>> >> it is all that great pageantry you for the firefighters or even the victims should be frank with you. i have ethane for 81.

no victims of all. a capacity that as you did in the book because what they dared death anymore worthy of commemoration? i could not understand it. and one of the things that happens that uk and explain your paid but that don't make a right. the neocons published-- series about

three years after 9/11 to talk about the decisions that happened that day because the fire department receivable of the police department that was a like firefighters for the people that loved him or hated him. i gave to regard the instruction and of individual life alien to us a tragedy it doesn't matter how other people commemorate that. to have some level of the but the. i could talk about hypocrisy

but that does not improve meet as of lives were taken from them as human. >> there are so the good questions in here. i have to agree to a close and this question brings it to full circle of which comes first political over artistic intention? >> artistic. always. you always want to ride beautifully it does make me feel good about the world. >> rigo the vet there.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>>host: roberta kaplan thanks for being here to talk about your book edits as much about people read their personalities with a defensive barrier jack as legal strategy and you put a posted notes that it is all

about edith so let's start with edith when syrian her life. >>guest: i did have that post-it note the major message was to say to focus sava fax and there really is remarkable. involving how life was for those gay and lesbian people so i would give you a couple of anecdotes. edith represent the of depression in philadelphia a middle-class jewish family her father lost everything and they had to move bin to relatives she went to college she fell in love with the women realized she

was a lesbian and broke off engagement because of that there is another book that without that was not realistic to have a lifetime commitment to another woman said she was three engaged and she got married. needless to say the marriage only lasted a few months she would go with her husband on a saturday night if she sought to women together she would be jealous she said you did some of much dash deserved to be loved and like so many other people decided to move to new york in order to be gay. like myself. if anyone was middle-class

at that time is that she had to support herself to go off and marry a guy. said she was good at math in high school is a she decided she would enter the map program at the nyu with a the first ever computer programmers in the united states and a a lot and got a job at the atomic energy commission and computer at nyu that was as big as a city block so in order to work on the common schaede gets a letter from the fbi about your security clearance. of course, she was terrified

because she was sure they would ask where that they were awed to her if he were a lesbian aunt not only would she not get a job working on a computer that be the end of her career. real was illegal at that time even to work for a company with the federal government was illegal said she did some research and was right under new york law for a woman held was illegal to dress or a peer as a man says she had high heels and the address to throw them off her game but fortunately they did not care she was lesbian only her sister's friends tied to the economy this party allegedly this is

an incredible story already have banshee is globally then says take me where the of lesbians are. she goes to a restaurant in greenwich village. and a leased from her perspective but it was love that person is spending the next two years pursuing her to see if she was attached for she was with someone. after a couple years they did and were driving to the countryside when we can and said what if you wear in mid -- a diamond to gauge a ring? she said i cannot do that if i show up at work she was

gorgeous and said if i show up everyone will say who is the lucky guy and i can answer the question so she pulled over with a circular diamond bid tuesday would you marry me that started the engagement that lasted 40 years. it was 1967 to years before the stonewall riots soviet-backed time midevening curve -- occurred to them to get engaged in a truly heroic part is over the next 40 years because thea was diagnosed with ms and became paralyzed after

time and that it became a a part of both of them and they would seize joy no doubt. sadly thea got a very bad diagnosis in 2007 she didn't have long to live even though she was reluctant to go to canada she woke up the next morning and said do you still want to get married? for best women and two best men touche toronto and got married to wheel the wheelchair into the hotel they really, really really wanted to get married and a year-and-a-half later thea died. then e.d. got hit with the tax bill to say even though

it was valid and misstated the york the federal government said they were not married so easy inherited the property but had to pay estate tax. >> it is also personal talk about how much of yourself to put into the book roberta kaplan that was not something i had in mind when i was researching and then is a started to plan i realized i could not tell the story without telling my own. i remember growing up to say personal is political you don't have to believe that about everything but when it comes to gay-rights, i could not explain what has

occurred in our society without describing the changes of my own life. probably one of the most interesting stories when i first met edie it was a the first time i had met -- or heard her name. thea died 2009 and fortunately there were mutual funds and when i got the phone call i had never met edie before but i knew exactly who she was. because 20 years before i was a my third year of law school i was coming and how does a late bloomer even though i had anxiety and concern in high school and

college and its law school i waited until the very end to have the courage to do anything about it. it just so happened that shortly thereafter my parents come to visit me in your city of very bad pleded on my part i had to go through the cater pride parade and they ran high form talking about how they couldn't understand why people were so proud, all but a rebel flags, my roommate was elected official why is she in the parade? i finally said to have to stop the the persisted and then my mom said why are you gay? i said yes. i have one room apartment

but i maugham walked over to the wall to beg her head against the wall. i am not criticizing my mom. she has apologized thousands of times by now she fully embraces me and could not be more proud of me she talks about it every chance she gets. but after that happened i was pretty low. i went around new york city asking a betty i know. they might get getting was thea. so i saw thea as the patient was only in new york for this summer in the state the big room where i met edie 20 years later she was already a quadriplegic.

