"the atlanta" on her article about female leadership in the workplace. plus your phone calls, e-mail, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this wednesday, march 27. the court heard oral arguments on the defense of marriage act. as you can see, the public is lining up and all eyes are on the supreme court this morning across from the capital. all the attention on the court as they take up the defense of marriage act today. we want to know if you support,

if you think the court should recognize same-sex marriage. the numbers are -- host: you can also send us a tweet or e-mail us at journal@c- span.org. here is how they one played out in papers across the country. the los angeles times with the headlines -- the arizona republic, a cautious court, divided justices be wary of landmark change. finally, the chicago tribune,

of major gaywary marriage ruling. court isg that the possibly divided and does not what -- know what to do on the same-sex marriage case. here is the baltimore sun, their headline -- this the "new york times" morning --

host: we are getting your take on this. should the supreme sort -- court support same-sex marriage ? your phone calls in just a minute. the wall street journal, this is what they have to say this morning --

, you supportpolis the court. why? caller: equal protection under the law. other than originals -- religion, there is no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. host: why do you say religion? caller: i'm sorry, i did not hear you. host: why do you say religion? caller: that is the only thing that prevents people to coming to what is already acknowledged as fair grade religion skews the playing field in one way that prohibits same-sex relationships equal status. host: as you're talking, we are showing you the "usa today" with a recent poll that asked what

are reasons you oppose same-sex marriage? said marriage in the bible says it is wrong to between same-sex is. bill, you are opposed to same- sex marriage. go ahead. , i really don't oppose same-sex marriage. people should be able to do what it -- they want to do. when it comes to a clinical standpoint -- political standpoint, they want to sit on it and want to let them through on it just like they do with interracial marriage. my question is, why did they bring interracial marriage in it to begin with because it is still procreation between a man and a woman. it seems to be getting more political than anything. wasenator from ohio strictly against same-sex

marriage. now that he found out his son was gay, he flip-flopped to the other side. it seems like a lot of conservatives, whether democratic or republican are going by what the majority is going to keep them in office for. i say throw it back to the states and let the him deal with it. host: let it percolate for a while longer? caller: no, let's get it over with. host: this is the "washington post" this morning --

he is company with the former vice president and utah governor, jon huntsman. we will go to peter in birmingham, alabama. you support the idea of the court recognizing same-sex marriage parade why is that? caller: the separation of church and state. ,e are a ceremonial country many of whom never attended church such as george washington during his first terms of president. i think the reason why we talk about racial -- and racial marriage versus the gay marriage are bothbecause they

vulnerable minorities. they have been exploited. theexample, in my past and family, my grandmother lived in a reservation oklahoma. that is because my ancestors went through the trail of tears. in the state of alabama where i am, we still have prohibitions against gambling, even though it is irrational. are we going to allow this to be a policy, baseless opinions that have no reality, yet will tax them? taxation without revisitation. i thought our country was against such things. host: here is the patchwork of illegal laws in our country -- illegal laws in our country. in a green recognize civil unions and those in blue recognize that partnerships are

legal. this is what our country looks like. in new mexico, no law regarding gay marriage. california.rsfield, you oppose the marriage. why is that? caller: the main reason is because god created adam and eve, not adam and steve. it is said to believe that this country is forgetting who the true judge is. that god just remember is a traitor. he did not create man to be with men and women to be with women. he created man and woman. god is the creator. host: do you have children? caller: yes, i do. host: i wonder how they look at

this issue. do they disagree or agree with you? caller: they agree with me. absolutely. they were raised in church, they were raise with their mom and dad. they do have some friends that acceptingnd they are of that. i accept their friends for who they are, but i am against, you know, men being with men and women being with women. host: how old are your kids, if you don't mind me asking? caller: they are in their 20's and 30's. host: here is a poll in "usa it shows the generational differences, attitudes towards same-sex marriage is very with age --

host: you can see how it breaks down among the other gen x ands, generally baby boomers. we will keep taking your phone calls this morning on the idea of whether or not the supreme court should recognize same-sex marriage, date to the court's oral arguments today. her position was 8. here is what justice kennedy had to say. [video clip] you areroblem is asking because of the social logical evidence for us to go into uncharted waters. you can play with that metaphor. but you are doing so in a case

where the opinion is very narrow, basically wants the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70% of the way. you are doing so where there is substantial question. i just wonder if the case was properly granted. >> the case was properly granted, your honor. there was a full trial of all of these issues and read there a 12-date swat -- trial. >> that is not the issue. >> the ninth circuit looked at it decided because of the case of the man wrote issue. those issues i have been describing were fundamental to the case. i don't want to abuse the court indulgence -- you suggested this is uncharted waters. it was uncharted waters when

this court in 1967 said that prohibitions on interracial marriages which still existed in 16 states were unconstitutional worried -- unconstitutional. >> that is not accurate. host: the oral arguments from yesterday's court proceedings. today at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral arguments on the defense of marriage act. our coverage at 2 p.m. eastern , and that is when we will share the audio with you. the court will release it sometime between one and 2 p.m.. tune into c-span, if you want to hear it. also, you can listen on c- span.org or on your smart phone by downloading the free c-span radio at -- app.

michelle in oregon. you support the idea of the court recognizing same-sex marriage. go ahead. caller: yes, i do. i believe if it is a question of religion, and that is what the people have a problem with it is, i believe they would have a problem with atheists getting married. when it comes down to, if you don't want gay marriage, then don't get a gay marriage. you don't have to, if you don't want to. let other people have a chance. host: how old are you? caller: i'm 22. host: connecticut, you oppose. go ahead. caller: hello. one of the reasons that they want marriage for gay couples is because of the social security benefits.

if you are married, you don't ever have to work. you can have social security benefits based on your husband, that this ishink fair because if a brother and sister lived together and one of sister cannot collect on the brother. i don't think that this should be considered. as far as marriage is concerned, i don't know why they can't be satisfied with just a civil union because it does everything that a marriage would do. host: that was the question that chief justice roberts put before the court yesterday during the argument. take a listen. [video clip] the labels just about in this case.

>> same-sex couples have every other right, it is just about the label. >> the label means sussed -- something. >> if you tell a child somebody has to be their friend, i suppose you can force them but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. that is what the point is a proposition 8. all you are interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label. >> it is like you were to say do can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. there are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. in the case you can't get married but you can have an interracial union. wrong.e knows that was marriage has a status recognition support. >> how do we know that is the reason or the necessary part of the reason that we have recognized marriage as a fundamental right? you emphasize that and you said

it is because of the emotional commitment. maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right. >> you have said that marriage is a fundamental rights with respect to procreation and at the same level getting married, privacy, you said that in the lawrence case, and you said in other cases. equalage is put on a pro- footing with the procreation aspects. this court is the one that said over and over again that marriage means something to the individual emma the privacy, intimacy, and it is a matter of status and recognition. host: yesterday's court proceedings on proposition 8. the headlines this morning, this is "politico" -- in the hill, their headline -- similar headlines and

many of the newspapers this morning. on twitter, nancy mitchell says i think they will recognize same-sex marriage. host: edward, you support the idea of same-sex marriage. go ahead. caller: i would like to put a rembrandts out for one of the greatest man i ever knew. -- remembrance. i am in support of gay marriage because i am an older gay according to my family and a lot of friends, my lifestyle is not valid. , when theyage approved the gay marriage, it toes the live -- validity our lifestyle. host: some other news as we

continue to take your phone calls about whether the court should approve the same-sex marriage. this headline -- the politics section of the washington times this morning, they have this headline --

host: also in the washington times this morning, immigration reform, janet napolitano says -- host: next to that store is one in the "washington times" --

also this morning on that issue of senate control in the newspapers this morning, there is another piece for you here. the baltimore sun this morning, here is the headline -- the: that is the latest on senate race, a law in the papers on that. also, many of you may be interested on gun control. david keene is a writing in the "washington times" -- also, mark zuckerberg is

getting political, is the headline. he is forming a group for political advocacy to pressure the federal legislature -- quicksome other headlines overseas, this is the washington section of "usa today" north korea threatens guam, hawaii and the united states -- host: finally, here is the wall street journal this morning, a

woman is nominated to direct the secret service. guest: this the washington post morning has the story about the cia, the cia head is facing quandary. inoman has been placed charge of the secret service -- host: here is how it plays out

in the huffington post this morning -- host: back to our questions for all of you with our cameras outside the supreme court today. aople are lining up to get hearing. caller: good morning, i oppose same-sex marriage. i want to thank c-span for their coverage. ifr last caller said that the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, it will legitimize his lifestyle. so is so -- if he is show -- ashamed, what is the need the court to legitimize it?

passiont ironic during week that our nations as one nation, under god, the supreme court is thinking about legitimizing perversion. i know as well as you know that pedophilia will be next. it won't stop here, it just won't stop here. and oncey opinion, again, thanks, c-span. host: delaware, you support same-sex marriage and you think the support -- the court should organize it. go ahead. iller: i want to mention have been happily married 31 years with three children i did not bear myself. andregnancies were tragic nearly killed me. what about people who have chosen not to have children? i have been married 31 happy years.

this seems to be trying to relegate women to the role of baby makers. like that is the only purpose for us. i think that is wrong, and that is a neanderthal. on our facebook page, we are taking a poll from all of you. should the supreme court recognize same-sex marriage? 95 of you are saying, yes. 47 of you have said, no. joe in new york, oppose. go ahead, joe. caller: good morning, it is tough to make this call. i bear no malice, and i don't want anybody to be hurt. in the history of mankind, i think human beings know and understand what is normal behavior and what is abnormal. know whatmes -- gays is normal and abnormal. i think it is a hurt within them, and they are trying to get

the good housekeeping seal of approval, like i am like everybody else. well, i bear you no malice, but you're not like everybody else. , i wish you aharm happy life, but i think marriage should be between a man and a woman. host: the l.a. times this morning, the general raises firste, confident in his public speech yesterday. his: we will be airing speech on c-span at 1030, for those of you who are interested. ino, the general is writing today's opinion section of the wall street journal about veterans forining their next mission. just a the issue is not

job, it is a career. many of them end up in dead-end jobs -- host: that is general david writing in- petraeus the wall street journal. caller: my name is dana. proposition 8 was unconstitutional. q have the majority of the revelation voting on the rights of a minority of the population. was not done it during the civil rights movement in the 60s -- 1960s. therefore, it is unconstitutional.

