discrimination includes pregnancy discrimination. simply the first line, the agency that has responsibility for interpreting law. ultimately up to the court to decide whether they agree with us or not. that is how it works. article one congress passes a law. article two the executive

implement the law. law. article three, the court decides in a particular case what the law means. for means. for example on the case of women with school-age children he can't refuse to hire women with kids below school age ultimately one of the supreme court. pregnancy discrimination, we lost. the supreme the supreme court said sex discrimination does not include pregnancy discrimination. back to article one, the legislature, congress said no. we will pass the pregnancy discrimination act amending title vii to say that it does. to me the eeoc now is simply doing his job it's job. it is enforcing the laws that congress passes. passes. congresses you cannot discriminate based on sex. we are saying if you

discriminate against a transgender person it's because of sex. if you discriminate against a person in such operating with the gender stereotype. so yes and some minor way it cuts against the new law because it does introduce nuance and complexity. i have dropped the original employment nondiscrimination act and in fact comprehensive bill that included employment, housing, employment housing, public accommodation, recipient of funds and then drew back to just unemployment only bill. add to add to the debacle of the don't ask don't tell. i cannot be more pleased to see that type of building reintroduced. i think it provides certainty in the courts and visibility.

and i think that it can provide for any member of congress who is not sure. you are sure. you are not breaking new ground here. you're just making it -- your nailing it down. >> i would only make one observation. the congress that we are dealing with now, the 114th congress is distinctly different from the congresses that responded to challenges at the time of the civil rights act of 1964 or in response to vote loving the loving decision or in response to empirical data that suggested strengthening of certain laws administered by the eeoc. this is a congress that is deeply divided along partisan lines. this lines. this is a congress that has an ideological divide that has in fact encourage individuals to take positions that are diametrically against the national interest in favor of partisan ideological interests.

it creates an additional element of change that has to be overcome. >> the law which protecting gay and lesbian transgendered bisexual individuals physically violation. the time line with respect to marriage equality has been relatively short. the legislature is not going to be the most hospitable environment. environment. we will have to see how it

plays out. >> i ask you to put your supreme court clerk. the claim but just to look at his duplication. from justice scalia, this car would consist of only nine men and women all of them successful lawyers. eight of them grew up in the east and west coast dates. one hails from the vast expanse in between. not a single some westerner california does not count not, not a single christian group that comprises one quarter of americans. the representative character of the body will be irrelevant if they were

getting judges to answer the legal question whether the american people ever ratified a constitutional provision understood to describe the traditional version of marriage. of course there are voting on that basis. to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select patrician highly unrepresentative panel of nine to violate a principle even more fundamental than a taxation without representation, social social transformation with representation. what do you think they were trying to do there? >> right. well, you know that is just one paragraph. if you read his dissent he goes on at some length on this exact idea. you are not representative of the people. the interesting thing is he said that the majority

acknowledges that they are not apply law. applying their own values. no. they are not saying that all they are saying their job is to interpret the constitution. the constitution the constitution has been interpreted to include a fundamental right to marry. if they as justice is obliged to uphold the constitution obliged to uphold his right to marry if they decide that they are going to essentially adopt the beliefs of some portion of the country and it really does not matter if it's 20 or 80 percent in terms of the constitution if they are going to adopt those beliefs as opposed to simply apply law the reasons for this court

having adopted and found a fundamental right to marry, does that apply to gay couples seeking to marry? that is what they did apply the law consistent with how the supreme court has been applying it for years. to meet the folks who were out of the mainstream whether they come from the same high-end arenas are not , the four justices and dissent a part of the same group. what group. what they are doing from my perspective is ignoring a whole body of supreme court precedent to say, no we say, no, we would interpret the constitution differently and actually superimposing their value that same-sex couples entering marriage is somehow this different species of gay marriage as opposed to applying the fundamental right to marry guaranteed in the constitution. we have a supreme court to

interpret the constitution and to have the constitution govern our lives as a people that is what the supreme court did the underscore the way president obama did it speaking at the church and child center for the united states of america which is what the constitution provides all of us. >> the perfect way to end what we hope has been an interesting discussion for you as much as it has been for the professor and i. please join me in thanking them. [applauding] [applauding] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on book tv in primetime biography and memoir. tom brokaw, a lucky life interrupted, memoir of hope. sally mcmillan the lucy

stone, and unapologetic life 10:05 pm. 10:05 p.m. command interview with author and ghostwriter david ritz. 1050 and your grip an average of the last warrior from andrew marshall andrew marshall on the shaping of modern american defense strategy tonight on book tv on c-span2. >> tonight on american history tv is stored documents panelists explore the text of the declaration of independence and the national archives work to preserve the original document. a national archives a national archives foundation director give presentations along with historians the author of the declaration of independence, author of unruly americans and the origins of the constitution editor of the thomas jefferson papers and

collector and broker of rare documents tonight on american history tv. >> here is a discussion on the supreme court decision in the same-sex marriage cases. last friday the supreme court legalized same-sex marriage in america. next, conservative legal scholars examine the court's ruling court's ruling and whether it will impact religious liberty and how states are viewing the court's decision. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. we especially we especially welcome those joining us on our heritage .org website as

well as c-span cd. we remind everyone in house to please check your cell phones that they have been needed as a courtesy to our speakers and those watching online. always welcome since college questions. we will work post the post the program on the heritage homepage far the presentation for future reference. her see our program is jersey ohio richard and helen dubois center for religion and civil society. a jd from harvard law school and an ms in public law school, alumnus of the becket fund and has most recently served in the civil rights department of program justice. please join me in welcoming roger. [applauding] quakes thank you. so glad to the here and see such a large turnout for a discussion.