but during those sessions thea talked about edie. i think that is predate not difficult to talk to patients about your own life but looking back i think thea was convinced the only way to persuade me who was pretty stubborn to have any chance of a lifelong love affair or a committed relationship it should talk to her own relationship and i remember her telling me she steadied at nyu, she gave me an amazing sense of confidence and set my mind at ease than 20 years later i walked into the apartment i knew exactly where i was going it was like coming

back to the scene of an accident as it you have to give me a minute and i explained why. >>host: did your court of appeals you played a part to the ruling to make it possible. you talk about a fellow clerk that criticize you to make that case to personal. >> it is like the story i have been telling them it's a symptom of how different the world was. this was 1996. i was the kid to be honest we have a very big case at that time whether gay people could adopt it be your. very controversial and high-stakes when it was

first though to doubt we were in the descent then we held it over the summer and one in the fall. there is a lot of work being done a lot of lobbying be done to get the other vote in the court of appeals. i didn't think there is any chance i would ever have a kid certainly no chance i would get married. that was a pipe dream that i cared about the case and wanted that lesbian couple to adopt their sudden. so i fought very hard and i had a discussion with this other woman cadet was personal. i didn't talk about my personal life but i thought very hard to make sure we got the majority opinion. >> then he became a partner

in the law firm what is that like at that point and what it is like now? >> talk about a revolution. to be a beacon in this area of the openly gay partners founded on principles of diversity so that is the foundational dna of the firm. surveyed a river influenced by the rest of society then in 1998 there were very few gay people who felt comfortable and all aspects of their life. you may be added to your friends and were close

colleagues or to buy a adversaries are to the judge's. it was halfway in and halfway out kind of life were all the time you have to evaluate jedi tell this person or that person? now / or reduce today. we had a of a phone call with aclu daughters and of that call one of the donors said how do have the courage to be the plaintiff? edie said the i have been the out lesbian for the years but what you tell a dentist or cab driver you always make those decisions to come out is what they to be the out lesbian another thing entirely the who is

also suing the united states of america. now i ever the lawyer who represents her and as a result i am pretty much as out as you can be into my life i can't think of any negative things that all to be the open lesbian that i am and back in 1991 i never thought that would have been. that if you have predicted to me that is the course to take. >> and nt clients or lawyers pursuing other gay rights even the adults? >> remarkably little. in 1996 was a hard-fought

case and the dissent in that case is not what would a judge would write today. and there was some language that was pretty harsh about gay people but the marriage case that i argued were questions asked of me of the oral argument the relationship between two sisters is a is a gay and lesbian couple i don't think a judge would ask that today i cannot imagine any judge asking that today. but during windsor and since there has been nothing. and to we didn't see one single protester a lot of people on our side not a single protester.

so the speed of the paradigm shift. >>host: you are given the york court of appeals and you write your son jake of was born and talk about the situation in the hospital and. >>guest: so yes panera q the board -- the marriage case he was just bored when jacob was born we thought it was beautiful his given had this incredible apricot cuba we did not know that meant he had jaundice said he had to go into intensive care under the lights and we were

there a couple days to bring him back and forth to of a wife i've restricted like a parent then the day we were ready to take him home and went to the intensive care i said i am here to take take them home and the nurse would not give him to the. i have been here for days she said you were not the parent. my wife had is the section two is still pretty weak and bandaged eyes said you made have to go get my wife with her walker that is crazy but that is what she insisted on. this was 2006 so even then we were pretty shocked ice then i just want to get is

some if you are weak was just get him home and we will deal with this later. >>host: york court of appeals ruled against your client but was the lessons learned? >>guest: the standard strategy that had been used and there was good reason there were cases of multiple couples to express the diversity of the community the american couple the male couple, etc. i understand why that was done. you want a diverse community benefits people didn't realize the facts of the people's lives paid into the background and the case