to maintain doma is pure discrimination against a certain class of people, and that class of people are homosexuals. i have never heard and neither do i believe for myself that homosexuality is a choice that anybody can make. doma,the caller mentioned the defense of marriage act. that is what the court will be taking up in a few hours. we will have coverage of that at 2 p.m. eastern here on c-span. when the court releases audio around 1 p.m. this afternoon, our coverage will begin at 2 p.m. you will also be able to listen on your radio, c-span.org. you can download our free radio app. this conversation continues. coming up, we will take a look at the defense of marriage act. to set up a conversation, i

want to show you a debate from 1996 on the senate floor with senator trent lott, who was in the majority leader endorsing and asking for support of the defense of marriage act. he lays out the argument for it. then, senator ted kennedy argues why doma should not be approved. [video clip] comments ifrom the received when i was home during the august work. , from all across the country, it is clear this bill enjoys tremendous support among the american people. president clinton has promised to sign into law. he has affirmed his position that the bill would be sustained as constitutional if challenged in the court. this is not prejudiced legislation. it is not mean-spirited or exclusionary. it is a preemptive measure to make sure a handful of judges in a single state cannot impose an agenda upon the entire

nation. the defense of marriage act is not an attack upon anyone. it is, rather, a response to an attack on the institution of marriage itself. this matter has received so much attention in the press that everyone should know by now with the problem is and why we need to pass doma, as it is referred to. the problem is the serious possibility, some say the strong likelihood, that hawaii rignet -- recognize as a living arrangement of two persons of the same sex. if a decision only affected hawaii, we would leave it to the residents of hawaii to live with consequences to change things. a court decision would not be limited to just one state. it would raise possibilities in other states because article four section one of the constitution, the article requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial

proceedings of every other state. >> at first, the concern was for over 200 years among the states had sufficient power in recognizing or not recognizing marriage conditions in other states. they have done that for 200 years. 15 states have already indicated they would not recognize same- sex marriages. they have the authority already of 200 years. second, by trying to enhance or diminish the full faith and credit provisions of the cuts tuition, that is basically unconstitutional. we cannot enhance or diminish it. it is a constitutional issue. .tatutes cannot affect it there are serious questions about the constitutionality. third, this is a dangerous .recedent today, it is a marriage, tomorrow, divorce. where will it end?

mr. president, i do not think this is a wise judgment. the state has the authority to deal with it. it is not necessary at the present time. i hope the legislation will be defeated. host: people are lining up outside the court this morning, waiting for oral arguments to get underway at 10 a.m. eastern time. the justices will hear arguments for and against the defense of marriage act of 1996, the law put in place that we were showing you earlier. ,he senate floor debate president clinton signing that into law. the vote was lopsided on the defense of marriage act back in 1996. , ourthe house and senate cameras will stay outside the court this morning. we will show you all the action that is happening there. we come back inside the studio where john biskupic is joining

us, editor for reuters. dilma is.n with what what is the defense of marriage act? guest: it tells you how much things have changed. actiona reaction to the and hawaii moving towards same- sex marriage. firsthusetts became the to legalize it. members of congress became concerned about states are moving towards allowing same-sex couples to marry. members of congress passed a law that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. if the provision that federal benefits can only go to opposite sex couples, even if you have to be a legally married you can't getts,

benefits. the: what are constitutional arguments for and against back in 1996? guest: there were a lot of more ,raditional, religious cultural and societal arguments about why marriage should remain between a man and a woman. statehen, there was some constitution that advocates were trying to use to say that same-sex should be a loud in various states. there was no- federal push for same-sex marriage at all. the officials were trying to put one state ensure if did allow same-sex marriage, the federal government would not have to honor it. host: how did he get to the supreme court in 2013? guest: it has to do with section three that says federal

benefits only go to opposite sex couples. lost her partner of many years. they have been married and canada, and marriage was recognized in new york state. when her partner died, edith got a pretty high tax bill that she would not have gotten if her partner had been a man. newspaper is reporting that she will be in court today. guest: yes, she will be there. has been touchy, but she is ready to roll and will be there. i think that is exciting for people on that side. host: who will be arguing for that side? new york,oman from she will be representing edith windsor. a long line up with vicki jackson, a harvard law professor. the supreme port appointed her to argue the case cannot be subsided on the merits because

the federal government no longer is defending section three of the defense of marriage act. a group of house members have come in to defend it. the question is, can they do that? , people we're talking are heading into the court right now. 7:40.only about do they have to sit there? guest: many have lined up since last thursday. eventually, they will let them an out of the cold. once we get to this point, they start queuing up inside the building. host: who will be arguing on the other side? guest: the main advocate against the federal government is a man by the name of paul, who many of your viewers are

familiar with. he was the lead lawyer challenging the obama healthcare law last year. he is a former general under george w. bush. he will be representing the house members, the republican dominated house members. bipartisan legal action group. he will be representing them today on two counts, one to say that, yes, you have jurisdiction and on the merits, saying that it is still constitutional. host: how would it break down? today, we have one hour, 50 minutes schedule. for anyone in the courtroom or anyone listening later, what they will hear will be mostly

procedural questions about who was able to challenge this. there are two questions. one is can this group, the does it haveoup, legal standing to challenge it? the other issue is, once the federal government said it did not want to defend this, does that complicate the case? does it make the legal challenge go away? as i said, vicki jackson will be arguing that both of those elements actually deprive the supreme court of jurisdiction to decide the merits of whether section three of doma should be struck down. host: the last 60 minutes is on the merits? guest: yes, exactly. ,irst, it will be vicki jackson

and then a deputy solicitor general will come up next to will say even though we are not defending this law, we think you can still decide it. then paul. a very short break, and then paul will come up and argue the merits of the case from the house. host: how does yesterday's argument on proposition 8 impact or reflect on today's arguments on the defense of marriage act? guest: it was a challenge to california's proposition eight which said that only marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. the court in that case could go merrily and just strike down or uphold the law or say something broader for the nation. the signals were cleared yesterday. the justices did not want to go rule fornear a natural

same-sex marriage one way or another. they were almost looking to say we're not going to decide. nohink we're going to see suggestion that they want to rule broadly. this is an easier question for them today. first of all, all the lower courts that have looked at this provision that restrict federal benefits to only opposite sex married couples have strutted down. down.s -- struck it isges have believed this not fair, that it is unconstitutional to have this limitation. it affects people who are legally married in the nine states and district of columbia that do allow same-sex marriage. the justices have already indicated that is unfair. i think this would be an easier question on the marriage, if

they can get to it. is taking your questions about proposition 8. today, the defense of marriage act. which is the bigger case? guest: it would depend on what the justices do. the proposition 8 was a bigger, just because the definition of marriage, who gets to get married. can two lesbians mary and to gay ?en marry if everyone should have a fundamental right to marry, imagine how huge that would've been for the nation. that peopleowing are beginning to support that and states are moving in that direction. it will be a huge ruling is the supreme court by the end of june says that same-sex couples can

marry. that would have been bigger. might end upay with a more consequential decision for americans. host: here is your piece in reuters -- of theou talk about some justices on the court wondering why are we hearing this case. explain, why did they take it? guest: they cannot say why are we here. they took the case. let me explain how it works. last fall, they needed only four votes in the private conference to take it. it must've been at least four justices thought they need to resolve this. sames coming up at the time that a challenge for defense of marriage act was coming up. i could see how some justices might have thought, let's take the two cases together. .hey need five to resolve it

clearly, there were no five justices yesterday who appear to be ready to say something consequential one way or the other. host: before we get to phone calls, justice kennedy, what role did he play? guest: he sent mixed signals, but the bottom line is, he is not ready to decide this case. bashedme down to mostly his sentiment was more like why are here. should this case have been granted? he questioned at one point -- justice scalia said wasn't it too late for that? it is never too late for justices to dismiss the case. it is never too late. host: the usa today yesterday had this --

the likeliest result is that california will become the 10th state to recognize same-sex marriage. this is the editorial of you, the paper view. that: they don't know there did not seem to be a willingness to resolve the narrow california case. what they are writing is exactly true. the courtdecision, talked about the equal opportunity of people to lobby their state legislature, to toby their city councils get protection based on determination on the basis of sexual orientation. there are plenty of cases that suggest that once the state grants rights, you can't pull them back. yesterday, there did not seem to be an appetite for california-only ruling. it might end up that way. they may talk about these that a majority says, we

can resolve california and they could allow the 10th state to allow same-sex marriage. host: we are talking about yesterday's court proceedings on the proposition 8 case. today, they pick up the defense of marriage act from 1996. we showed it un logo the senate floor debate earlier. .org. our website, c-span an 85 -- 14. approved it virginia and florida, independent scholar. isler: -- my question whether the supreme court should be reviewing this case. , marriageted states was under the jurisdiction and was a religious area. have protocols being

joined and a separation of church and state. i think the application of this has to really be explored. one possibility is whether it corporatea civil -- situation. as one woman pointed out, the social security laws, the benefits of the survivor, a lot more has to be worked out in terms of the application and whether it might be better to -- she brings up questions about the religious nature of marriage, which is there. several religious groups have entered the case. many said that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. the question today goes to issues of wants the marriage has been allowed, then what are the rules? not how do you

define marriage and what states can do, but once they have done government federal say we will ignore what the states have done and say your people are not entitled to same benefits that other couples are entitled to. host: maryland, republican. caller: i want to make two point.s. the bible says thou shalt not cut the corners of your beard. also, a man shall not late with another man because god considers that an abomination. do you not cut the corners of your beard or not lay with another man? , think some heterosexuals they cut the corners of their beard. you have to pick and choose, i guess. on the legal aspect, there is no way you can the nine -- deny rights to people.