..

>> if the. >> and then health care and education with natural law theory. clarence thomas cited him in the descent. the book that he co-authored with is what is marriage man and woman a defense from the federal defense of marriage act case. author of the book trips overruled available for pre-order are an amazon and will ship in a few weeks. he got his master's from princeton graduated magna cum laude the key also

received his master's from under dave. next had the chief counsel and policy director of the judicial crisis network. speaking on a wide range of issues the constitutional limits on government banned official selection and to file briefs in numerous ichors supreme court cases testified before congress and a regular feature writer to give pilaf online growth you may have seen her on tv. she was a locker work to justice thomas with u.s. district curve of appeals for the d.c. circuit as though harvard graduate school and also married to meet. [laughter] please join me to welcome the panelist.

[applause] >> we read the decision over 100 pages with the sense that i am sure there are many takeaways but it might split up the expertise of the panel so what are the big take away in terms of law or religious liberty or marriage culture? >> thanks for being here is nice to be on a panel why don't have to tell the introduce her how to pronounce my last name. [laughter] i will start by talking about the basis of the decision then we can talk about how that plays out in terms of religious freedom in the culture as well. justice kennedy decision, he wrote of five / four majority he wrote to fundamentally on the

fundamental right to marry. and i would agree with him there is a fundamental right that has ben recognized by a law of cases was recently in virginia where they were struck down but justice kennedy does get a wrong because as he acknowledges all the court cases they take it as the presuppositions that marriage means the union of a man and a woman and it is dangerous when we redefine the terms of the act we are dealing with because you can usually shift the meeting. so if we have a speech to redefine that to mean something else and it is freedom of something else. so the challenges he redefined the definition of

marriage but to look at the cases with four principles that's he viewed as essential to this institution there was the expression through choice and a unique 2 percent in union gave particular importance to individuals to safeguard children and families and draws on job very and education with scenes in the previous supreme court literature that justice kennedy cherry pact which principles he looked at with the one goal to come to his conclusion that all of the essential features of the fundamental rights doesn't matter vs same-sex couple with of

fundamental did is not be defined by that but by assuming that conclusion he chose those principles that was supportive but also in my opinion he did not choose those to overlap perfectly well because he does cite the rights of childbearing procreation education it is difficult that is how procreation happens. there is a real problem with justice kennedy bait-and-switch to take as uh definition of marriage but only those that don't have the obvious connection to than say marriage is not about the male or female union it is just about to people having a unity relationship.

finally after deciding after the due process clause it is true there are very intertwined and confusing at times but did not follow the equal protection clause '01 is that level of scrutiny? window overlooking equal protection of law there are different levels of scrutiny with distinctions that you make so it is hard to make any distinction on the basis of race for example, of the basis of sex there are sexual differences that they can take into account. he didn't talk about what level of scrutiny that i think we will see coming out of this going forward.

so there were foreign-made your distance and they all tended to join in the process. in large part they all touched on a few major themes that the decision as a legal matter is not correct and whenever your policy views i would say even among the dissenters to vote for a politician to create same-sex marriage. but as of legal matter is completely agnostic call marriage is defined and the case that happened day couple years ago just as kennedy got a right that the state's traditionally defined it for state purposes they should be able to do so. that is one feature the

other talks about concerns of the democratic process. how this decision was reached to undermine the ability to have this debate in public. there were a referendum, as state laws constitutional limits and that has been cut off by this decision. justice kennedy said there is a law of briefs we are done good enough. time is up now i am free to make the call but the court doesn't get to make the call you had had enough talking. is this is the issue even if you feel you are sick of hearing the debate you do not get to cut it off. finally the all highlighted their concerns about religious freedom with the decision as was alluded to

that this would be an issue going forward but it takes things out of the democratic process so the backstop is the courts so to highlight justice thomas were reses that should be obvious as well as a principal judge she plays up first it assumes that dignity is something that is confirmed or conferred by the government to look at the declaration of independence the constitution itself is presumed to be in eight. whether if one is agnostic not something the government can confirm or deny a so even while there was slavery that doesn't mean those lacked dignity because the

government failed to recognize that but the inversion of liberty that our nation in the anglo-american has a history of liberty being freedom from coercion not benefits and that is what happened the adn that they conferred the benefit with the association of its to increase people's liberty. now i will hand it back. >> you mentioned the descent there were four things that they wrote dance program religious liberty so what about the defense to be for them? is specifically how much weight should be given to those arguments for why it just as kennedy had to say? >> what is interesting of the decision included the majority of the dissent with the recognition there is a

conflicts between save sex marriage and religious liberty. we may wonder why is that? what a law of people don't seem to recognize or remember is all three major abraham in scrimmages islam and christianity and judea's some and all other major religions have for millennia they have taught a man woman union is not just an incidental beecher but is central to marriage. and that's is fundamentally different from some religious teachings of interracial marriage which is the case of the virginia case i spent my high school years is the south side never heard of any religion that use racial homogeneity