starts to look between the fight between pundits of fox news and msnbc than real people and their lives for the land that was a bad thing because the way to with the issue is to persuade judges and americans and the supreme court justices the lives and relationships is the same as everyone else. one of the reasons i thought we could focus just on one couple with edie to tell the story that the marriage that she had with thea is the same as my wife and they deserve the same dignity. >>host: you write that as you were fighting the case in groups did not agree and were actively advocating

against bringing lawsuits. >>guest: in very much in mind with proposition viii the california litigation with the file that case they issued a press release and as of lawyer i was concerned those attacks would happen to edie. a lot of the original emails was to make sure but there were a lot of the orders but

more significantly the fact that edie had to pay the estate tax bill to raise the hackles of certain people that edie is the neck is a rich white lady. first of all, i represent and when i first met her she's seven like to paper co said that did not bother me but most of that was due to

appreciation and bought an apartment in the we are of the '80s. and it seems it was a perfect case to pay the tax for being a lesbian americans alike to pay taxes call me crazy i watching the series liberty kids with vice son. that every american that would have attacks just because you are gay. >> once you started working on edie case learning the justice department what did

that mean for the case going forward? >> the a very little surprise may and i was pretty confident i knew at case would get to the supreme court the one part that astounded me of the id doj. the government gets a certain amount of time to respond i got a call from the trial level say we need 30 days we're thinking about what to do.

to be honest i did not believe her i thought she was stalling for time. i don't get to be a plaintiff that much and edie had serious health issues and i was very worried and wanted to make sure when the case was over not only was she still alive but healthy enough to enjoy it. end then to get the mid-level attorney and i said forget about it. then i got a call from tony west at the time was second or third in command and said what is this you have heard to lawyers asking for an extension? she is not healthy she's not getting under he said i am telling you the president

and the attorney general and by the to talk about this case ready to figure of deposition and we need time to do that you telling your not point to give the president of united states of america? so i said i would think about it i went next door to my partner he said are you crazy? of course, you will give them an extension. i still cannot believe them so i said i wanted to know the value of the president and attorney general older are deliberating i want you to know i will pray for you. i said in a sarcastic tone of voice and that was the end of the call. 30 days later i get any mail saying tony with like to talk to you and i knew

immediately what that meant on the call he explained he had the president has got to the factors and they decided they could not conclude the was sure that i sent spurgeon a and then it was unconstitutional. i had tears streaming down my face and was completely shocked for but the end of the call he said to remember what you said about praying for me? he said sometimes prayer works. that was the end of the call. it was extraordinary courageous thing for a president to do. will live in a society where

everything that happens is that based on principle but another reason. sometimes politicians and elected officials do things because it is the right they to do and i am convinced that is what happened here. i am very reluctant to compare directly to gates civil-rights movement to african rights those civil rights lawyer has had to deal with lynching or the violence white thurgood marshall. so the three people that made the decision to happen to be three black guys to say we cannot write a brief to discriminate against gay people that my adversary change.

so someone needed to defend the law we give someone on the other side. with that bipartisan a legal advisor regroup they hired their preeminent problem and. but edie case makes it to the supreme court why did you want to do that? >> to have a complicated range of emotions, but there is a lot of pressure not to argue the case.

to be a member of the supreme court after thinking about it the minute that we do we're going to the supreme court i'm thinking whether or not to argue their case and if i don't and if he agrees with my recommendation ultimately i will recommend that you argue the case. sova pam immediately said you should argue the case there are things better different for you camera then they're not that hard to learn that is a

conversation i will never forget for the rest of my life. it is a great tribute to her. >> it is a factor of time. with most appellate court cases you get at least 30 minutes or 35 minutes that the second argument that was pretty much true in the windsor case. the schedule have the luxury of time that there is a lot

of discussion of the impact of a statute and technical discussions of the of law and with that interchange to have the intellectual discussion to persuade him or her why you should win the case. see you have very little time your job as an advocate is to help the justices pretty much their minds are made at. so with that diplomacy and

there is almost no time for intellectual discussion but not a single case was raised i would not ask the judges about any cases. >> we go through a panel of lawyers to ads your questions and the first one did not go so well. talk about that. >> still make you go through

core process and take root canal without anesthesia would-be more painful. they ask questions for about 45 minutes and then they could take every single word that you said it is not the most fun experience. a lot of people of the audience were watching and a lot of the discussion with the supreme court argument is your argument really

about that though you say they shouldn't the same equal access to marriage that americans have to trains? i know that is not in your brief. >> and i have them litigating for a lot of years. another argue that though way to with the year with the love affair to a but -- to emphasize other scenarios that the separate corps had overturned the statue on the grounds of irrationality. this case was about being gay. i didn't think the supreme

court was all that interested is the way with each other. i see the analogy here that they had this a marriage is anyone else so there was no good reason why it was unconstitutional. that we need to make the case says gay as possible. >> with that california referendum you write their brief in the proposition viii case began with a nod

and you wanted to differentiate. . .

