$59.99 $109. that will use less than 1 gigabyte of data a month. to our retail partners, that 1 gigabyte of data, we will charge them $6. think of the benefit. let's say our retail partner doubles it, quadruples it. they have to pay for >> the american consumer saves $50 or $60 a month. we are getting further behind in broadband infrastructure. we are no. 17 in the world today, comparable to malta in terms of broadband connectivity, and slipping.

it is 15,000 new technology jobs every year for the next five years, when we are hurting due to unemployment. it is every single penny of lower investment is private money, $14 billion over the next eight years. >> we are going to have to leave it there. sanjiv ahuja is the chairman and ceo of lightsquared. cecilia kang, tech reporter with "the washington post." this is the second half of our interview with sanjiv ahuja. >> you are at the center of at

least two investigations by lawmakers on capitol hill. there is a lot of question as to whether relationships the company had with the white house and meetings with the fcc, fast process for getting the approval to needed to get your network up and running. you defend yourself in full-page ads, as peter mentioned. what is wrong here? are you misunderstood, in your mind, and why? >> cecilia, lightsquared has gone through probably the most extensive regulatory process i have seen anywhere in the world. the spectrum has been going through a process for eight years now, and i am an engineer, an entrepreneur, i have built businesses. telecommunication is my passion. i came back to the united states after having worked in europe

for almost seven years because i saw a need for american consumers. when i used to come back and visit my children here, when they were going to school and college, i would look at the network quality. it was no better than how left in early 2000. when we could build networks in europe that could penetrate through two walz and a moving elevator, and we were offering terps in europe that were 30% lower than a bill of an average lower than a bill of an average american, and coverage that when i went 20 minutes outside new york city to visit my son in philadelphia, the phone would not work. i felt there was an opportunity, and need to build the networks,

at prices that americans truly deserved. i will give you an example. i have another business where we build broadband wyler's in emerging markets. we offer in bangladesh $14 a month and limited wireless data. how many americans get that? zero. >> that hurts me as an entrepreneur and as an engineer, but that is also an opportunity. on the basis of that opportunity, we have raised billions of dollars and invested them. we have created the world's most sophisticated satellite system, built by boeing engineers. we launched it, and it is working today. it is the largest commercial

satellite ever built anywhere. we believed that it could be done, and it has been done by american engineers. >> so no dud doubt of the potential -- no doubt of the potential. no doubt the government and the fcc would like to see it fcc would like to see it realize, but we have a reality where there have been tested you have done that show interference problems. you have come up with a solution that requires more testing. early on in the process, what engineering minds, the great engineering mind you talked about, from where? the federal government, the sec, the ntia? who needs to speak up early and say this is a potential problem.

why wasn't there a loud, clear voice from the federal government, and who should have sounded the alarm very early? >> i think federal government, but more than that. let's talk about the history of this. that is really important. the primary authorization to build the network happened in 2003, followed by that in 2005. all the related players, all the gps manufacturers and others participated in that process and supported it. just as when you go through a planning board, your neighbors participate. you expect that the planning board approval application and there will be a building constructed here. they would insure they are not

encroaching on your piece of land, your property. in 2010, and the company did not have the financial resources, so i think this issue really should have been brought up back in early 2000. >> by whom? >> by the players, the folks in the gps industry, to say look, if you build a network here, we have devices that will never be able to deal with it, and in their defense, they did ask us not to transmit any power over to the gps spectrum. at that time, we started investing millions of dollars, $10 million were invested in building a very thick wall that said we would not transmit any power over to the gps, and you would expect the gps guys would

build devices that would be able to handle it. let's just take a couple of steps forward. in 2008, the department of defense and others put specifications out and said that there would be a network that could be built up here in this frequency band so are gps device is ought to be resilience to that network. >> so they warned gps. >> the department of defense, for themselves, for their acquisition and other things. if you go back, we have moved away from the gps. when people talk about some of the interference challenges, they are still referring to our old plan. when i said were building a network close to the gps spectrum. now we are further away. as i said, the issues related to position devices, we have

announced a solution last week, and amazingly, we have had half a dozen gps manufacturers approach us and say we can build devices that can live harmoniously with lightsquared. >> what about the faa's concerns? have those been addressed with your new plan? >> we are working closely with the faa. i don't see any aviation safety issues. greg retaken by supplies by the faa raising these issues? >> the issues were understood when the testing happen. yes, we were surprised that there were devices out there that should have been building properly since 2003, 2005, and for almost a decade, they have not been designed to deal with the network build out.