as a defining feature of marriage some thought that was preferable for religious regions but i am not aware that any small or large religious body has ever taught that is essential defining feature of marriage. that is different to same-sex marriage and there are some groups that have broken from that tradition but look at the number of people that claim to read here to those religions it is a miniscule percentage of the population of all believers. there is the enormous potential for conflict between same-sex marriages in general enough and the decision between obergefell specifically that could be one reason justice kennedy went out of his way in

numerous places in his opinion it to suggest respect for the religious viewpoint on this issue and in fact, i think of all the opinions written in the course of this litigation over the last couple of years that have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage his opinion is probably the most respectful of religion for those who care about religious liberty could be grateful for that. for example, justice kennedy did not rule that traditional marriage laws were based on hostility or bigotry to gays and lesbians in the number of people ruling the court. he did not rule that traditional marriage laws are irrational as judge posner used to be considered conservative rule for the

seventh circuit not long ago. either of those would have been taken as day holding with that manifestation of the other bigotry against gays and lesbians rather than to be intellectually defensible position. our justice kennedy also implicitly rejected the u.s. justice department's position that sexual orientation is the suspect class therefore entitled to special rights and litigation and that kind of ruling will have zero whole host of problems outside of the marriage context. those who care about religious liberty can be grateful that they dodged a big bullet. and as i thought about it

identified the threats to religious liberty that i called the dirty dozen in the very short time that we have i will list them but maybe we can talk about them later. one is the dishes -- issue raised by the oral argument by tax-exempt status. you probably remember that exchange between justice alito and the solicitor general to say it does that create a risk their religious organizations with the traditional view of marriage and have tax exemption remote? to try teetwo dismissed the question to be frank and honest i cannot deny that

will be an issue. yes it will be an issue. and it is going to me i suspect and the fact the obama administration has not done anything to suggest there may be people within the obama administration is that our planning to issue a decision that would deny tax exemptions for religious institutions to which your to that understanding of marriage. my first six examples in the area of institutional religious freedom with the ability of institutions to carry out their self to find religious mission. others are in the individual freedoms so the other is the

issue that justice scalia of raise that the church authority to have marriages performed by pastors recognized by civil government within the minister approve various people in the united states it is recognized not only for religious purposes but legal purposes as well. that to be required by the constitution will set up a situation where churches you don't believe the same-sex marriage can be religiously legitimate will they be denied the ability to have those marriages recognized by the state? to have those recognized by the state. that is likely to be a

serious issue over time. but with the religious school housing policy most religious colleges have policies to have students but in order to do that you have to be an accordance with that religious college so are they going to be cast into doubt if we rule in favor of same-sex marriage? and that even scarier prospect is the licensing area that is very important in higher education as college japan's is their ability to be accredited by a wide variety for students

to get federal funding and it to get jobs with a law of professions and if same-sex marriage is the al law of the land and constitutionally required is in their risk that they will start pressuring religious colleges to recognize same-sex marriage for all purposes as a condition of accreditation we have seen a similar issue with regard to other white catholic charities in some circumstances to place children for adoption in those types of things and catholic charities to have them forced in some states as a result that order to be

licensed you have to place children with same-sex couples on equal terms with the opposite sex couples what to do that would violate their religious belief of catholic charities so they chose.

>> but to mediate those with civil society with the broader culture can you speak on how these institutions are addressed by the decision they have one view and the dissent has another. >> the cultural question is

the most important is the long run and in my book truth overruled is that the. marriage movement is in the same exact situation culturally that the pro-life movement found 42 years ago after roe v wade it needs to be dead the three steps and the first up is to correctly identify the marriage ruling as traditional activism never accepted roe v. wade as a final word about the constitution or abortion it told a lie about the unborn child and the constitution but we have been saying the same thing culturally. the second point is one of the first things the pro-life movement did after was protect the right for all american citizens to pay

for or perform an abortion that violated their believe. so now it will aid to protect our right not to be discriminated against by the government that marriage is the unity of the man and a woman's. >> but a more urd difficult long-term program every year january 22nd hundreds of thousands of citizens come to the nation's capital and thousands of crisis pregnancy centers silent no more women speak for themselves students for life the list of groups that have sprung up in the wake of roe v. wade is remarkable there is a concerted cultural efforts but what do we do

with marriage? the reason in the first place to place a limit on the state of civil society to limit the government's domain so the state has to recognize the truth is not to recognize our natural right to including the natural right to life so we have to remind fellow citizens of the of fundamental truth that justice kennedy has seen to ignore or of suffocate. the driving part of his opinion is his philosophy of marriage that has no basis in the constitution whatsoever but that did not come out of thin air his velocity is the natural result of the last 50 years.

the natural logical conclusion of the revolution. with a spike of non marital childbearing no-fault divorce laws that fundamentally misunderstood that 50 years later would even contemplate legally redefining what marriages let alone five unelected judges to read the fine marriage for the entire country. i will post a professor from george mason to collect all the words they used you describe what marriages. >> it rules instead that it is about defining and expressing their identity. for nobility aspiration, autono my us the definition be avoiding of loneliness and for companionship and understanding.