they should have to deal with the same as everyone else. they have a lot more resources can hire it to do it for them.

i have to admit i've done that in the past that i'm very glad i won't be able to do that anymore. >> your focus in the that case you went on with justice kennedy. but you wrote of kennedy's greatest hits as you were preparing the past opinions and your focus was on him, how come. >> in the cases like this even putting aside the area justice kennedy is also the deciding vote as ever we needed justice kennedy as well that is true in any case when it comes to rights, justice kennedy really holds the unique position. at this point he has now written every major decision for windsor

about the equal rights of gay americans and we knew we had no chance of winning the case. >> we knew that we couldn't say that. it looked a little too obvious for me to say that but one of the things that we did and said as we took at that point the great language from his two prior decisions at that point it was rome her and warren's and we put them on a cheat sheet and i walked through the streets of dc i'm sure i look like a crazy person doing that but the reason i wanted to have the language on the tip of my tongue so that during the argument if i needed to use if i could say it without saying it has justice kennedy

said every single one of the justices knew exactly what i was doing it and i could see it in their eyes when i said but i still have it collected on that bet and still have to collect. >> host: you write that he begins his argument by feeling returned to a mild state of panic and you then had to essentially rewrite your opening statement on the response. >> guest: this is what we follow as a good thing. so we have actually talked a lot as you can imagine during this process. we have a good position had a good position on the various points that we had was probably would have said no we haven't exchanged the opening so i didn't know what the solicitor general was going to say and

when he got up to speak, the highlight of the opening argument was this issue was but was probably the best example i think of how the defense of marriage act was an insult to the gay americans and what happened after the military and doctor don't ask don't tell had been repealed. understandably this isn't a surprise there were a lot of servicemembers who were married because after all people in the military tend to be more conservative and they tend to want to get married so we have quite a large number of gay married soldiers but after even though they were married for the federal law they were not married and so what happens is when one of them happened, when one of those soldiers which injured critically or has he been killed in the line of duty the military could not notify the spouse of would have happened.

we had been hearing a lot of reports that as far as the pentagon was concerned, this was horrible. they felt they were agonized by it and felt it completely violated the concept of military honor and respect and sacrificed and it was just driving them crazy. so my opening was very much keeping to that. i realized i couldn't copy what he had so i have to come up something very quickly in the courtroom. >> host: you explained there were multiple ways that you could win in the court but not all of them would be a good thing this is early for the future cases that indicate the rights of gays and lesbians. can you talk about the distinction? >> guest: there was a possibility the supreme court could say that the case only applied to >> then that speed -- edie

should get the check back and they were both talking about doma in different areas. it affected different statutes and edie's case only involved one of the tax statute and there was a concern on our part would say okay there is no reason for edie to pay this tax but when it comes to health care or child support or social security, maybe there is a reason and we will wait to hear that case later. the courts can do that. there's there is a principle sometimes the courts should do something like that and we were concerned that they would do something like that here. fortunately we got the opposite. the language of justice kennedy majority opinion could probably hardly be broad. it speaks in this beautiful in this very broad language about the principle that gays people have the same dignity as everyone else. uses the word dignity like 11

times in the opinion. once you say people have the same dignity as everyone else it's really all over but the shouting because you can't come up with a good reason why it's okay to treat them differently under the law. in the opinion by justice kennedy the legalistic and then he predicts the ruling will lead to nationwide marriage equality and as you know in the book he was exactly right. after the ruling was out -- >> guest: justice scalia was right about this a couple times. he said the ordinance would lead to marriage equality and then again warren's would lead to marriage equality and both times he was right. what happened to me and this happened faster than i would expect that i just didn't think that it would happen so quickly. in the two years following windsor i think that it was 70 some courts in almost every state in the country decided