yes, that was a surprise to us. >> is that what you mean in your full-page ad when you say that despite the fact that the interference is caused by others inappropriate use of lightsquared's spectrum? >> this is -- all spectrum users use the spectrum, just like the land you have to build a network. we committed not to transmit over to gps. interestingly, these tps devices looked way into the lightsquared spectrum to perform the service. some tps devices -- gps devices are absolutely fine, your personal navigation system in your cars work absolutely fine with the plan we have proposed. you are not going to get lost. some of the precision receivers

we tested, almost one-fourth of those receivers were absolutely fine as well. not only that, there are half a dozen gps manufacturers say they can build devices that will work harmoniously lightsquared. >> the pilot union has said that the next generation of faa control is going to be gps- based. is there use of the gps still into your spectrum? is that they are concerned? is that how you see it? >> what i can speak to is the faa concerns primarily related to our old spectrum. there are discussions on how we build a network in the new spectrum we have proposed, which is farther away from that. we are working with the faa to

ensure that the power levels, the construction of the network and design of the network is in a way that should absolutely not have any safety issues. i fly as much as anybody. not only that, what we are building is a business that helps americans and american consumers. it has to be a system that leaves no personal safety issues of any kind on the table. all of those initials -- all those issues we do not believe exist, and the network should have absolutely no personal safety issues at all, of any kind. but isn't -- what this is about is serving american people in the way they deserve it. it is about opportunity in this country, not just economic opportunity for lightsquared and its investors and employees, and

the suppliers to it. it is an opportunity for entrepreneurs, an opportunity for a college graduate sitting in missouri who says i have created a new game that can run on the internet. can i get access to the broadband wireless network to take that game to the market? if he or she wanted to do it today, the cost would be $2 million or $3 million to work with one of the large wireless operators. they can do it with lightsquared for $0. we keep our test center open to all of these entrepreneurs to come and test their devices, test their applications, tests their games, test agricultural applications to the most business to business -- advanced

business to business applications. it is economic opportunity for technical engineers, people like your children and my children, our friends and relatives. >> did you think the verizon, at&t, and contests -- comcast are trying to squeeze some of -- do you think some of the recent noise about lightsquared has been raised by some of the established wireless companies? >> we are building a network that is wholesale only. this industry has a business model which is completely vertically integrated. wireless operators do anything. they give you the network, they build the network, operated the network, they have retail stores. they go to the stores and provide service to the customers. they decide what applications

and services you can run on the network. can you run voice-over ip? no, you cannot. ours is an absolutely open network. we encourage you to run video, and we charge at the rates we think -- it is straight money in your pocket. anytime you try to do construction and in industry, established players are uncomfortable because you are challenging their business model. but that is expected. if they are not our customers today, i want them to be our future customers. we look at them as partners in this business, even now or in the future.

sprint is a partner, and we value that relationship. i expect that verizon and comcast will be partners. at the end of the day, we get our service operational, 330 million americans gain in their pocketbook. they get better quality network. they did not one or two more choices, they get tens of new choices, obviously driving superior network and lower prices. that is the benefit, and people in this country for the first time are connected coast-to- coast. sanjiv ahuja is our guest. he is the chairman and ceo of lightsquared. cecilia kang is the tech reporter for "the washington post." >> it sounds like you are saying competitors are afraid and they will be challenged.