know where is there any discussion about a child's right to a relationship with the mother and father the essential task -- defining feature in the first place to make sure men and women commit to reach other so they have a mom and a dad is totally ignored in kennedy's opinion. the attorney that represented the state of utah and idaho in their cases but not the amicus brief that i followed but just to say in one throw a paragraph that counter intuitive argument that it will have consequences. the best way to see this is what happens after it it has the no-fault divorce?

and abuse and abandonment and adultery. the three reasons to say that your prevision ship was now terminated. with no-fault's it before no reason there were no grounds we saw the divorce rate more than doubled because ideas have consequences. those who live in georgetown our board and to raise families and raise to adulthood by married mothers and fathers. but the children otherwhere are not as fortunate born to single mothers with absent fathers. how do we as a culture rebuild to insist that fathers are essentials when kennedy has redefined marriage to say they're optional? that is a cultural message so in the same way roe v. wade told a lie about the n

-- the unborn child and his accomplice cells that the woman can choose the death of her child but with respect zero procreation or is a right for children to have moms and dads? we have to do number one to call it as it is. to commit ourselves to a long-term program of a strong marriage culture that will not be resolved within the next election is a generational campaign not but that does not matter matter, and they do but our children and grandchildren will be responding to.

>> you mentioned the cultural issues. spee cater more broadly as more and really what are the responses they you think can be done near to medium term? with the liberty to be restored? >> i will give foreign that is a commitment to nominate and confirm judges of never principled view of the constitution and a law to demonstrate the willingness to stand up for that view when it is challenging and under fire. this is something with a multi generational that the next president will have one

or two or three supreme court nominations it was a five / four decision but this is not the final decision. there is also lawrence for says texas in 2003 but it is important to have judges that will faithfully interpret the constitution so the senators to be in place with the importance of this issue there will be there for decades of the generational impact to make sure politicians realize to have political capital because all of the other issues to be signed by a

democratic president then undone by the supreme court. and then to have of final word. >> and number of things to be done concrete. for the laws of the federal and state level with the individuals and institutions with the obvious problems that it creates. with the first amendment defense sacked that was proposed recently almost proposed in the house but then on the issues that may talk about today that tax

exempt issue and contracts and licensing. but a law of problems will arise at the state level we have seen that challenge is with the of restoration act and those would be very helpful. there would be more productive depending on the state with the more narrowly targeted law with the fallout of same-sex marriage. i know that the marriage defense that paced by a the state but some attorneys general have enough authority that's they can and forestall or mitigates the problems arising from the decision by a executive order or a random with

governor jindal and the executive out -- order from having to perform marriages based on a religion based conscience and resawed recently the attorney general in texas issued a similar directive that we will protect religious liberty of the people of texas wherever we can. >> let's just focus on amazon right now. [laughter] >> i will get a nickel. but all three will draw parallels but we should conduct rigorous social science over the past 40 years that a child who grows up without a father with a

cohabitating couple a divorced family or even remarriage all for produce a poor outcome for children beyond a shadow of a doubt 40 years of social science why now being raised by two mothers is the one exception to their rule? so with a cohabitating couple? says counter intuitive. i suggest we give the space jews social scientist and in the same way that ultrasound science was our best friend this will be and the marriage movement. as women speak for

themselves on the abortion debate that some of the greatest in six couples the will be some of the best advocates to file the amicus brief at the supreme court knew there was acknowledged by justice kennedy. their work permits issues written. they wish they had a father even though they loved their to moms. even though it institutionalizes missing parents. just because of the human frailty your weakness. so ordo divorced his wife and kid of the closet realize he did a great injustice to his children because they did not need to adapt better mom and dad he reconciled with his wife and they're raising children

together. he has a book i am gay and i am against a marriage. but science and philosophy are important but not the only thing. the only good news that motivate the people to the philosophers with a phd in political philosophy but but to bear witness in our lives will never results of the type of culture and to underline the fact gays are of lesbians and not cause a breakdown the heterosexual stick that buttery define marriage will much of anything but it will likely make the family weaker. because of failing to live out the truth about marriage. estimate look at what the

pro-life movement did? with rachel vineyard project rachel but to have all these sisters for life for women in crisis we need to have better marriage programs to help people understand and less about marriage in their home life. >> we have time for questions. there will be microphones. the event is broadcast so please identify yourself in the organization that you represent please keep your questions brief and end it with a question mark. [laughter] >> cms news. what about the possibility of term limits for the

supreme court? there are people that suggested and it would open up the idea we would not have people in a position of power for a whole lifetime. >> that has been raised before ended is an interesting idea because it think both sides are worried too was president when it kicks sand or when they age out but it is something to consider but what would worry me about that is how to exert moral limitations but i would rebut anything bad to emboldens them to say we have a backstop we don't have to pay as much to these candidates they're only there for a certain amount of time. even if there was a term limit it could be long but that would never minimize do

get it right the first time to make sure we have principal the judges in place but that is the thoughts but it will not happen in the short term with a constitutional amendment. >> but kennedy replaced pork if they have a fund all right mental right to a mother and father that their child has a right to a mother and father? >> the justice kennedy's several times in his opinion that it is based on new insight into marriage. i could see a situation where the court has a different composition and