is it an issue of getting benefits? don't change the law for marriage. have to jump in and let our viewers know, all the commotion you are seeing, edith windsor is making her way into the court. the immediate surrounds her as she walks up -- the media surrounds her. your caller made an important point about benefits. what we have seen is that while some americans might resist a new definition for marriage allowing same-sex couples, many people do want equal benefits once a marriage is allowed. a reuters poll the vast majority want benefits irrespective of where they stood on same-sex marriage. host: a twitter comment says

why do they take the case if they're going to duck making a decision? guest: they only needed for toes to take -- four votes take the case. nobody forced them to take that case. they took that case. host: robert in north carolina, democratic caller. caller: hi, i have two questions. if the supreme court overturns it, how will it affect military gay and lesbian spouses? is it possible for the court to do a 50-state resolution? how would that affect the other states? ok.: --

guest: there are two issues there. the supreme court decision that said states could not prohibit interracial marriage, that is no longer a issue today. the issue of whether the court is going to say for the 50 states you must go one way or another, you must allow same-sex marriage or you can forget it. that was yesterday's issue. today, it only has to do with federal benefits and only the benefits that are covered by section three. i know the obama administration has begun changing policies and terms of the military for spouses. that would not be affected here. the policy of the administration has a stance that would not allow benefits to same-sex couples. host: new mexico, independent. caller: good morning. thatnk there are two words would be informative here.

the first is stephanie, who has written a book, marriage, a history. the second is a work by melissa murray, and it is called marriage as punishment. it appeared in the columbia law review. i want to know if you read either of these works because i think if you look at marriage as a history to the beginning of time, you would discover what marriage is, is a transfer of wealth, power and property. the people who did not have, you know, wealth and did not have power and property never got married. if you look at marriage as a continuum from the early. of time to write now, you would is notr that what we are looking at a definition as we

see it today, but what we are looking at is a continuum in which there is a change in process going on. host: ok. .uest: it is interesting i am familiar with stephanie's work. there were many academic references in the record number of briefs that have been submitted. the idea of marriage being an evolving institution versus one that is static and has a permanent label, it was hinted at in the court room. the challengers to proposition 8 and to state laws that limit marriage to opposite sex couples don't like the word definition or redefining. they feel like marriage was never redefined as anything specific, that it has been evolving. the caller might know that yesterday, john roberts latched definitiondea of

and the importance of defining institutions such as marriage. you might change that word, but does that mean the same? hot -- if you forsake child to call someone a friend, is that child still using the word friend the same as before? that was an interesting metaphor in showing how he might be thinking about this. there is controversy over the idea of defining. who has defined it? if no one has, who has that role? the supreme court, there was a lot of sentiment yesterday that suggested it should be left to the state. states should have the power to define restrictions for marriage. marriage has long been regulated by the states. marriage is also a very religious institution in churches and synagogues. a twitter comment says

this -- guest: that could be an argument if you happen to be married in new york and moved to arizona, which does not allow it, and they withdrew benefits. that is my issue, but that is something that gay couples fear, the issue of whether the federal government was going to treat all married couple irrespective of state laws the same or differently. host: lisa, baltimore, democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking to -- my call. i was surprised that it is all nature, and how fearful they are about the uncharted waters as if there is no question that they are

obligated to answer. where have they been living? this country has been arguing about marriage economy for several election cycles. everybody knows what happens when to same-sex people get married, they are happy. host: all right, lisa. guest: a lot of intriguing comments. them,m, it is all about it is all about their response ability and power and authority. it was geared towards where they sit. they see things differently. there was a piece on sunday, the shadow of roe v wade looms over these justices. guest: i wrote a similar analysis. one of the most defining cases for these justices was the road

versus wade opinion, where they got ahead of public opinion to read they cut off debate in the states. people on that issue itself about how much they might have quashed debate, but roe versus activist thane they should have. ruth ginsburg had complained about how it became a point for the right to life movement. we had no strong antiabortion movement in america until after roe versus wade. the question was, were they going to get ahead of state action? 41 states --ve remember, we have 41 states were you cannot get married if you are gay or lesbian. that kind of tone did not come up yesterday. host: the story you are

referring to -- guest: it did capture about some of the anxieties that justices have. they seem to be ready to shut the door on the whole thing. again, just to caution people, it might be different when we see the end of jane. i would say that we are not ruling that a suddenly declares a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. host: that is when we will hear from the court, at the end of june. a twitter comment says this -- person ist suggesting we have a decision on the merits. we might get a decision that throws the whole thing out. saying we have a bare minimum,

if they are ever going to stop this, allow california to do what it did, which was at the ballot box saying marriage is theren a man and a woman, are -- a lot of justices believe that process should be respected. but the tone was that there vote fort get the fifth that. with the conservatives lose or do they say, we do not want to go that far? host: this is from right wing on twitter. bob in rhode island. caller: i would like to make a

comment. this ina decision like defining the word marriage -- shouldrd "marriage" always be changed. a man may act like a woman but he is born as a man. the same thing as with a woman. has been "marriage" defined as a man and woman joined in small -- matrimony. i'm concerned about changing the word "marriage." i hope the supreme court looks at the facts, to defining the word "marriage."

if gays and lesbians want to marry, maybe there should be another word for that. host: is that a possibility? guest: no. that is not the issue before them. they have to go with what proposition 8 said. in terms of defining marriage, it's not like they can say junior varsity marriage or almost marriage. allowe nine states that domestic partnerships or civil unions that have virtually all the benefits of marriage. california is one of them. benefits have all the attached to something called civil union, they must call it

marriage. those states must not deny people those labels. there was not a single justice that seemed receptive to that. it is a little confusing. eitherates that have civil unions or domestic partnerships. it was argued those states should allow marriages. host: self governance on twitter. guest: that is an excellent question. marriage has long been regulated in the state's. marriage is such a fundamental right. this is a constitutional right

that overrides whatever state interest is there. host: william, thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for c-span. forwardsition 8 was put -- it was put forward after california it had granted many of these rights to gays and lesbians. marriageto prohibit between same-sex couples. it seems the supreme court's duty is to protect the minority from the majority as far as rights are concerned. they are obligated in this case to make a decision in the california case.

whole purpose of marriage and the label of marriage between a man and woman is property rights and inheritance and that sort of thing to pass down to your children. if gays and lesbians have children or if they don't have children, they are not allowed property rights or health benefits or social security or those sorts of things under the law as it stands now. that is why they have to strike down doma. support -- the supreme court should strike down proposition 8. inst: it was a reaction california that produce proposition 8. andnents came in

proposition 8 did not deny benefits that were existing. it is delay civil reinstate. still a civil ewing in state. that is why when i was referring to the government's position about the civil unions, once you go all the way to say you have the benefits, you cannot deny the label. yesterdayher topic for the justices was children and procreation. i want to show the back-and- forth between elena kagan and charles cooper and get your reaction. [audio clip] for notave a reason including same-sex couples.

is there any reason you have for excluding them? if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn't surf in the state's interest. do you say it harms any state interest? >> it is reasonable to be concerned that we defining marriage as a genderless institution could lead over time to harm's to that institution and to the harms that society has always used to address. >> explained that the little bit. what harm do you see happening and when and how? what harm to the institution of marriage? how does this cause and effect

work? >> we do not believe that is the correct legal question before the court. whether it redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage. tothere is no denigration traditional opposite sex marriage couples, you're conceding that? >> i'm not conceding that. . have two points to make the first known is this. the plain of's experts acknowledge that we defining marriage will have real-world consequences and this is impossible for anyone to foresee the future enough to know what

those real-world consequences would-be. re?t: what did you hear thei guest: he has a tough argument. marriage is associated with procreation. states should be allowed to restrict marriage to opposite- sex couples. and thea tough argument justices wanted to pin him down a little more. couple be-fertile allowed to be married? we have a group of justices and many of them are older. just 55 as alena kagan used benchmark and she's the only one that is under 55 by a couple of years. they represent a lot of folks in

america that might have married and not have gotten children or had gotten married and adopted. this could be a tough sell in 2013 or it might not. they might not have to go there. host: richard in florida, independent caller. caller: good morning. fivenot see why conservatives and four liberals have the right to tell everybody in this country what they can or cannot do. look at the regular marriages that end up being divorced. they talk about procreation. we would have new children if they didn't take birth control pills.

we would never city gay couples have abortions. what other people do does not bother me. i think this is a political farce. host: this question comes from a viewer on twitter. referring tois today's argument, that is a good question. on theo to doma requirements of that. "we do not want to enforce this anymore,." you decide that section 30 should be shut down. that section 38 should be shut down.

to onlyicts benefits opposite-sex couples. in terms of the larger bestion, should congress legalizing or forbidding same- sex marriage in some way. it does rest with the supreme court and i think it is a constitutional question. congress has a lot of trouble doing the small things. think about whether congress would weigh in with a new national right to same-sex marriage. i think that is impossible. you were up in the court yesterday. what was that whit like? guest: very exciting. it is the best field trip in

washington. 400 people packed into a beautiful setting. there is a sense of anticipation. several people were camped out for dayas. lawyers began lining up to get seats. there was an excitement. there were probably more people there that work advocates for same-sex marriage. it might be a little different today. i don't think so. energizeo live band seem to be the supreme court. has to getbiskupic back up to the court. oral arguments and get your seat inside the court. thank you for your time. we will keep taking your times

-- calls. supreme court is hearing two separate cases. our cameras are bringing you all the sights and sounds. we saw and other protesters yesterday outside the court. and of course the line wrapped around the court, folks waiting get to sleet and snow to the court. they were able to get in. there. there are seats -- about 60 seats reserved for the public. they rotate people in and out to listen to a few minutes of the oral arguments. that will happen again today when the supreme court takes up the defense of marriage act. ,esterday it was proposition 8

which defines marriage between a man and the woman. host: the defense of marriage act was signed into law by president clinton. are sex marriage, there nine states and dc that recognize same-sex marriages. take a look at the map. there are several states that make the game marriage illegal. this is the map. the states in gray. unions.ates have civil

are in states is where gay marriage is legal. rich in tennessee. what are your thoughts? caller: i had some questions for your guests. i will throw them out to anyone. the first is did the government not get involved in marriage in outlawed's when they polygamy? the slipperyng if slope argument came up yesterday? i believe justice scalia has a favor that in the past. it was being used by jonathan turley, who was been a guest on your show. it seems to be the justices would be more sympathetic than the flawed procreation argument.