the chairman of harbor capital said in her interview on fox news that he believes competition may be behind this. what is going on? from the outside, there is a very expensive political battle going on. full-page ads, lots of lobbying going on. you do not even have a network up yet. what is the battle going on? when you talk about competitors dealing challenge, who do you think he's being challenged, and how is it being played out? for observers who are concerned about this issue, a lot of people have questions about why a private company with these big aspirations, what are they in this situation in the first place? >> cecilia, when you do a successful business model, it has to make the incumbents and comfortable. when you talk about an

environment where you serve the american consumers and have them pay prices that are dramatically lower than what they pay today, the industry as it exists today gets challenged. but i believe in fair competition. i have built my career over fair competition around globe. i believe in america's commitment to free and open market. i believe that this country encourages risk-taking, private investment, a entrepreneurship, and i believe that any time you try to build a new business, expect competitive pressures. so i encourage competing with competitors on free and open ground. i have no concerns with that,

and we are very comfortable that our model does not compete with what exist out there. the market has indeed that the current operators cannot satisfy -- has a need that the current operators cannot satisfy. they do not have enough capacity. we at lightsquared are trying to fill that capacity gap. i think eventually, the biggest gainers of this will not just be the existing operators because they will not have the capacity to serve their customers as they are running out of capacity over the next three or four years. as early as two years, some will run out of capacity. look at the new tablets and new device is getting out there. our appetite as consumers in this country, to consumer wireless broadband date it is insatiable. wait for the new iphone. look at these devices as the

first generation devices. this is like the old commodore pc on your desk 30 years ago. when you go out, the data you will consume, the companies that feel they are under competitive threat as someone as destructive as lightsquared, eventually they will come around and say we do need their capacity, and they will want to be our partners. that is what we want to be, and we have approached them. we are trying to work with every single one of the operators in this country to say look, we can help supplement and complement your network for you have congestion today and where you expect you will not have enough capacity, so they can serve the american consumer better. american consumer better. obviously, we will serve the american consumers.

>> there are concerns when you talk about a level playing field that lightsquared as a private company did not play on a level playing field, that perhaps there was influence our special favors granted by connections within the white house through request to the fcc for an expedited process, and the inclusion of a particular portion of their national broadband plan that really applies to your business. can you please address those concerns about this not being a level playing field for private company? you talk a lot about the consumer being the biggest beneficiary, but lightsquared is beneficiary, but lightsquared is a business. you will benefit in the billions as well. >> the process that is really relevant here is 2003 and 2005 process.

2010, the change of control was a several months long process. i don't know how we could have been longer and more detailed or a more comprehensive process. this is as comprehensive and processes i have seen anywhere, globally, on any spectrum change of control or any companies change of control. so we went through a very expensive process, and that required us to commit $14 billion of investment, private investment which we had to go out and raised a substantial amount of that money from private investors to invest in the u.s. infrastructure. so we had to go in convinced the investors, several of them, that this is a good opportunity. it benefits american consumers, but also it has to be a good economic opportunity that we could gather and invest into

this company. they have invested over the last year, we have raised from several investors over $2.50 billion for this company since the acquisition of that. that has been done on the premise of 2005, 2003, 2010, fcc specific authorizations. now the challenge for us is to raise the rest of the capital that the fcc has mandated us. i tell you how we see it and how i personally feel. i personally feel. it is of battle, -- a battle about lightsquared versus very large, established players,

because we are disrupting their business model. it is about companies that are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, 100 year history and longer. it is about changing and industry and making it radically different to provide more choices to the customers. people ask me how do i feel about david and goliath situations? i say i feel fortunate if i were the size of david. i don't want to be goliath. in this country, the foundation is a fair, competitive process. we are trying to go through not one specific incident of the process. it is an eight year process. this is an eight-year process. each step of the process has

been a very long, very detailed, comprehensive process. >> i wonder, though, at this stage, how much of a david you are, in the sense that with the waiver, and i think your own economic analysis might have supported this -- please clarify if i am wrong, that essentially with that waiver of the ancillary trust rule component, your plans to build out this structural network, you are taking spectrum that you did not pay for in the first place, -- i will clarify that. you make it exponentially more valuable, and you are trying to raise capital to build it out, but -- forget i said that about you not paying money. you have made it exponentially more valuable 3 this regulatory