chances are the next president will have up to four seats to fill one will be 78 and three were all -- will be in their 80s. there are new insights into marriage in the rights of children that could be a possibility and the al, is we don't know any better. so if you do your research and they keep speaking out of that gets the attention of litigators and justices is the last word the same in the abortion context to have new insights has allowed us to have better abortion law. it is not the final word. >> if i could just preface

of brief'' be not deceived said god is not marked and is in sight that a government of this world is strengthened to do chaos will for the meaning of words that cause us to look to the government to regulate so the three allies of judicial activism or the nature of money when the supreme court and not even that i owe you to be money to fuel that will power in washington that much of the country want to take back and the states can under the disempower mantle of washington. so let truth rein in faith. >> essentially who decides

the nature of truth? >> i think we all have opinions it lies since of legal system to focus on the practical things we can do in the short term but i doubt anything will come to fruition but we do know in the immediate future looking down to the final word legally, that is a very long term project ha there is real and immediate concerns whether through executive order or legal legislative efforts to bring that back to have a free understanding >> gant human jidda redefinition against freedom

of abortion and that is not allowed to continue but the founders intended the freedom to roam their witness not just through sunday morning with the four walls of your temple but this is why the owners of hobby lobby had to sue the government they said no one should go into business you have to lose once you open a center to care for the liberty you lose your rights. that is why the sisters are still suing the obama court but to take care of elderly people have to pay for abortions and that is a ridiculous it is we cannot allow that definition of liberty or religion to succeed. >> or redefinition of the word exercise the you could ride a treadmill in your

church that is the extent does your ability to freely exercise your religion. [laughter] i work for the eric sage foundation. this is extreme with the concept to completely remove all governments in marriage tax benefits, allowing it to be purely a religious institution as it was a millennia ago? >> i don't thank you was never purely religious institutions my question the premise but political communities have always said regularizing -- regulating the marital relationship is not like a baptism stay is not in the baptism business because those are purely religious personal decisions but the church can maury --

mary you or not the force with alan your child support or custody battles. you have the option to set of the institution at the front door to grow government by any imagination to do them one by one such to get rid of them on the front end you will explode on the back and with a case by case basis it is much better to have the state recognized this of all you do in bin to fail. >> a law of people in this country are not religious so if you save a marriage is only a religious sacrament to get the government out entirely then for a majority of the population than there is no institution that is

encouraging young heterosexual couples to get married before or after they have kids. i think that would exacerbate the social problems we have had with the fatherlessness especially if we said the government will throw up its hands to get out of the marriage business altogether >> we have a question that came in three male. >> there is a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman to be worthwhile to pursue. >> get would be wonderful if it could be passed but. >> but the politics of it. [laughter] at this point that is what it would take to change things. >> for the amendment like their proposed ted cruz

amendment that leaves it to the states that is also a big improvement over the status quo. >> but that is a constitutional amendment to have that passed as a long-term strategy. >> when the decision came down and that they have to be forced to marry couples are what about their bisons of marriage through the church doors to our pastor with non-profit and perform marriages? >> the first amendment quite clearly prevents anyone from forcing the pastor to rate a couple that he/she does not want to marry so i never viewed that as a substantial

risk. the other risk is the serious risk but that one probably is not. >> i am from georgetown. i am wondering if you can speak to the pattern if we can stop this in the future? finigan luck those of have of us strong protection of the constitutional laws but it is not a unique case it is a common problem with in the of law of a rational basis as they use that in a different way previously.

it is the fundamental problem of judicial philosophy and integrity that we need to address. so will religious exercise they are my hobbyhorse but for a law of issues because the decision to place in the courts it was said day give-and-take how dree project religious freedom? that is no small thing but still subject to interpretation by the same judges that are engaging in the of questionable practices. we can never underestimate the importance of judges. >> there is a recall from

one activist from the chaplains to resign their commission because they can no longer support the constitution as defined by the supreme court but to all military officers is that a concern that they should resign for the military if they hold a few of natural marriage? >> on one level it does not say that. >> that is not something that we see a massive exodus >> but not to the supreme court's. >> that should be the final word. [laughter] eight you very much.

please join us for the luncheon after words per 35 -- [applause] [inaudible conversations]

mr. k rand of dated the members of the european council meeting m brussels following his remarks he took questions from members. this is one hour 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> 8q mr. speaker with great sadness i have to tell the house we know of days to 18 british nationals had been killed with more injured with the death toll likely to rise further. mr. speaker there were innocent british holidaymakers saved up for a special get away with friends and family and with the victims of the most brutal terrorist attack against british people for many years. can assure the whole house will join me to send our deepest condolences to

friends and families of those who have lost loved ones. the whole country will want to share in a moment of remembrances so following the act of remembrance we just held we will have a national day of silence that one week from the momentum of the attack at 12 noon. we will also announce plans as a fitting memorial to the victims of this horrific attack. mr. speaker with the government's emergency committee, first the latest on what we believed and the separate attacks of kuwait and france. also to take steps to help those british victims and families and how we will work with the allies to defeat evil in the world. mr. speaker the events of last friday are horribly familiar freddie one in the media. to massacre innocent tourist