it seemed like to last guest mention the estate tax as part of the issue that came up. this is another example of the negative impact of the death tax. host: your questions may get entered later this afternoon. there is a post argument panel of the same-sex marriage cases and we will cover herein c-span. span2.or coverage on c- we will have known by that point how what all played out in this defense of marriage act when the court takes about at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. the audiowill release sometime around 1:00 p.m. eastern time. we will put it on air at 2:00

p.m. eastern time here on c- span. you can listen on our website, c-span.org and through our free c-span radio app. you can find it on our website. download it to your smart phone . you can listen in on your smart phone. david in columbus, ohio. caller: hi. i wanted to ask a radio question. the main concern, i think everybody can be tolerant of the new thing. the concerns are concerning the churches. will they be held in discriminating cases if they did not agree to have same-sex marriage? if they would tolerate their

views, i believe most people would go along with this. the main concern is not forcing the churches to perform things they do not believe thin. host: this from twitter. can religious groups lose their protections? scott in virginia. caller: good morning. if today's arguments would be easier with the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause. host: what do you think? you sound like you're following this. caller: it seemed like a cut it seemed like-

it got a little modeled -- muddled. marriage is a civil right along with the equal protection clause. "the newnt page of york times." this is a story from yesterday about how the law was signed. the president signed the law 10 minutes before 1:00 a.m. the former president now, stuart signing the defense of marriage act into law in 1996. about the folks that have been standing in line for the proposition 8 case. post" withe new york this story. rob reiner was first in line

yesterday. host: a little color for you from yesterday's court proceedings, before the folks were let into the court. ticket.get a the majority of tickets are held for people with special connections. beout 100 seats will reserved for those who stand in line or for those who pay somebody to."

the rest are for people who watch for three to five minutes each. amy is an independent caller. it doesi wanted to say seem muddled. in california with proposition 8, it was voted to be unconstitutional. the referendum kamen and negated referendum came in and negated that. but also a state's rights issue. it seems to me this is a federal case with doma. -- one advocate for marriage in the rally. 1100 rights, many of which we

have heard. therefore this is a federal issue. speak if they wished to speak. obligation of the court to listen to that case, it'soma case, because something that legislature for the entire country rather than the states. you cannot have it both ways. i have a sister who has suffered andtly because of doma because of the international law to let her partner to come back between canada and the united states and is causing them

tremendous stress and expense. how much is this costing? do you know? caller: oh, my god. they have to spend money to move between arizona, where they don't have any rights. in canada, they have full rights. they have to go back and forth. 1,500-probably about $5,00 $2,000. the canadian partner is harassed each time, under a six-month stay. host: for tax reasons, it has to be six months in canada. caller: it is prohibited for a

canadian citizen to come in more than six months. it would not matter if they were married. they have to transport basically their household each time, every six months because of the doma law. host:hi, josh. caller: i might have an interesting viewpoint as a gay republican. comingarriage equality in the next 10 years or so. i'm a little concerned that some in pollingmuch lower on gay marriage. i do not foresee them pushing this on the states be a good thing. there could be a difference on the matter. there are some states that are

ready to move forward if the marriage was legal. i'm not sure that some states are ready for that. .aller: my name is ricky price i am a heterosexual democrat. the south hold true to a lot of traditions. gay marriage is the enemy of the church. it should be left within the church. i don't think the government should dictate to the church is what they consider to be what is church and what is state. i understand we are human beings and we have love and wants. not wantould not be --

to be harassed or denied rights . we should call this a civil rights issue. i do not think this is a civil rights issue. i believe this is something that belongs to the church. host: the proponents of same-sex marriage say that some states recognize same-sex marriage and other states do not and that is discrimination. if they want to move to another state, is that discrimination? the state is regulating marriages. does that take the religion argument out of it for you? caller: i don't think it takes the religion argument out of it for me.

have a point that you believe. you go this way or you go the other way. you don't have to say this is the way or whenever. the slippery slope thing is an important thing to be contemplating. let's say say -- that incest. let's say a large group of people, let's say 3 or four states say incest should be considered normal. protect people from the majority. host: one more phone call. independent caller from maryland. good morning.

caller: you had a gentleman on yesterday that was talking about the tremendous increase in the number of people who have changed their opinions on the legality or moral propriety of same-sex marriage. he seemed to be surprised. it brought me back to thinking about a book i read a couple of years ago. welly put forward some researched information on the of certaineffects chemicals in our society and birth control pills. under the standardization ofo the sterilization of

men. perhaps this is in fact happening. that has increased the number of people who are and review is necessary to ashg, changing lifestyles they feel it is necessary to bring -- they feel it is necessary to bring, changing lifestyles. host: the arguments for and against the defense of marriage act. our cameras will be out there to capture the sights and sounds. if anyone goes before the cameras and microphones, the lawyers, we will be getting that as well. our coverage kicks off at 2:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. the court will release the oral arguments audio around 1:00 p.m. eastern time. we will turn that around for

you starting around 2:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. if you want to listen to the arguments, if you are not near a television, you can do so on .ur website, www.c-span.org coming up next, steve heideman -- steve heydemann will join us to discuss the role of the u.s. in the conflict in syria. later, our spotlight on magazines series continues with a piece in "the atlantic" magazine. first, a news update from c-span radio. .> it is 8:31 a.m. eastern time tensions are increasing between north korea and south korea. this as the northcutt a military hotline that has been an essential -- the north cut a military hotline that has been an essential component of a military-industrial complex in the north. the last time that was cut, many south koreans were

stranded in the north. in the states, senators who are part of a group putting together an immigration reform plan will be visiting the u.s.- mexico border today. republicans john mccain and jeff flake of arizona will be joined by democrats chuck schumer of new york and michael bennet of colorado. they are wrapping up a bill designed to secure the border and put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. a new study says insurance companies may have to spend 1/3 more for medical claims under health care reform. aside -- the society of -- the society of actuaries says uninsured americans and those buying a policy directly from the insurance company should be concerned. the obama administration, meanwhile, is questioning the study, saying he does not take into consideration cost-relief strategies like tax credits -- saying it does not take into consideration cost-relief strategies like tax credits. it took the president until

june, 2002, to develop an answer, and his answer was two states for to the peoples -- for only when thatt palestinian state will be a decent, stable, peaceful, democratic >> non-corrupt government. -- democratic, non-corrupt government. gives ant abrams insider view into the accomplishments and failures of the bush administration on the israeli-palestinian conflict. part of book tv this weekend -- book-tv this weekend on c-span2 . "> "washington journal continues. close family want to welcome back steve heideman -- steve we want to- host:

welcome back steve heydemann. guest: thank you for having me. there is conflicting information. let's look at what he said and get your reaction. [video clip] >> we have always been clear that our non-lethal assistance to the syrian includes equipment and training to build the opacity of civilian activists and to link syrian citizens -- to build the operating capacity of civilian practices and to link syrian citizens -- i can say that much. >> what does that mean in english? >> that was english. [laughter] the syriansaining directly? are we training them through jordanian -- that, again, you our non-lethal assistance to the syrian opposition includes equipment and training. i don't have anything for you on these other issues. it is clear that we are

providing the kinds of nonlethal assistance that we have discussed. steve heydemann, help us read between the lines. what was he saying? guest: the u.s. has fixed a very clear boundary around the level of support it is provide -- it is prepared to provide to the syrian opposition. it has insisted it will provide only nonlethal or -- support and only two nonlethal actors. i think jay carney was affirming that as the u.s. underpinnings of policy toward syria. we are hearing more and more stories about u.s. policy creeping beyond the boundaries that the white house has set, to include much broader training activity and even some work coordinating with allies in providing weapons to the syrian opposition. i think that reflects a recognition on the part of the white house that, if we want to arrive at a point when we can imagine negotiations between the regime and opposition >> if we want to arrive at a point when

we can actually imagine an end to the violence and to the killing in syria, we are going to have to take additional steps to those that the white house has outlined and we are going to have to do so in ways that puts more pressure on the assad regime. what we are seeing is a white house anxious to reassure the american public that we are not about to rush headlong into direct intervention in syria, while at the same time leaving the door open to doing more that would help us achieve our broader policy goals. host: from "the new york times." expand with cia syria arms airlift to rebels expands, with cia aid. -- we are note playing a direct role in the provision of weapons ourselves. these are increasingly fine distinctions, but they are distinctions that continue to

matter. the reason that is important is because if the u.s. were not involved, the weapons would be moving into syria without any controls or regulation or any way in which we could try to manage who they were going to. no one underestimates how difficult it is to bring weapons to those groups that we think are more trustworthy than others. that is not an easy job. but if we were not playing some kind of supporting role in that effort, what we'd find in the ground -- on the ground in syria is like a wild west arms bazaar, more -- with no one controlling where the weapons are going >> and many of them going to groups that we would prefer to see on the sidelines. the hope is that because the u.s. is helping to that the groups which received the weapons, we can perhaps mitigate some of the movement of those arms into hands we would not want to see them in and move them in other directions. these weaponse

coming from that the cia is helping to channel to the correct people? two principalre providers of weapons to the syrian opposition, the government of qatar and of saudi arabia. most of them are moving in through turkey. we also have -- and this is where the large -- the problems began -- large numbers of individuals who are funding weapons purchases by armed groups without any oversight or regulation. as governmentst become more involved in the management, the supply chain, those private channels of supply will no longer be needed and can be controlled. so, even though this is a very difficult and risky moment for the united states, i think, on balance, the assessment has been that we are better off trying to do what we can to manage these weapons flows than letting them happen without any controls at

all. host: are there not countries that don't want to be controlled that are contributing to weapons being brought into syria? guest: i don't think so. not countries. we have turkey, which is exercising a degree of control over the movement of weapons into syria. we have the government of qatar and saudi arabia, which are also willing to participate in these collaborative arrangements, but there are private arms transactions happening. these are where we are really concerned about what might be moving and who it might be going to. host: what about the role of the soviet union, russia? what about iran? guest: when it comes to the regime side, there is no question that the volume of weapons moving into the country vastly exceeds anything the opposition is receiving. and these are moving on what might be considered a state-to- state basis. the rations -- russians tell us