process. the question is, what happens if you don't raise the capital to actually build this thing? could you sell the spectrum for a lot more money? do i have a totally wrong? >> with all due respect, if i may, i think there are several misperceptions in what you just narrated. let me just highlight a few of them, if i may respectfully do so. the spectrum was given to this company in 1989, four or five predecessors ago, as a part of american mobile satellite system. at that time, there were no options of spectrum in the united states. the groups that were established brit that -- established in 2001, 2003, and the authorization to build the

network was given in 2005. if there was an economic gain for this business, that happened at six, seven, eight years ago. it was a long process. at that time, the company did not have the economic wherewithal to build a network, but it had the authorization to do it. he go back to 2005 filings of the predecessor company of lightsquared, it is openly stated that the company has authorization to build tens of thousands of stations. fcc authorization of 2003 and 2005 clearly states that the company has authorization to build them as well. we saw that as an economic opportunity when we tried to acquire the company, and when we

acquired it in 2010, it was based on the authorization the company had in 2005. atc rules were a catalyst -- established in 2005. you are absolutely right about entrepreneurship. it is about seeing opportunities for others do not see it. we saw the opportunity in 2009, based on 2005 rules that the company had authorization in. i would respectfully -- go look at the company posted filings in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. the authorization existed since that time to go build the network. it was a public company at the time. others were not seeing the opportunity, and fortunately, we

did. that is why we acquired the company. it was not an instantaneous transformation of the spectrum. it was almost a decade long process. i think in this country, one of the fundamental foundations is seeing the economic opportunity. this economic opportunity also serves the american consumer's better. better. it has a very positive addition to every american's pocket every year. that is what this is about. >> 30 seconds for question and answer. >> how would you respond to questions raised by this very extensive report that e-mails were exchanged between white house officials and lightsquared officials to get

meetings with white house personnel at the time when you are donating to campaigns -- company officials were donating? >> when you are building a significant network, and when you are making a significant technology investment in a country, and you look at whether they are telecom operators, technology companies -- you pick up the newspaper and open it. ceo's of all these companies are ceo's of all these companies are meeting with various government officials. our business is in 30 countries over my career. you go and meet with different government officials all the time. especially when you are making a significant contribution that we firmly believe will help the american consumer to reduce their prices, provide a better

network. that needs to be communicated to everybody in the country, and that is what we are communicating through our advertisements. that is what i am trying to communicate to you and the audience and everybody here. not only direct opportunity that we are creating, 15,000 new jobs, think about jobs and opportunities created by the existence of this network. it is not just the $600, $700, a turn dollars more you get in your pocket a year. you can spend that money. in a country where we are facing more than 9% unemployment, when you invest in infrastructure, it is not just the impact of that company in itself, it is everything of around it.

i would love to have the opportunity to share that with every single person in the country. >> sanjiv ahuja is the chairman and ceo of lightsquared. cecilia kang is a writer for the washington post. >> tonight, president obama is here in washington addressing the human rights campaign, the nation's largest gay rights advocacy group. next we will look at the president's halling of gay- rights issues. this is about 25 minutes. host: our guest brian moulton, chief legislative counsel on the human rights campaign. what is the function tonight? guest: it is our annual national gala dinner. we have 300 folks coming in from around the country. we are thrilled to have the

president speaking with us. it is his second appearance in the three years of the term, so we are thrilled to have him back. host: what do you think would be the most significant thing he could say to your group tonight? guest: to recognize how historic we are and an historic moment that we are at right on the heels of "don't ask, don't tell being repealed. and then committing himself to keeping and moving that ball forward. we have a long way to go still. with love to see a continued commitment. host: how could he moved the ball forward? guest: he has done a lot. there are still a lot of ways in which our community experiences discrimination. it is still perfectly legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation in 29 states at. -- states.