of the beating continued his attack into the imperial harbor hotel bin into the streets where he was shot dead by police. while we believe he is the sole the man he could have been part of a network and the tunisian security forces are investigating accomplices of this attack. on the same day in kuwait a suicide bomber killed 27 and injured more than 200 on the mosque near kuwait city. based data saudi arabia says it was behind the attack and then to execute 120 people in their homes and in the southeastern france a man was murdered and two injured in an explosion. all these were driven by the say in the underlying perverted ideology that there is no evidence that they were directly coordinated. the first priority mr. speaker, is to help

british victims and families to assist the wounded to bring home those who lost their lives for those who want to come home can do so to gather evidence of what happened. by saturday there were complemented by police and red cross experts read now have over 50 people on the ground to help british victims and families and to help the wounded really sent a team of officers to assist with medical evacuation's to bring home the seriously injured. it is right to do everything we can to bring home those have lost their lives as quickly as possible. we have helped those into the shaft with a difficult to to vacation m process. but to have directly the repatriation of those who wish to do so.

while 60 liaison officers here in britain continue to support the of relatives we're working with a the tour operators who want to do so in those sonority brought hundreds held. before the local officers at british airports to support travelers returning home from tunisia to gather evidence of what happened. to be one of the of largest terrorism in the decade but to see firsthand the work of the team to coordinate at home and at abroad. and the minister of the least is doing their thing they can to help the british victims and families in

talking to the tunisian authorities have we can strengthen security. i have been speaking into the president over the weekend and we will put on record my thanks of the authorities throw this terrific ideal -- or deal. just as it did before the defense better not moving against all essentials travel to this part of to be just so they are not advising against visiting the coastal resorts as will be kept under close review mr. speaker nowhere is without risk from extremist terrorist tannery take into account the country in question to counter the threat.

. .

our airborne intelligence is assisting other countries with their operations over syria working with partners to support the formation of the government of national accord and libya and will continue to do all we can to support governments and deal with the ungoverned spaces. as i have said many times before command we need to act to neutralize an imminent threat, we will always do so. we must we must take on the radical narrative poisoning young minds.

the people who do these things do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology which hijacks the islamic faith and holds that mass murder and terror are not only acceptable but necessary. mr. speaker, we must confront this evil with everything we have be stronger a standing up for values and more intolerant of intolerance, taking out anyone whose views can down the extremist narrative a create the conditions for it to flourish. on wednesday a new a new statutory duty will come into force requiring all public bodies from schools to prisons the local councils to take steps to identify and tackle radicalization. in the weeks ahead, we will go further standing in solidarity with all those out raised by this event the overwhelming majority of muslims in this country and around the world. this is not the war that i i sil wants the world to believe. together we will prevail. multiple speakers: here! clicks let me turn to the european council.

on the situation in greece i chaired a contingency meeting earlier today and the chancellor will be making a statement straight after this. the neil for a comprehensive approach to the migration process in the beginning of the uk renegotiation presence. the right course of action is to save lives by tackling the root cause of this problem, breaking the problem, breaking the business model by breaking the link. it means gathering intelligence to disrupt the smuggling gangs and using our budget to help alleviate the policy and failure of governance that drives these people from their home for the first place. keeping the promises on aid and saving over 4,000 lives in the mediterranean. by contrast focusing primarily on setting up a

relocation scheme for migrants who have already arrived would be counterproductive. instead of breaking the business model that makes their offer more effective. others decided to go ahead with this scheme. because of our opt out we will not be joining them. multiple speakers: here! gordon brown we will resell the most vulnerable refugees most notably from syrian refugee camps in line with the announcement i made earlier this month. on the european relationship we have a plan of reform renegotiation referendum. i set out the case for substantial reform in four areas, sovereignty fairness, immigration, and competitiveness. we will not be dragged into a state called europe. it may be for others but it will never be for britain commanded is time to recognize that specifically. multiple speakers: here! >> second, and fairness the eu has to be flexible enough to make sure the interest of

those inside and outside the euro zone are fairly balanced. the single currency is not for all but the single market and the european union as a whole must work for all. we need to tackle welfare incentives that attract people from across the eu to seek work in britain and make the eu a a source of growth, jobs, innovation, success rather than stagnation which means signing trade deals and completing the single market such as a digital or the council may progress toward a roaming agreement. at this meeting my priority was to kick off the capable work of these issues and the specific reform. the council agreed that such a process will get underway and return to the issue at our meeting in december. tenacity and patients. not all issues will be easily resolved. just as resolved. just as in the last parliament we should that

change could happen, so this parliament will fix problems which have frustrated the british people for so long putting the common market back at the heart of her. we will address the issue of migration and protect britain's place in the single market for long-term. it will not be the status quo a brooded and the european union was better for britain and europe and i commend the statement. multiple speakers: here! >> i think the prime minister for his statement. the house meets today in dark times. at least 18 innocent britons were murdered and many more seriously injured in the biggest terrorist attack on our citizens since the horror of 77. we extend our heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of those killed and injured. thoughts are with them. we cannot begin to understand what they must be