that given this very broad principle in windsor and that they had the dignity that there was no basis for design of quality and marriage and we started getting case after case after case in the states that no one would have expected in utah is one of the first. oklahoma is one of the early ones, virginia, indiana were judge after judge at the same thing and you are a corporate partner, so i don't have to tell you this, but it wasn't a popularity contest. federal judges do not act out of pure pressure. they have less time tenure and they were not doing it because they wanted to be in with their colleagues -- i don't believe . they were doing it because given the holding in windsor, there was no other result they could reach, so they saw this remarkable unanimity. i think the professor said he has never seen a groundswell like that in american legal history all going to work for marriage equality in all leading

ultimately to the decision in the book. >> host: as the cases were decided and it was clear that this was headed to the supreme court it was a product of what was coming out of the courts. the critics charged that this was inappropriate to the courts to step in and sway that it should be left to the state legislatures through the democratic process to make these decisions. what was your response to that? >> guest: we have this thing called the constitution, and what the constitution means particularly the bill of rights and 14th amendment at issue in the amendment is that sometimes the legislatures pass laws that violate the rights of minority groups. and sometimes they cannot be justified given the constitutional guarantees that every american has and of course legislature passes laws all the time in the vast majority they pass constitutional muster. but every once in a while, you saw this in the african-american civil rights and we now see it

in gay civil rights where the only reason for passing the law is to treat a certain group differently than anyone else. they were really not about marriage, they were not about any other kind of policy reason, they were about separating people off and making sure that under the law they were different and that is what we call the constitutional no-no in my world. >> host: the legal term. >> guest: that is the fancy legal term, exactly. they shouldn't be in the business of doing that and particularly after windsor is clear that that's what the statutes were based on and that this was a time and responsibility for the court to step in. >> host: as the supreme court this year prepared to take up the gay marriage case you were involved in the peoples drafting. >> guest: to larry rosen who is involved for many years now have this great idea which was

let's use the benefits of modern technology and the internet to in amicus brief, never done before, so we did this brief called the peoples brief and to allow people to sign onto the briefly basically posted it on the internet and anyone could read it and say they agree with it and they could sign on and because i think that it was way over 250,000 signatures for people in all 50 states. we have different states where the marriage upon the battles in texas there were a lot of people sign on i recall coming up when we had to deliver the have to get a certain number of copies. >> host: and again it was justice kennedy who rose to the majority opinion. what was your reaction to

reading that at that moment? >> guest: on the one hand, i expected it. you see this tidal wave of decisions. i believe that the principle logic -- i agree that the logic really required this result. but i am a cautious lawyer and a gay person so i think in my heart of hearts i was pretty nervous. i was in san francisco that morning, a good place to be. and it was very early and i was in my hotel room and i saw the language and i was actually on a phone call you a conference call with the windsor team in new york. it was dramatic and there was a lot of screaming and crying. >> host: a few federal and state judges have cited your decision since it came down and in some cases that do not

involve same-sex couples. there was one in california where the court rejected the challenge to the female fiancée use of the position and they cited him to describe what a marriage was versus an engagement. how far of a reach from the legal perspective do you see this decision and doma as well. >> guest: i haven't thought about it in terms of comparing marriage is to engagement. i might be able to look at the buck in terms of the rights of gay people, i said in august 2013 i gave a speech which predicted windsor was the equal that of the battle of normandy and that it was continued taking the rest of europe but there was no question that we would do so. i think that this was the capitulation legally speaking of the forces of world war ii. there was no question in my mind that they read together meaning

that no government in this country state, federal, local can discriminate against people solely because they are gay. so the state sanctioned is now over, nothing about that and that is why you are seeing decision after decision and i have a case in mississippi right now but has the last law on the books of the bans gay couples from accounting and i normally don't like to predict that i'm going to win a case but i am confident we will win this case. the next is going to be what does the theme with respect to the government is wanting what what does it mean with private employers and private businesses there i think the answer is partially nonlegal. but what i mean by that is there isn't a lot of appetite in this country for any business owner anywhere to say to the two young

girls that walk and we walking we are not going to sell you ice cream cones because you have two fathers or two mothers. businesses want to make money. they want to serve their customers. they have no interest in doing that and that's why you are going to see it from time to time if there's these little one offs i don't think that it's going to be a groundswell. i think we have one. we obviously need to clean up for the private employers they have taken the position that discriminated against gay people is the same as gender discrimination is already prohibited under title vii but that will have to get litigated and hopefully at some point he able to get a statute through congress that basically says that. >> host: before the court ruled that there was the alabama supreme court that refused to issue the marriage licenses going against a federal court order requiring that and you mentioned that kentucky clerk of