they are simply existing honoring -- they are simply honoring existing weapons supply contracts today are making it possible for the regime to continue to kill -- existing weapons supply contracts. of course, they are making it possible for the assad regime to continue to kill citizens. these are provisions, again, coming directly from governments which have insisted that they are playing an appropriate role in the support of the legitimate government. host: you said earlier, the cia playing this role, about trying to control the influx of weapons into the country is one of the first steps to negotiate -- negotiating. this is the headline in "the baltimore sun." -- namesue day opposition legitimate syrian government. what does this mean towards some sort of resolution in syria? , the opposition

has been gaining legitimacy with .he international world this is a big step to positioning the opposition to sit across the table as an equal partner of the syrian regime. for a long time, the assad government has said we will only negotiate with equals. we will not negotiate with the opposition. establishesition its credibility as an alternative to the assad regime and the international community continues to give it the recognition that supports that role, then we might find ourselves able to have a more effective negotiating possibility. host: first the arab league. then what? guest: there are a couple of next steps. the one the opposition is most concerned about is the seat of the government at the united nations. after that, they would be delighted to have the keys to all of the various cerium embassies handed over to them. the opposition -- cerium --

syrian embassies handed over to them. see aould like to gradual movement in the direction of recognition as the legitimate government of syria, and the arab league move is the first step in that direction. host: jack, an independent scholar, has been waiting. -- independent caller, has been waiting. caller: can you give me a little more than the 30 seconds then i had the last time -- than i had the last time i was on? i made the horrible mistake of using the i word. this fellow seems nice, but he is an apologist for our onward going imperialistic project of taking over 2/3 of the world's oil supply, with the ultimate goal being the final takeover of iran. the notion that this guy that we

have just put in, who received 35 out of 49 votes from the syrian national committee, is a representative of the syrian people over assad is ludicrous. one site referred to him as a draft-dodging, right-wing, texas islamist. the notion that the united states gives a solitary damn about trying to save human life -- this country that invaded them and only a sovereign nation called iraq -- invaded criminally a sovereign nation called iraq and was responsible for the death of millions of the fact that this nation cares

about human rights when we have tortured people all over the world and have one of our citizens -- the guy that exposed all of our crimes -- host: we got your point. i'm going to have to leave it there. steve heydemann. guest: i find a great deal of the statistics and the viewpoint that he is using them to support quite out of keeping with my own view of the conflict. was not imposed on anybody by the united states. he was elected by the opposition. we had nothing to do with his election. we have seen an effort i the effort byosition -- the syrian opposition to begin to move beyond some of the factional conflicts that have brought it into disarray and bring people into office who have text local -- technical expertise and capacity to build

effective operation and infrastructure. it is the case that he is not well-known in syria. thatwe need is leadership has the capacity to effectively manage the relationship between the international community and the syrian opposition. if given an, opportunity, might be able to help the opposition in playing that role. i'm afraid we see the world so differently that i don't find very much to connect with in his comments. $70: on twitter, wee are .illion -- $17 trillion in debt those who want to go into syria should fund it privately. guest: the notion that we need to counterbalance a critical foreign-policy -- critical for and policy with -- foreign- policy with this at home -- i

find it troubling. that the u.s. should abandon any kind of international engagement or should retreat from an effort to try to shape outcomes in syria in a way that will prevent some terribly destabilizing, terribly violent consequences from emerging that will ultimately cost us a great deal more to deal with than if we are able, in some modest way, to contribute to a more rapid end of this conflict. host: "the baltimore sun" story that i mentioned earlier. the lead paragraph. "a syrian opposition coalition was seated as the legitimate government of syria at an arab league summit on tuesday, and the coalition's outgoing leader promptly pushed for the united states to use patriot missile- defense batteries against syrian warplanes." very concerned

about the regime's use of air power against civilian targets. turn to theiggest opposition's ability to establish an effective presence in syria is the vulnerability of those areas to syrian air power. the opposition has long been pushing for some kind of no-fly zone that would create the space in which it could organize, build government institutions, and begin to establish itself on the ground. that has support from the senate, including recently from carl levin -- senator carl levin, who came out recently in support of the no-fly zone. it is not that much of a surprise to find the opposition in encouraging its international supporters to move in that direction. so far, that kind of plea has fallen largely on deaf ears, largely in washington -- those in washington and elsewhere. ist: back to twitter, "there

no upside for syria to use chemical weapons. opposition began in london and trained by us, funded by arab monarchies." guest: i'm not sure what the question is. i'm sure it is about whether this is a legitimate opposition or not. we have to recognize that the syrians who have come together to overthrow the assad regime and to move syria onto a different path, a more different -- democratic path, have very broad support inside the country. this is not an artificial or an imposed opposition. this is not an opposition that is operating to advance the agendas of gulf monarchies. this is an opposition that is desperately in need of resources, and i think it is taking support from wherever it can find it. host: reports of chemical weapons being used? guest: there is no confirmation of chemical weapons being used. the opposition and the regime have traded accusations in which

each claims the other have used chemical weapons. investigations have not yet concluded that any chemical weapons were deployed. host: we have cia on the ground. how is it that we don't know, one way or the other? guest: i'm not sure what the role of the cia is or, if they are on the ground, where they are. we may have some cia presence on the ground in jordan, according to the agency itself. they are supporting the efforts of the jordanian government to manage spillover from the syrian conflict. we may have some cia presence on the ground in turkey, again playing a chord meeting role in providing support to the opposition. roleaying a coordinating and providing support to the opposition. any clear information about numbers, about mission, about location of where these forces are -- we are really just speculating about what they are doing. host: all right. georgia, independent caller.

thanks for waiting. caller: thank you so much. i really appreciate being able to get on. i have a question about the use of the words opposition and regime. because syria come in and of itself, is a majority and minority nation -- syria, in and of itself, is a majority and minority nation. it is not just sunni and shia and alawite. all these groups have formed in the -- formed a government year the assad's -- government. the assad's took it over. then there are those who are supporting the regime against those who are sunni. you are creating a rule -- we are attempting to create a rule that addresses a schism throughout the arab world. there is no side that can win. guest: i'm not sure i share that view. syria is not a majority-minority country.

about 70% of the population is sunni. collectively, minorities constitute about 1/3. christians are a much smaller percentage than the alawites. i'm not sure that we can view the history of the assad regime as having been -- as having its origin in some sort of multi-sectarian, multi- confessional understanding, in which the assad family took over and co-opted. this is, in fact, a regime that has fallen under the domination of the assad family. it is heavily controlled by the hour like -- the alawite minority. other minorities, including christians, have tended to support the regime, i think out of fear of what would happen in the removal of assad's power. there is a growing recognition that the assad regime is

placing their future in syria at risk. we are seeing movement within the christian minority towards the support of the opposition. and the opposition itself, even though it is majority sunni, includes representatives from other syrian communities. mr. hito himself is of kurdish background. we need to be very careful in how we talk about the syrian case, and at least be clear about the demographic sets before we make those kinds of claims. host: greg in ohio, republican caller. caller: the morning. -- good morning. where is the budget from? guest: the u.s. institute of peace is a congressionally funded, conflict-resolution institution. it is located in washington. it has been in existence since the mid-1980's.

and it provides a variety of support for a wide range of conflict resolution activities in conflict zones around the world. host: c-span's "washington journal" did a show from the u.s. institute of peace a while back and talk about its role, how it is funded, and the folks at work there. if you are interested, go to c- span.org and you can find it there. doug has another question on twitter. "so, the u.s. institute of peace wants the u.s. to go to war? what gives you the moral right to use the word peace?" guest: the u.s. institute of peace is concerned with supporting efforts to bring the syrian conflict to a rapid a way thato so in maximizes the possibilities that the end of the conflict will move syria, on -- move syria on some kind of a pathway

towards intercommunal reconciliation, toward more democratic future. we have been working closely with the syrian opposition to develop strategies for the post- assad period that we hope will avoid outcomes like a continued cycle of violence, like revenge killings, like sectarian and intercommunal violence. what we are trying to do, our very, very modest work creates the conditions that are likely moreoid some of the disturbing outcomes that are possible from the kind of conflict that we see in syria. but we are, in no sense, about advocating war. host: how much money do you get from congress? guest: our annual budget is around $35 million per year from congress, so no one should overestimate the role of usaid -- usip.

we leverage our ability to make a difference in conflict zones. host: gary on twitter. " nothing we do will prevent -- in syria will prevent it from becoming a deathtrap, just as will occur in iraq and afghanistan post-u.s. and invention. ." -- post-u.s. intervention guest: a good move down a dark and very violent path -- it could move down a very dark and violent pasth. what i don't think that relieves us of the obligation to try to do everything we can to prevent that from happening. is it -- to suggest it is inevitable and there is nothing we can do to prevent it from happening i find to be a position i do not share. the libyan model is not available in the syrian case, and it is not available simply because of the intervention and

what happened in the support of the un security council. and it happened with the participation of nato and with a wide variety of other countries, and we simply have not seen the un security council able to produce the kind of agreement on syria that authorized the intervention in libya. in addition, i think the u.s. is firmly opposed to the kind of direct military intervention in syria that it participated in in libya. it recognizes the complicity -- complexity of the syrian case. it recognizes there is very little interest among americans in a direct u.s. military role in syria. i think it also believes that the u.s. can advance its objectives in syria through less direct, indirect means of support for the syrian opposition. host: boots on the ground? guest: i think that is a very unlikely possibility. host: democratic caller.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i wonder why your got -- you're just thinks it -- why your just thinks it is ok to support al masri. so many of the advances made by the rebels -- it is a misnomer to call them rebels. many of them are foreign fighters from algeria, from libya, and other people from the new deal least -- from the middle east. why is it appropriate to arm them? are we creating a situation where the blowback is inevitable, not only to the syrian people suffering at the hands of these death squads that are murdering and raping them and looting that country, but also down the road, are we creating a monster in the same way we did with them would jot -- we did with the mujahedin? host: what is your experience with this? you sound like you are following it closely. caller: i am following it