going through as they saw on the news pictures from the beach with their families were on holiday showing sun lounges being used as stretchers and bloodstained beach towels turned in a makeshift shrouds. the families of those killed now face the painful process of helping identification of their loved ones and the relatives of the injured will be worried sick about them and desperate to bring them home as soon as possible whilst others are still searching for any information about what has happened to their relatives. the prime minister was right to immediately convene cobra, and i thank him for update in the house on all the work being coordinated through the daily meetings. i would like to add our thanks to the staff the british police teams the red cross experts and other british officials who are working on this and all those from the hotel staff to local officials to travel

reps and other holidaymakers who are supporting those being caught up in this. we know support will be needed for months and years to come. responsibilities provide this. the members have traveled. can i make the particular mention of the ministers of the middle east to have stepped into this immensely difficult situation highly effectively and also draw on the experience of his own family loss demonstrating personal empathy. mr. speaker, there are close ties.

the prime minister will have our full support in helping tackle the scale of the terrorist problem but now confronts them. we welcome the prime minister and german chancellor and belgian prime minister have agreed to work together to help strengthen security. can he security. can he say more about what actions are being considered to help that you disease respond to the economic problems that this terrorist atrocity will inevitably cause given their reliance on tourism? at a time when we commemorate the tenth anniversary. this we can know deadly terrorist attacks into an as yet, kuwait, syria. difficult to combat this widespread threat, threat, can he tell us more about

the international efforts? this is about sharing intelligence the use of the internet control of borders and coordinated military support to those fighting on the ground. given the contribution of britain's armed forces are making as the international community is being asked to provide further assistance the prime minister has rightly recognized that this extends from an extremist ideology. we must be resident in standing up for the values of peace, democracy, freedom of speech and freedom for women, rejecting and confronting them to go along with these extremist narratives. is he satisfied the

government is doing everything it can to empower those at the forefront within their community, particularly families, teachers and religious leaders, and community groups? in addition to the new statute it creates duties to identify and tackle radicalism and intends to go further in the weeks ahead. can the outline what actually is under consideration and whether you're working with the muslim community in this? turning to last week's counsel, obviously the big issue is greece in everyone's interest that an agreement is reached. this is of huge import even though we are not in the euro zone. if the european economy is it obviously the chancellor will be saying more about the shortly. on migration and stability in north africa and the middle east is a growing factor driving desperate migrants across the mediterranean to europe.

can i ask the prime minister to confirm that the capacity and mandate of all action will not be diminished with the replacement. we back the actions referred to against people trafficking. does he agree that action is needed to help southern european countries cope with those arriving, include support for swift and robust asylum assessment as well as help from other countries. does he agree that britain also to offer to help some of those who are certified as refugees just as we have done for vulnerable refugees for syria, and indeed when we provided sanctuary to refugees who have fled from persecution and allow them to make the future here with us on the negotiations, the

confirmation of no prospective treaty changes. of course negotiations are sensitive. even even the people he is negotiating with are not being tied to what he is negotiating for, but for, but nor are the british people he is negotiating on behalf of. he has referred to the announcement of the summit that there would be technical negotiations until december. what steps would he be taking to keep parliament and the british people informed? there is an expectation of the high transparency which is not feasible for the british people to feel that they are in the dark. finally, we are an island. whether it whether it is terrorism, refugees and the mediterranean the economy in and greece a

radicalization of young people here at home with this week's terrible events remind us emphatically once again that we are all interconnected. >> can i think the lady for her remarks in the way in which she put them. all the others of a working around-the-clock. these are the very difficult events to respond to but i believe the coordination. the 77 command i think the issue about tessa child in the way that good work was done to think about how best to commemorate and mark these events needs to be repeated. she asked about a dedicated task force. this is very much the foreign office task force with terrorism experts call with police and others but the will come a moment where

we want to bring in other ministers from other departments to make sure we get these things right. i want to thank my honorable friend for his experience talking to victims. i think you should play a prominent role in making sure as a a country we get this right. talk about strengthening security than what we should do working with the team's you intelligence security forces to make sure that they have an intelligence led model like we have in this country. linking with rcs on international this. this is absolutely right.

it made some good progress. there is more that we need to do. there is a case for using our budget in a more coordinated way with others in europe to drive change in economic success. we also needed international efforts to make sure we passed pass things like the passage of name record so that we incorporate that are well fighting terrorism. the need of fighting the ideology to confront those that go along with the narrative is absolutely right. the right. the greater cross party unity that we can have on this message the stronger it will be. as i said on the radio and

happy to cooperate and work with the leaders across muslim communities, but they should be people that want to back the basic values of tolerance and democracy that we hold dear in this country. she mentioned greece. she's making a statement. let me reassure her in the house that we will continue to have the capacity to save lives and continue that. we will and have often helped process asylum seekers. we are drawing a distinction between resettling the most vulnerable refugees who are outside the european union for instance from syrian refugee camps where britain can do more were i think european union is actually getting on the wrong track relocation program for migrants within the european union because i worry that