trying to move them forward, it would be an amazing step, working with federal contractors, to be sure that people are not being discriminated against in implement. he is continuing -- the administration has been exploring ways to provide rights and benefits. of the have done an amazing job and there are many more opportunities out there through regulations and executive orders. host: same-sex marriage? guest: marriage is a difficult question for the president because there is not really a role for the federal government when deciding who can or cannot mary. saying that the federal government will not recognize unlawful marriage is even in the six states and d.c. where marriage is available. his administration has come out against it and then stopped

defending it against challenges in federal court. they have done quite a bit on that front. we would love if the president would be supportive of marriage the quality. he is evil and and we hope he will evolve quickly. i do not -- he is evolving quickly and we hope he will quickly. host: is it important that states like new york recognize same-sex marriage in your opinion? guest: when we have a populous state added to the column, it is significant for the fight nationwide and that think it influences how national policymakers look at the issue when the issue is becoming something that more and more states are doing and is seen last as an aberration. perhaps that will help folks get further down the road. host: our guest is going to be with us until 9:15. if you want to speak with him,

the numbers are on your screen. if you want to send us an e-mail -- or you can also send us say tweet -- when it comes back to the president as far as his influence on topics like same- sex marriage, there have been a couple of forums that he has been at with the topic has come up bank the president was speaking at a fundraiser, and the topic of marriage came from the audience. i want to show you what happened, the reaction, and get your reaction and banquets that is why i ordered federal agencies to extend the same benefits thato go to gay couples as they do to straight couples. i heard you, guys.

[laughter] believe it or not, i anticipated someone might ask. [cheers and applause] where was i? host: your reaction? guest: certainly, the president knows that marriage equality is a tremendously important issue for the community. i think he realizes that despite everything he has accomplished, that is what folks are looking for, the leadership of the president on the question of marriage equality. i understand the frustration of those in the audience. i do not have a crystal ball of when he will move down that road. i think that the community is very supportive of the president and for good reason.

we have not had a president that has been more supportive of the community bank we have seen some tremendous step forward, the passage of a hate crime law and a lot of important protections through the administration. things like hospital dissertation protection for same-sex parents and lots of other changes. of course, the end of the defense of this discriminatory marriage act in court. host: would lead to the endorsement? guest: at the record that i just described. we have supported the president in the initial election and we all like the encumbrance to stand by the community. i don't think the community like any community -- there are individuals who do not support the president for a variety of reasons including ones that are not related to his policy

positions on our community that prioritize other issues pending certainly, there are folks who are not satisfied with how long things have come along. i completely understand that frustration. is not universal. i think he is strongly supported by our community. host: the first call this morning. caller: i was just wondering -- i wanted to make a comment. should the president -- how is the political nature of having independent groups, you know, -- it is such a big agenda push within a simple military system. what bothers me is the backing of 8. host: what is your question?

caller: the few people that are considered gay or whatever, it affects the agenda of the whole u.s. military and the united states. guest: i am assuming the caller is referring to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." my response would be this was a very lengthy and delivered to the process by the military leadership. they did a lengthy evaluation process to determine that this would not disrupt the good order of our military, and at the end of the day when all those steps were met and that review happen, the law was repealed. i think it was done in a very deliberative process. there are many gay and lesbian americans already serving, and now they can serve openly and honestly. i think that will improve and

not damage our military in any way. caller: i have a comment and question. i am an african american, and i have a brother who lives in the alternative lifestyle. he has been persecuted and has been relieved from jobs because of his alternative lifestyle. i thought that we had civil- rights legislation in place to protect all americans against this type of discrimination. i really do not understand what the big hooopla is about only protecting gays and lesbians. i thought the legislation was supposed to protect all americans. it is very disheartening to me to see anybody discriminated

against just simply because there police or their lifestyle. what is america's supposed to stand for if it is not able to stand up for disenfranchised -- isn't this how this country was formed and made? the president should make a statement to the world that we are tolerant and civilized people, a nation of understanding people bank shouldn't he do this? guest: absolutely. we are very happy to welcome him back for the second time to our national dinner tuesday to our audience and a national audience about the quality of being gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. that means in 29 states, you can still be fired just because you are gay but not with any consideration of merit.