closely. it hurts me to see someone advocating for greater u.s. intervention and also the distraction of syria. if we look at historical analyses, another one might be the contras in the 1980's -- what we have here is a group of foreign fighters in syria, specifically i'll move struck -- specifically al musra. look into the bombing of aleppo. it hurts me to see that people can -- from the u.s. institute of peace, which from february, 2012, have been advocating intervention -- their board is stocked with people from the u.s. defense industry. they are advocating war because they see the profit here. the ultimate goal in taking down -- is taking down iran and hurting and -- hurting a russian-allied china. guest: it hurts me to see the

number of mistakes and errors in that statement. it was quite extraordinary. the u.s. is -- has classified al musra as a terrorist organization. there is no evidence whatsoever that nato or any other u.s. forces have been engaged in support for them -- hithem. any of the activities he attributed to those groups in syria are taking place at the hands -- many of the activities he attributed to those groups in syria are taking place at the hands of the regime. the foreign fighters represent a very small minority of the rebels in the -- rebels opposing the assad regime in syria. thereis no question that are rebel units that have been associated with abuses, with torture, with summary execution, with inappropriate detention,

with attacks on medical facilities. there are abuses happening at the hands of the opposition, but the claims that were made by the collar are so far off base that i don't find ash -- col caller are so far off base that i don't find them to be credible. host: what is the role of iran in this conflict? guest: iran is the most important supporter of the assad regime. it is providing training. it is providing weapons. it is providing money to the asad regime. in fact, because the syrian army was very poorly trained and very poorly equipped to undertake the kind of urban warfare that has increasingly come to define the syrian conflict, the iranian government sent a number of its revolutionary guard commanders and siege commanders, its most militant radical forces, into syria to train the militia in

how to conduct this warfare. enormouslyying an important role. without iranian support, the assad regime would likely have fallen a long time ago. host: secretary of state kerry met with the iraqi prime minister and talk to them about the use of their airspace. what is happening there in that conflict? what role is iraq playing? a veryiraq is in difficult position. the government, which is led by a shia political party under aliki leakey -- nouri al-m , has been very quiet in its support of the assad regime, but it does so with some considerable risks. iraq's sunni population tends to support the opposition, as

does the kurdish population. if the molly e =-- the maliki government were to openly support the assad regime, it could reignite sectarian conflict inside iraq. we have already seen some violence spill over the border from syria into iraq. that could accelerate if the regime plays a more active role in support of the assad government. and so, we are trying to do everything we can to persuade the iraqi government that it should end its support for the assad regime. so far, however, we have not had much success in that effort. host: let's listen to what secretary of state kerry had to say about meeting with iraq' e minier. -- iraq's prim ster. [video clip] >> i made it very clear that, for those of us who are engaged in an effort, to see president in an effortwn --

to see president assad stepped down and a democratic process take hold, with a transitional government, for those of us engaged in that effort, anything that supports president assad is problematic. and i made it very clear to the prime minister that the overflights from iran are helping to sustain president assad and his regime. host: we are talking about syrian conflict, the role the cia is playing. steve heydemann of the u.s. institute of peace is our guest. maria in new jersey, independent caller. you are up next. caller:oo good morning. i think we have to look at the fact that the cia is nothing more than a front for gangsters. if you look at their actions and not what they purport to do,

it is always the same and oh -- fabrication.e same we have to get back to listening to washington and jefferson, who said no foreign intervention, no close friends, no stated enemies. all the intervention has gotten us is bankruptcy and being hated around the world. we need to be able to bring everybody home and protect our own borders. when is anybody going to have the guts to go after the foreign agents in our government, including the mossad? sure i havenot anything to say about that. it is a worldview in which there is no recognition of the extentxtent -- america is part of the -- globalization has given us a stake in things that happen far from our borders. the idea that we should simply retreat behind our own borders

and avoid foreign entanglements i find quite puzzling. if there is any real concern for america underlying this. i certainly respect the collar to hold thoseights views, but i find them to be quite bizarre, frankly. should wewitter " remove one oppressor so as to we remove "should one oppressor so as to install a foreign -- guest: i think it is entirely unlikely islam would be a more prominent part of syrian politics than it has been in the past, but i'm not sure we should conclude from that that an islamist government would necessarily repressed syria's non-muslim minorities. we have had a number of statements from the syrian muslim brotherhood, from others in the opposition committing to

a government which is inclusive, committing to a civil state, committing to a government that recognizes the equality of all of serious citizens -- syria's citizens. so, i would like to think there are possibilities to bring about a government by serious -- in syria by syrians which is not repressive or authoritarian. ?ost: what about sharia law there was an article that says that parts of serious have been controlled by the opposition groups, have installed -- implemented sharia law. guest: what we're seeing is a large variety of local forms of government emerge where state institutions have collapsed here it is not clear whether any of those will survive -- collapsed. it is not clear whether any of those will survive the reconstruction of the syrian government or the syrian state or how they would be integrated into the future syrian government. i think there is particular concern about building institutions based not on the

kind of interpretations of sharia law that some of these local groups are implementing and ont on civil law much more inclusive, much more pluralistic ideas about how serious should be governed. host: in rockville, maryland, independent caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you very much. referring to a previous caller, who called about five minutes, six minutes ago, talking about foreign intervention in syria and extremist actions making up the majority of the rebel groups -- i have to say i disagree with your guest when he says it is a very small minority. you see so many people coming out of syria, people from syria, people that have family in syria telling the people that they know that the majority of these rebels are extremists here they are uneducated. they are paid mercenaries from gulf states that come in to do

whatever they want. they are paid to do these things and commit much worse atrocities than assad did himself. and the question is, what business do we have in syria? that is a very important question, i think, everyone needs -- that is a very important question i think everyone needs to ask themselves. the financial system in america is falling apart. everybody knows that, everybody feels that except the billionaires and millionaires. it is interesting to note that those cleaners and millionaires have quite a stake when it -- those billionaires and millionaires have quite a stake when it comes to war. they are always pushing for war. i don't see how your guest is -- i commend him on his ability to speak so well. he is a very eloquent talker, but he is not addressing the issues. he is not -- it seems to me like your guest

is trying to avoid the biggest problems here. guest: let's give him it -- host: let's give him a chance. guest: let me try to respond to your question. a majority of the fighters in syria are syrians themselves. the figures i have seen suggest that about 80% of the members of the armed opposition are civilians who picked up arms in defense of their home villages, their home communities when they came under attack from the assad regime, and a very small percentage, the remaining percentage consists of defectors from the syrian military, with foreign fighters numbering around 5000 to 10,000. many syrians have stories to tell about their own experiences. i'm not sure that those captured the overall situation. when it comes to the question of what is at stake in syria, i think that is a fabulous question. we do have to be careful about

the underlying reasons that justify an american interest in this conflict. in part, what makes serious so important for the united states are the potential consequences -- syria so important for the united states are the potential consequences if the conflict continues and leads to a spillover of violence into the broader middle east, to the extent which it might threaten the broader post-ottoman state , areas ofwhich iraq turkey, lebanon, jordan, even areas across the syrian border could all become zones of conflict, creating an area of instability and violence that could continue for many, many years, and which could pose very direct security threats to the united states and would certainly put the entire area of the east on a very, very unfortunate trajectory. and if we have any opportunity,

through the kind of very limited measures that the u.s. has taken thus far, to prevent that sort of worst-case outcome from happening and to open up policies for syria to move on to a more peaceful trajectory and perhaps, potentially, but with no guarantees, even onto a more democratic trajectory, then it seems to me this is a direct interest of the united states and it is one of the core reasons i think the u.s. is involved in the syrian conflict at all. host: given all that you just said, why isn't there international support for going into syria like there was for libya? guest: the two main count -- obstacles are russia and china. russia is really the key actor. i think russia is preventing -- opposing a un security council resolution in part because of syria inrceives

relation to its own strategic interests in the broader middle east. it views syria not only as an important strategic partner, but it views the potential loss of the assad regime as shifting the balance of power in the middle east in ways that would undermine russia's influence and undermine russia's interests. on twitter, "isn't syria a proxy war with russia, iran, and iraq?" guest: i think that is a very real possibility and it is one we should be concerned about. i don't think syria is yet a proxy war, but levels of foreign intervention are increasing, especially in support of the regime. we have to recognize that the external support for the opposition pales in comparison to what has been provided to the regime. host: go ahead, finish your thought. guest: one of the possible

pathways for this conflict is that it could indeed become a proxy war, yes. host: on our line for republicans, ausitin is watching in wcolumbia, south carolina. caller: what i'm really struggling with -- are not necessarily the biggest up-to-date person on this -- i'm not necessarily the biggest up- to-date person on this. i want to know how we are planning to fund everything we are giving to syria, like the $ 60 tmillion that barakck already gave them. guest: the u.s. has provided the bulk of its funding for syria in the form of humanitarian assistance, about $400 million. the vast majority of that has come out of the state department's current budget year that money has gone largely to international -- current budget. that money has gone largely to

international aid organizations. a very small percentage of that funding has gone to syrian humanitarian organizations with good, local networks for the distribution of aid. in addition, there has been the provision of somewhere between $200 millionand for funding of nonlethal support to nonlethal elements of the syrian opposition. we have provided training to , civil society groups who are part of the peaceful opposition in syria, and that money also has come out of the state department's regular operating budget. what is happening, by and large, is that, rather than seek increases in funding from congress for work on syria, the administration is using its existing budgets and drawing funds from existing budget lines to try to provide support for the work that it wants to do in syria. host: josh in maryland,

independent scholar. -- colocaller. caller: there are a few problems with what mr. heydemann said, and i respect his positions. actually the most effective and strongest fighting force on the ground in syria. if people want to go and google , they will find that is the case. mr. heydemann is just wrong about that. going further, i want to say that there are a few logical flaws with this whole argument about how assad must go, quote- unquote. we have our political system here. there are problems.

we prove this thread peaceful, democratic process. we don't use guns. assad is calling for a political solution. elections. assad has called for elections. what is wrong with elections in syria? host: let's get a response, josh. guest: i did not make any statements at all about the effectiveness. i said that foreign fighters were a minority among those present in the armed opposition. that is true. i made no claims about its effectiveness. it is, as the caller suggested, a very effective part of the overall armed opposition. that is one of the reasons it has been able to outperform other elements of the armed opposition, because it has access to weapons other groups do not. with respect to mr. assad's appeals for reform and for elections, the single biggest concern there has to do with his own credibility and his own performance.