will be counterproductive and reinforce the smugglers model of getting people here in the first place. helping on the resettlement and frankly pointing out that our asylum system already has given asylum to many people from the most vulnerable areas of the world. keeping parliament informed. of course i will do that. what matters when it comes to changing the treaties is making sure there is agreement on the substance of the changes we seek. that is what matters" we hope to achieve. we should work together because these challenges are shared challenges. i very much agree. multiple speakers: here! >> amanda soloway. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the untimely deaths of some of my constituents. can constituents. can i ask what assurances my honorable friend can give me to do everything he can to prevent such attacks from ever happening again? multiple speakers: here! >> first of all, my sympathies and condolence to her constituents. there will be many tragic stories about what happened on the beach and in that hotel and people coming to terms with it for years to come no country in the world that is free of risk from terrorism. what we must do is everything we can with partners around the world to combat this threat whether in terms of technical things that we should do at hotels and police stations and others or high profile high-value work. we should commit to do that. this will be the struggle of our generation. >> mr. speaker, can i think the prime minister for a statement on to his ear and the measures she has taken

he has taken so far and the measures that he has proposed. three generations of one family in tipton and wins. have been killed in this atrocity. the impact on their relatives in the local community has been absolutely devastating and unfortunately i am sure that will be reflected with other families and communities throughout the country. can the prime can the prime minister assure me that he would take up the suggestion of the leader of the opposition for dedicated task force to support not just the funding da offices who are doing great work, but the local authorities and other public agencies to give these families a special support that they will me know and for long-term the future. >> the case the honorable gentleman refers to as

bitter the newspapers. in terms of making sure we help families the first thing to do is to make sure every family has a family liaison officer, police force. this is now being put in place. they are experts and they should be the.of contact to make sure the family gets the information, help and advised that they need. the next need. the next episode think about how we will market commemorate what has happened in consultation with the families. we should not rush that decision, but it is right that we have a national day of silence before mr. speaker, the thoughts of my constituents are with the victims. i spoke with the family of bruce wilkinson. they think everyone who has assisted the. they want bruce remembered

for his wit and compassion. can my right and honorable friend be reassuring that the efforts of bodies traveling home will be focused on? >> i can give my friend that assurance. there have assurance. there have been stories of extraordinary heroism and bravery as you would expect from british citizens confronted with this sort of event. in terms of bringing people home what we have said, what i said what i said today is we are prepared to use our airplanes to bring home the british that if that is what families want. it has taken time to identify the victims and

that must be complete before a victim can be brought home, but we will work as fast as we can to make sure this happens as soon as possible. >> thank you very much. i think the prime minister. we share all of the expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of those who were so tragically killed. what occurred there have been so many other countries was horrific. the prime minister's right to highlight the challenge of extremism and radicalization and has pointed out the importance of getting terminology right and not using the name islamic state. movie join parliamentarians across this house, the un secretary of of state and the french foreign minister in using the appropriate term and does he agree that the time is coming to stop using islamic state isis or iso- and instead use the

commonly used phrase across the middle east. on east. on migration i have asked the prime minister about the shameful position of the uk government 80 years after this country but in thousands of children in the transport with their lives are in danger. can you confirm other states agreed to take in tens of thousands of refugees and can he confirm that the uk has still taken in less than 200 from the war in syria? [inaudible conversations] >> i agree with the honorable gentleman in terms of use of the term islamic state. this is seen as particularly offensive to many muslims who see as i see not a state but a barbaric regime of terrorism and depression that takes delight in murder and oppressing women and murdering people because they are gay.

i raise this with the bbc this morning and personally think that using the term i sil or so-called will be better than what we currently do. it is probably better than the islamic state. in terms of the numbers that the other european countries have committed to relocate within the european union people who already arrived in italy and greece in the planning to relocate around 40,000 people. there was there was no agreement about who would take how many numbers command it was a lengthy debate at the european council. i would not contrast that with the numbers are offering to resettle from outside the european union but.to the generous arrangements we have in place for giving people silent which includes many

syrians, many people which is what we have done and will continue to do as a generous and tolerant nation >> the prime minister will be aware that geologists talk about three types of jihad, the time the purse, the sword. it is right that we address the threat militarily where we can but the two few of the arab countries in the region are properly pulling their weight in of pain develop problem that is part of the region and we must cut off the financial flows and also need to name and shame those individuals and states who are making and facilitating the spread of fundamentalist islam and when it comes of the information we understood the value of counter propaganda. do we not need to rediscover across government and our allies the need to speak with one voice and one message dealing with the dangerous they pose and also

speaking with one voice about the values that made us so who we are and the freedoms that we have what they are. >> absolutely right. we do need to crush i sil in iraq and syria. we have to go after terrorist finance and the terrorist narrative that not only is shared by the terrorists but is sadly shared by too many who stopped short of terrorism but by into the idea of caliphate or that christians and muslims can live together. just as in the cold war we did have to confront the ideology and must do so again. in the end we will win because our values of democracy and tolerance and the rule of law and freedom and free enterprise are

better values that offer young people far more hope than going off to be part of the difficult. multiple speakers: here! >> owen smith. >> deep condolences to all of those people who will be affected in tunisia. may i mass the joint -- the prime minister join with me in adding our admiration for my constituents are you will have read about in the newspapers who threw himself in the way of the bullets shielding his fiancée in an extraordinary act of selfless bravery and may i urge the prime minister to do all he can to ensure all victims receive all the support they need. >> can. >> can i think the honorable gentleman for his question. we all did read about the active this young man