unfortunately, we have a long way to go to make sure that the quality is the reality. host: louisville, kentucky, good morning. caller: i have a statement first to make concerning the president. i noticed that he is making appearances with gay activists. i feel like there is no right to be gay. there is a choice. i wonder why the media never mentions that those two guys in chicago that were assassinated that had close ties with the president with the senator at time of illinois conveniently were assassinated in 2007 and there is still speculation that he had sexual activity with an. my question is, i wonder if the president is gay himself.

i would like to know that. guest: well, i do not know anything about the chicago incident that you are referring to. i would like to go back and say that the consensus among science and psychological organizations is that sexual orientation is not a choice and is not something that can be changed but is something that is a core part of someone's identity. that remains a part of the conversation, but i do not think that should influence whether people should be protected against discrimination. host: we have a map of same-sex marriage in the u.s. no same-sex marriage laws all together. as a policy issue when we come up to 2012, how much of this will be a policy issue?

guest: we are going to seek marriage being part of the electoral conversation in 2012 bank minnesota, north carolina are both going to have constitutional amendments on their ballots. there is a possibility that states like maine, washington, or oregon may be considering a pro-active marriage issues. it continues to be part of the election cycle every year, and we are hopeful that we will be able to push back those amendments and move forward to a marriage issue. host: as far as the topic is concerned, i want you to react to something that was said in a story in the washington post. he said according to census figures --

guest: sure. i think there are a number of conclusions to jump to in that reasoning. first of all, marriage is a young concept in all the states where it is available. if you look at states like massachusetts, they have the largest percentage of married same-sex couples in that state. you have a large number of married couples in that state. secondly, marriage equality in the states is not marriage equality nationwide. i think a lot of same-sex couples see it as i could get married here, but if i moved across state lines, might marriage ceases to exist. there are a lot of rights and benefits of marriage under federal law, everything from

social security survivor benefits to the ability to sponsor a spouse for immigration as well as a lot of tax benefits. so i think for a lot of same-sex couples, they are still considering whether or not to enter into an institution that is partly an equality. host: philadelphia, pa., becky, go ahead. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: congratulations for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." my concern is that if republicans get into office, they are going to reinstitute the "don't ask, don't tell." guest: sure. we have heard and number of candidates, republican candidate for president, say that date supported the law and would like to see it back in place.

"don't ask, don't tell" was a law enacted by congress. it would be a little more complicated than just a president's stepping in, but we are concerned that a subsequent president might try to roll this back. i am hopeful that there is overwhelming public support for the end of that policy. we had strong support among the military leadership. as this goes forward and is implemented and we see that this does not cause the kinds of terrible scenarios, we will all become comfortable with the idea of open service and you will see gay and lesbian people serving openly and courageously and it will not be an appetite to try to change this. host: next is south carolina, jason on our republican . caller: i have a question. i am a die-hard republican.

i have no problems with of the gay community at all. why do you keep using terminology like "we" or us" ? it is kind of misleading as a listener. you can say it as you want to, but that is how i see it. host: what is your question? guest: why does he use the terminology to single out the group away from the general public? guest: i am an advocate for gay rights and and a member of the gay community myself spending my job is to be out there and talk to folks about the issues that i see facing the community. there are a lot of areas where discrimination specifically still impacts us. that is what i want to convey to the listeners.

host: update us on the process that the president has concerned himself with. guest: of the bill has been in congress since 1994. a version has passed the house once in 2007 and came close in the senate bank and unfortunately, with the house leadership, they do not show an interest in moving the bill forward so it is hard for us to see success. hopefully we will get over that milestone. as i mentioned, a super majority with the "don't ask, don't tell ." host: and the respect for marriage act? guest: is a relatively new bill that would repeal the defense of marriage act that defines marriage for federal purposes to exclude same-sex couples. that has just had a senate bill introduced in this congress for

the first time. there was a hearing on it this summer. the first hearing since domo was enacted in 1996. there is an increasing number of states with the marriage. almost 140,000 married same-sex couples in the united states. we are really putting a face on the reality of what it does to same-sex couples, the rights and benefits that it denies them. host: how much was that momentum -- guest: i think that helps tremendously. you have the justice department saying the law is unconstitutional. i think that helps members of congress and senators and allows the american people understand why this law has to be repealed. i think also that regardless of what happens with that the inflation and what the justice department is arguing, we do with that legislation, and what the justice department is