and there is not any reason to take seriously his statements about his commitment to reform. he has made these statements repeatedly ever since he first rose to power in the summer of the year 2000. he has acted on none of them. the opposition is rightly suspicious that these call for -- calls for reform are simply an effort to detract attention from his own violent repression of what began as a peaceful process -- protest movement seeking political and economic reform in syria. in light of the lack of his lanes have reviewed daily shown to be milling -- meaningless, -- his claims have repeatedly shown to be meaningless -- the turkish government tried very hard for a year to persuade president assad to act on the commitments he made for political reform.

every single time they encouraged him to do so, nothing happened. at the end of the day, there was a sense of having been betrayed by and lied to by president assad himself. president assad was making a number of very reasonable comments about reform. i don't think we should take those comments seriously. he has given us no basis for taking them seriously. host: steve heydemann with the u.s. institute of peace. thank you for your time. coming up next, our spotlight on magazines series continues. a new piece in the atlantic will" magazine -- "the atlantic " magazine. as fighting continues in syria, violence continues in afghanistan. officials say they have killed more than 20 insurgents in a joint operation in eastern part of the country here the provincial government spokesman said the two-day operation ash

of the country. -- in the eastern part of the country. the provincial government spokesman said the two-day operation also killed -- cyprus is finalizing the details for reopening its banks after a nearly two-week shutd own. the bailout agreement calls for large deposits to be taxed heavily to help a for their -- help pay for it. former afghanistan war commander and retired general david petraeus has delivered his first public speech since resigning as head of the cia. david petraeus apologized for the extramarital affair that, in his words, caused such pain for family, friends, and supporters. general petraeus spoke to about 600 people, including many uniformed and decorated veterans at the university of southern california's annual rotc dinner last night. you can hear that speech on c-

span radio right after "washington journal" at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. elections, not war -- >> elections, not war. >> mr. secretary, we are going to put them down as undecided. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, as i listen to those comments -- it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is. wherewas the hearing donald rumsfeld was making the justifications -- that was the hearing where donald rumsfeld was making the justifications for attacking iraq. how you did not hear is much money is halliburton going to make from this war, how many u.s. soldiers will be killed in this war, how many iraqi civilians will die from this adventure, and i would like

those questions answered now by somebody like donald rumsfeld. >> more with medea benjamin sunday night on c-span's "q&a." last hour of "washington journal" on wednesdays, we take a look at a recent magazine article. this radical, written by terrance frank arruda -- garance franke-ruta. how are women performing in higher education and why? doing women are extraordinarily well in a higher education environment. since the 1980's, they have been the majority of college environments. in the last couple of years,

the last decade, they passed men in terms of masters degrees and phd's acquired as well. the female population has done extremely well in higher education. host: how are they scoring? guest: on average, higher than men. host: what was the role of government in making that happen? guest: the programs that were instituted in the 1970's to create a quality -- equality within the higher education environment -- this article is an ideas -- cle rather than a strict it includes certain hypotheses of mine. because the government took this role in -- and continues to regulate higher education -- host: title ix. examines universities

and creates this environment of regulated equality for women. women have flocked into the system. they have flourished in this environment of regulated equality. they go out into the big bad world. no one is looking out for them. happening to women after they leave college or graduate school? guest: immediately, we see part of it is related to the choices they make in school, part of it is related to the careers they choose. even with equivalent backgrounds, women start out making less than men. they are far less likely than men to negotiate their first salary and these kinds of deficits have a cumulative effect over the course of their careers. and then we see that they fall more over thed course of their careers. in the -- there are the

challenges of balancing children and work. even without children, we see that women fall behind. my hypothesis is that school does not necessarily prepare people for the workplace, per se. and the kind of human interactions that are demanded of the workplace, but rather for the kind of, you know, keep your head down, step-by-step work that we see in schools. you even talk about dating and how this leads to this lack of female leaders. i want to read part of wahat you wrote. female in our be culture is to be trained from. art of puberty in the rebuffing -- rebuffing gazes, comments, touches, propositions, and proposals."

what are you saying? guest: we see in the opinion media there is debate about why more women are not speaking up and so on. most of the time, they are saying no. idea that women -- the idea that women are may be more likely to say no than men does not seem particularly odd, if you think about it. given how -- i think the gender dynamic of federal -- heterosexual courtship, women are trained from an early age to sort of focus on themselves and to rebuff, whereas men are trained to sort of just go out there and just, like, almost as a d are get the best job, shoot for the person who's never going to go out with you. host: and if someone says no, so be it. guest: we see that women are much less likely to recover from professional rejection.

you see this in media. if you say no to a woman, she is much less likely to pitch again. where as i guy is like, ok, you did not like that one -- whereas a guy is like, ok, you did not like that one. women learn to listen to their own fears because they have to to stay safe in the world, in order to handle the massive attention that women sometimes get. it has an impact in what they bring to the professional arena. host: is there a role for government to play in the professional arena? guest: technically, there are antidiscrimination laws. but very few people try and file suit, because it is really just -- hem generally speaking, people don't want to speak up unless

they are ready to leave the arena because it is so interpersonally damaging. what you also see is women who go to law school or business school wind up been trained in the arts of interpersonal relationship and recognizing that arguments -- argument is just argument and not taking things personally, recognizing how to negotiate and do deals. it might be worthwhile for people to think about how to impart those skills to your liberal arts majors as well. there are some sort of programs you could do for women in college. host: we want to get our viewers involved in the conversation. if you have comments or questions for our guest -- higher education is an area where women are succeeding, but after they leave, there are very few female leaders. democrats, (202) 585-3880. .epublicans, (202) 585-3881 independents, (202) 585-3882.

all others, (202) 585-3883. there are four books you feature. gotten a lot of attention lately. what role are these books playing in the conversation? guest: that book has been huge. it has been everywhere. it has been a success of facebook, viral proportions in terms of its penetration of the conversation. it has been really interesting watching the conversation about sheryl's book, because there has been so much resistance to her message on the part of women. and i think this is part of this disconnect, where sometimes can't ire, like, why go into the workplace and be accepted as i am. that's not what the workplace is for. it is notkplace -- your family. it is a place of work.

people -- the book is doing well. there are a lot of other women who are probably open to her message and are interested in thinking more intentionally about their careers and thinking about how they have been hanging back unnecessarily. to asks people to lean in, identify the bold things they would do if they had the guts to do them and just do them. host: let's get to phone calls. a democratic caller in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the woman speaking. i had some issues in a small town i was working in. it took me three years to get anywhere. every phone, every question, every government agency from federal to state to local does not take women seriously. the league of women voters.

i have contacted people. each time, it's like what's in it for you? i was educated -- there was no education for women. this is -- even through federal down to local, women are not taken seriously at all. host: i think there should be more advocacy for high schools. whether you are male or female, you should be taught you can make a difference. there is no positive reinforcement for young women and they can make a difference. guest: one of the things sheryl sandberg has proposed is to decrease the kind of isolation your talking about. history,ok at that

young women were prevented from being part of major institutions like -- some educational and tatoos and so the idea was to open everything up. they are all open and women go on in their careers and they are individually isolated in the workplace. sheryl sandberg's idea is to create a circle for women to come together to think more intentionally about their careers and the truck struggles they are facing. john in oklahoma city, republican, go ahead. caller: it is strange for a man to tell you his opinion but beside that -- the picture over what i am saying -- the

most are in large part more powerful and more confidence and are doing really well. that is not to say there are not difficulty and challenges but overall, from my generation, they seem to becoming more assertive. host: what professions come to mind? caller: i am a lawyer. you mentioned how women are being trained in law schools. maybe that's just my personal experience given that i am an attorney. women what we hear about and lawyers especially in firms is that the hours required to make partner are incompatible with having small children. this bye handled developing a long-term partner tracks for women who want to work shorter hours. that has been the case for law

firms. host: democratic caller in d.c. -- guest: i want to thank the author for her comments. they are intellectually honest and right on point. i am an attorney and i handle sexual harassment cases and pregnancy discrimination cases. this attorney, there is idea that somehow women get put back because they are taking care of young kids. i have a young child but i will tell you that the men in my firm have no problem taking time off. it is never questioned. i know lots of women in their 30's who have kind of been terminated from their big law firm jobs because they are all women who have kids. the man who have kids, who go to soccer matches or go with their kids, don't have that problem. i think this notion that

somehow you have a young kid and its women who have young kids -- the concept is a huge gender bias and that is what is a big part of this. women andly educating men and men who hold those powers over women to be fair. host: have you been reading these books and following the conversation? i appreciate what sheryl sandberg is doing. i think she is in a vacuum but it is on women but it is also on man and is also on the whole power structure. it is about having fair maternity leave and about having equal pay power, not just about volunteering for this position.

i know many women in the d.c. bar, it is run by women. there are a lot of great and fabulous women in the maryland and virginia state bar. the fact of the matter is, who is at the head of those big law firms? it is man. -- men. guest: obviously, there is a tremendous opportunities for women in this country. the whole work of sheryl sandberg's book is to take advantages of those opportunities. women look on average for as a person of equal pay, the is if women to not ask and women just don't and it is because women are perceived more negatively when they are asking for themselves. we also see that women are less

willing to state that they have high ambitions for themselves for the future when they are young. there is a broader self- deprecating approach that many women have and you see it in the political arena, too. they should try to encourage women and republicans are now saying they want to get more women on their side. women will not put themselves forward sometimes. they hang back a little bit because they want somebody to say it is ok for somebody to do this. host: there is a memo put out recently from a democratic organization talking about policies for unmarried women and they say --

it goes on to say that democrats need to read engage these voters, these unmarried women, in order to get them to vote again for them in 2014. issuesah, one of the that comes up over and over is that women sometimes think they do not know enough or they feel they are not qualified to vote3 wow. host: we are speaking with garance franke-ruta, national political reporter and wrote a recent piece in "the atlantic." if you go on-line, you can find it and read it. new york, independent caller, go ahead -- you are on the air. one last call --

frank in somerset, ky, republican caller. caller: i am a college professor at a public community college and i appreciate your guest concern and insight. i would also like to make sure everybody remembers that most of our leaders actually in the k-12 classroom in the public-school system and that entails including many female leaders in the classroom as classroom teachers. i understand her point of being a mom and struggling being a mother and a professional woman but maybe the young people could consider being an online higher education professor like at my college where they get to stay at home and teach their classes from their laptop said, and still take care of their family needs. most of the man at my college are still classroom, traditional teachers and we see more women who prefer to stay at home with their family and children and teach classes on line.