arguing, more same-sex couples are saying why is it that my marriage is a legal where i live but ignored by the federal government? host: we are taping it tonight for c-span. you can tune in to c-span.org to see when we will air in that event. caller: i am retired navy. i agreed with the senator who said i do not care if they are straight. i just care if they can shoot straight. this is long overdue. i knew a lot of guys in the navy who had to keep it under cover bank they were great. it is long overdue. going back to the beginning of time, people in this service or homosexual or day or whatever term used at the time. my fear is about all this is

obama is president. you are going to be put in a database if you are gay. another administration comes with a big backlash and now you are going to be put in a database and discriminated against later with a different administration. that is why i am a libertarian and for freedom for everybody's freedom. thank you. guest: i am not aware of any effort by the defense department to collect information about people's sexual orientation. the repeal means that people can be open about their sexual orientation and not fear being discharged, but it does not mean that they are being required to identify their sexual orientation or that the federal government is going to do anything with that information. host: this story that gay weddings will be allowed to be performed by a gay military chaplains. guest: this is a question of

equitable access to military facilities. military facilities are used for weddings and a lot of other religious functions and insuring those facilities are open in a sexual orientation- neutral manner i think it is a matter of basic fairness and it is it not -- and the defense department is not endorsing any of those marriages and more than dod is endorsing a first commune or baptism or funeral that happens in one of those facilities. host: it allows chaplains to not perform them if they personally feel -- guest: wright. it is absolutely voluntary. it seems like a significant religious liberty question as well. why would you risk the ability of a chaplain to voluntarily perform such a ceremony?

host: harrisburg, ohio, for our guest brian moulton. are you there? go ahead. caller: i just want to say that nobody in my family, as far as i know, are gay, but it just irritates me when people are so against the gays. they are.that i hate to bring religion into it, but that is how god made them. please, just forget what they are. as long as they are good people, that is all that counts. thank you. host: florida, republican line. caller: yes? host: you are on. caller: i just have a comment to make regarding that i think people are forgetting that our

country was founded on "god we trust" and what the bible has to say about that. host: which is what? caller: i believe that the bible is against it. specifically gay marriages. guest: unfortunately, there is a frame and a narrative out there that there are gay rights on one side and religion on another, and that is not a fair picture. there are traditions that have an array of viewpoints, many of which are supportive of marriages of same-sex couples. that is their understanding of their faith tradition. in a pluralistic society, it is important that all of those are respected. at the end of the day, it is a

civil government that makes the decision about who can marry. that needs to be an issue that is separate from any particular religion decisions about homosexuality. host: would you say that religious groups have been resistant? guest: certainly. there are a lot of religious groups that are resistant to recognizing the equality of our community but that is changing every day. mainline protestant groups are coming around and supporting various equality issues. it is a spectrum that i hope any faith tradition would be opposed to because of sexual orientation. we are seeing many more like the united church of christ that support and to celebrate marriages between same-sex couples. having faith leaders, and proactively fight for the rights of our community. organization has a clergy call every two years.

we have had over 300 clergymen here on capitol hill, mainline religion, of all stripes, both christians and jews, speaking to their senators and congressman about why these issues are important to them both as fate leaders and individuals who counsels congregants see the discrimination first hand and think that both as leaders in the faith traditions and as representatives of faith traditions that these are things that need to change. host: caller: i work at a huge medical facility in rochester. i have nothing against gay people. so mumbai friends are and they are good people. -- some of my friends are and they are good people. my partner and i have been together over 10 years. he is male.

they will not let me get insurance on my partner. do you not think that is discrimination? guest: the only way same-sex couples are able to access the benefits you are describing, the idea was to find a way to get benefits to partners of gays and employees because marriage was not available to them. other couples can get married to access benefits like health insurance and related benefits. it is a way to get same-sex couples the same benefits. that is the idea behin