i will be quiet because i have to take off for a class. host: i want to get your take on "the state" newspaper this morning -- do you -- what do you think the impact is of women on these boards that colleges? disclosure, my wife and i are in the same doctorate in education program at eastern kentucky univ. and i want women to sit on boards and that want women to have the same access to leadership roles that men have. i am the father of a young boy and my mother stayed at home when i was growing up and i want my wife to have the same

professional opportunities that i was given as a young man 25 years ago. i have been higher education a long time and prefer the classroom setting because that is where the real leadership can be engaged with the future of the next generation of leaders coming on. i also want those women to be in the classroom and the board room as well as ceo senior vice president positions. host: the newspaper notes -- what did you hear from that caller? guest: the question of working from home is interesting. we have also seen studies showing that people who work at home do enjoy that flexibility but they are less likely to be promoted. that may be the result of being

out of sight and out of mind. people are not seen as being a leader in an institution that they are isolated in their home even though they are doing the work. we are still learning about the impact of what it does for an institution when individuals work out of their houses. host: from twitter -- joseph, st. john, indiana, democratic caller -- i am a first generation hispanic born in mexico. the cultural mentality is an issue. this in the united states. we bring our ethics in every culture has a different ethic.

that is important to realize. the evolution of women leadership is important in that aspect. in the united states. what has happened here is that we have not given the women -- this is from a male chauvinist pig perspective -- it is the spanish culture -- but i realize that they are the leaders of this country but we have not given them that opportunity because of our cultural mentality that we still attach to our dna. it is also part of the dna of blog. allow allo implement the defense women in that sense. that is another step that needs to be taken. i 3 believe and am constantly believe in women taking the lead. unfortunately, they have to be

conditioned at an earlier age to let them know that you don't need to dumb yourself down for those idiots out there. those male chauvinist pigs are wondering what i am talking about. this is something we have in our culture that unfortunately, young ladies or young adults have to dummy than cells down so they can get a mate. those i appreciate marks and i lived in mexico when i was younger. there are major cultural differences around the world in how people think of women in leadership. one of the questions that comes up -- there was an idea at one point in time that we would have this feminist revolution and open the institutions that everything would be fixed. we are learning that is not true.

what i personally believe is are many of these things the way people relate to each other, men and women, recreate these aspects in each generation. it is not a question of fixing a problem once, it is a problem of ongoing dynamics that need to be managed on an ongoing basis probably forever. host: here is an e-mail -- guest: i think that is a great suggestion. host: from twitter -- guest: the data also shows that spotters are spending more time

with their children than they did in the 1960's and mothers are also spending more time with their children. mothers are also doing a lot more housework. the gender gap is really on the amount of housework that men and women do which is bigger on the gap of child care between men and women. host: independent caller -- caller: my entire working career was with a major corporation and at the management level, i had to mentor both men and women at various offices around the country. this is strictly an observation of my own through the years -- for menhat man working are being managed by a man is not an issue. enmen being managed by a m generally not an issue but women being managed by a woman -- they

are more of what i will call the feelings of the woman manager. women are their own worst enemies with other women. this and the women in the office will come in and gossip. they talk about her hairstyle or they put out a memo that no open toed shoes are in the office because the office ladies would have to walk into the factory. that became a big uproar but if a man had done that, i don't know, it was more accepted. women against women is a problem, i believe, in the workplace. guest: you would not be the first person to suggest that. host: from twitter -- guest: right and guess who gets

promoted through the strategy? the person who tries to get promoted. host: you right in the sidebar in your piece about these books that have come out recently, one of them this sheryl sandberg book -- these women are talking about how to get a raise. the conclusion for each of these books is to ask for one and women are not doing that? guest: women are less likely to ask for raises and less likely to negotiate. their salaries in the beginning when they have an opportunity when they are moving into a new job situation. consequently, we have a workplace structure where people pay you what they can. they pay you what your work but also what they can. what theyay yes to is will pay you. women will say yes at a lower number or maybe not push for a

higher one, sometimes. host: pennsylvania, republican -- caller: thank you for taking my call. what you just said makes a lot of sense. my daughter at age 39, became chief counsel for an energy company. she did it through her own intellect. yonder and first cut out of law school, i agree with you, she was quite timid, but she is a stooge and learned quickly how to work in a man's world. -- she is quite astute - she did not wind, she worked and proved herself and this is where most women make the mistake. they want the best of both worlds and no one can have that, in either men or women. it,ead of complaining about get out there and do the job and

prove yourself. there is no reason why you cannot. that: one of the things some of the people i spoke with for the article were talking about trs syndrome is where women will do a good job and think we live in a meritocracy. the school system may be that way but the world is more complicated and people make selections in the workforce for all kinds of reasons in addition to measurable efforts. thatimes women will expect their work should be rewarded because they have done a good job and it sounds logical. sometimes it takes more than just doing good work. sometimes it takes letting people know it or certain relationships will colleagues or people in your industry and so on.

is the idea that you do good work and someone will put a star on your head -- it just does not happen. it is not the classroom. host: what is intellectual primping? guest: that is a term i came up with. i have seen many women who feel they are not getting where they want to be in their careers and something is not working right and they feel there is something wrong and maybe if they get another degree, that will fix anything and they will have the authority they lack in the workplace and be recognized in a way that they are not being recognized. i think this goes back to how women are changed to focus on themselves and if they can get the world right, will notice them and it does not work that way. people just wind up with another

degree. and these days, more debt instead of -- unless it is a field that pays more. host: the headline yesterday in "the wall street journal" - even if you get a college degree, you were not earning what used to get with a bachelor's degrees of giving back and getting more degrees in this economy, what role does that play? guest: it depends on what the degree is and if there is a clear path with from the degree to a change in jobs. getting a master's in the comics might get you to work in a consulting firm. master's degrees, the question becomes -- where is this new .ddition of $30,000 ta host: when you look at predominantly female occupations, here are the numbers from 2011 --

we go to d.c. next, to an independent college. caller: my voice is coming and going, i'm sorry. it is very interesting because the young lady has seen some pretty young -- it is about experience. in the 1970's, we went through that. i am african-american and i started in public service. going for public service, when you solve a problem -- when you saw a problem, you can go to your supervisor or manager and sit down and talk. most of them were white man and they were willing to listen to you. that, withinf

three years, you had affirmative action. you had upward mobility. you understood what the civil rights women -- movement was for women. title 7 was for african americans through 1981, a way to pay for lawyers to get involved. you start building up mobility so it was based on your personal experiences and, oftentimes, that experience included a lot of suffering. a lot of us just have natural skills. andation is a part of that that on the job training is important. in 30 years since we have the civil rights movement, we have laws and can say that they originated. each state agrees to come into agreement under the united states of america. respect these rights. 2012, after 1971-2012, when you have these women who have been

successful, they are publishers, they are government in the highest echelons of government and so forth -- for them to turn around and say after we have created these specialists in civil-rights, they are trading on our experiences and then they say this is the year of the woman. wherewere several moments that failed. this is the result of it is what you guys are discussing. it did not fail. i can sit here and say it has not failed. i would like to be in a position where i can sit down and talk about it and even write a book about not just leaning but being able to be held recreated these laws and how we don't have to regurgitate. laws and laws and

went into this and that's what i want to pass on to my daughters and sons. host: how old are you? caller: i turned 60 and i started at 21. i walked in and saw a problem and the men opened to talk about it. they wanted to know. they still want to know today. host: thank you. guest: a don't think anyone is saying that there was a failure of feminism. i'm just saying there has been a with women at the highest levels in professions. and in leadership professions. sheryl sandberg says when you see something that is flat for 10 years, that is worrisome because companies that are flat for 10 years tend not to grow again. i think there is a recognition that it is worthwhile having this conversation again openly

and with men. there is a sense this should be a conversation between women. there is an aspect of diminishing isolation by bringing women together, a lot of this have to happen between men women in the workplace and man mentoring women. maine, al go to republican, go ahead. caller: you seem somewhat successful in what you are doing and i wondered how you got there. guest: i went to college. i don't know -- there is not a clear pathway in journalism. host: have been in washington, d.c. -- guest: for 15 years.

host: covering politi? >> guest: most of the time. host: also studied the history of women at harvard? guest: i have a sideline in studying issues related to women but that is an intellectual hobby. i studied u.s. literature when i d.c. becauseame to i decided i did not want to go to medical school. host: from "the washington times yes" today --

this comes from the defense department, written in "the washington times "yesterday. we told you earlier that president obama has nominated his secret service director, a new secret service director and she is a woman. she does not need to be confirmed by the senate. jacksonville, fla. -- there she is, julia pierson. caller: good morning, ladies. i will try to cover a large area in as few words as i can. thousands of women -- thousands of years, women have been in control. theyu look at these jobs, boil down to women who are in nurturing positions. let me speak a little bit about money.

make 60, 600, 600 pounda thousand times the lowest wage and that includes bennett -- bonuses. women do not speak up and they should. this is the basic problem. this is why men so much more money. oft: that is at the heart your peace. guest: i don't know if it is the bonus structure that makes the difference. there will always be some natural differentiation between different job categories in terms of people's interests. bittner touring speak to someone if nurturing speak to someone -- there was a story about the new subway tunnels in new york and it is 99% man using

the giant earth moving devices. that will probably stay like that. men have lowerof paying jobs as well. host: conversation will continue and "the atlantic" has written extensively on women in the workplace so go to the website, theatlantic.com. thank you very much for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you for having me on today. host: general petraeus gave his first speech since having an affair and apologized in his speech and we will air that on cspan radio at 10:00 a.m. this morning and later this evening on c-span at 10:30 p.m.. our coverage of the same-sex marria