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 marriage cases that have made their way to the supreme court

continues today. they will began and a second hearing oral arguments for and against the defense of marriage act from 1996. our coverage will be at 2:00 p.m. eastern time and we will turn around the audio from those oral arguments and bring them to you. you can tune into cspan or go to cspanorg or get a free radio app from our website and listen through your smart phone. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] [crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises] [crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [music playing]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [music [music playing]

[music playing] [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] [crowd noises]

[indiscernible conversation] [music playing]

[indiscernible conversation] [music playing]

[crowd noises] [crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] >> it will be in the research center where it can be archived

at. . [indiscernible conversation] [indiscernible conversation] my gay son's fiancee is in the army. he is in iraq. u.s. honorber of the guard. have fun. >> hi. [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] >> hey, buddy. [indiscernible conversation] >> thank you. i appreciated. made in china? everything is made in china. cspan, excellent. hey, guys, don't do that. too many people. [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [laughter] [indiscernible conversation] being sung] anthem [cheering] >> equality for all.

[indiscernible conversation] pal [crowd noises]

>> hi, cspan, how are you guys? [laughter] [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] [laughter]

[indiscernible conversation] >> i have the national anthem stuck in my head. >> hey guys. >> by the time we get in, we will have to go. it does not work like that. [indiscernible conversation]

[crowd noises] [indiscernible conversation] gets a little heavy after a while. [indiscernible conversation] [crowd noises] >> where are you all from? >> philadelphia. >> sorry. [indiscernible conversation] you have no idea how hard it is to find a rainbow glitter at a cbs or the night before -- at

a cvs the night before. [indiscernible conversation] >> live pictures outside the supreme court today as the court takes up a second of two same- sex marriage cases this week. the crowds appeared to be smaller today than yesterday when the nine justices debated the california proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. today, the court is hearing or argument on the defense of marriage act or doma, the fighting marriage between a man and woman. theoretically, the court is about 20 minutes into the proceedings. we think it will last about two

hours. our plan is to continue bringing you scenes from around the supreme court and the oral argument from today as soon as it becomes available. that would probably be around 2:00 p.m. eastern and we will take your phone calls and e- mails. spoke with a supreme court reporter to give this a preview of the two same- sex marriage cases before the court this week. host: david savage, longtime reporter for the l.a. times. explain how this law made its way to the court? guest: when the defense of marriage act was being debated in 1996, the issue then was that it is one state like a white picket same-sex marriage, all the states will have to do because of the full faith and credit clause in the constitution and congress wanted to say is fine of one state does

it but we will not make it a national matter. that has not been a problem at all. they also said that most states must recognize a same-sex marriage but the fabric -- they also said that if most states don't recognize same-sex marriage ban the federal government does not as well. now massachusetts recognizes same celebs -- same-sex marriage and there is something like 130,000 legally get married couples in the united states. under the current law, a couple can be measured in massachusetts, fully legal, but yet when they sit down to file their federal income tax of this month, they cannot check married and filing jointly because the federal government does not recognize their marriage. if one partner dies, they cannot get a survivor's benefit. if they are in the military, and they are married, they cannot get the same health benefits because the federal government

does not recognize their marriage. does that discrimination against their marriage violate an equal protection clause? >> that was 1996. why did it take this long before the supreme court is doing the first ever review of the defense of marriage act but also same- sex marriage? >> it took a while for couples -- starting in 2004, people started marion in massachusetts and shortly after that, mary benato who won the case in massachusetts, number of couples came to her and started talking about different problems they have, practical problems of being a married couple but blog did not treat them fully as mary says she filed lawsuit in boston challenging the defense of marriage act and it has taken several years for it to get through the lower courts and get to the supreme court. it took a while because you

needed real people with real problems to litigate the issue. host: who are the players and the oral argument? guest: the attorneys? the u.s. appeals court in boston and new york -- this has been a new england phenomenon. the fight over doma has been basically in new england. the courts in boston and new york say this is unconstitutional. a series of appeals came forward. of them had a problem because elena kagan was in the justice department's so she could not sit on the case. they took a case from new york. the two sides in this case involved the bush and obama administration. the obama administration chose not to defend block. they believe it is unconstitutional so the house republicans hired paul clement the solicitor general for george w. bush. he will get up and argue that

congress made this decision and it is reasonable for the federal government to maintain the view they always had that marriages between a man and woman and that is all we need to recognize. verilli will argue that it is discriminatory and discriminates against gay couples and there is no justification for it. they are legally married there for you should say since matter, this state should go. an attorney from new york city is representing the plaintiff in the case, a woman named edie windsor who has been with her met in after they greenwich village in the 1960's and have been together for 40 years. they got married in toronto in 2007 and lived in new york and your spouse died in 2009 and she bill $363,000 estate tax

from the irs. a lot of this was the value of the property that had gone up. basically, the irs treated her as if they were not married. thatiled a suit saying this is not right. her case is the actual case they will be hearing today -- tomorrow. >> her lawyer, robert kaplan, will be representing her. what about vicky jackson? .> the court was interested usually someone sues and the government says no, we will defend block. this is a situation where the government is on the side of the plaintiff and the house republicans are defending block. the court wants to hear an argument on whether it has jurisdiction to decide this because it does not look like a real case. the key jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that and she argues that c

lement does not represent the government anymore and this is not a real case because the government is on the side of the challenger. i think the court will decide the doma case because they got to. you can't have a situation where a federal law is unconstitutional in new england and constitutional in the rest of the country. how can the irs work with that? one way or another, the supreme court has to decide whether doma is or is not constitutional. ont: for people listening cspan radio today, they will hear past precedent, cases that could be brought up when talking about doma. what are some of them? this is not an area where

there is a whole lot of precedent. the only two presidents and a gay-rights area are the two opinions that justice kennedy wrote in 1996. he wrote an opinion that struck down an anti-gay initiative in colorado and said this law reflects animosity to a particular group of our fellow citizens, gays and lesbians, and you can't do that. he also wrote an opinion in 2003 that struck down the last of the sex laws that were targeted at days. he had the same view that gays and lesbians are entitled to respect, not to be demeaned by the law, and you cannot do that. a lot of people sight of those precedents as saying this suggests marriage is a right, too, and others will say they were involved in something else. ost: what do you think will be clues as to how ow he might decide? caller: i'm going to be very

interested in that because i do not have a lot of clue in how he views this issue. this is one where we haven't seen him -- the court haven't had a gay rights case where he said -- he's had to seahawk much. my hunch is he's going to try to get the prop eight cases and some of these cases to go away. john roberts is a stickler for procedural -- the proper procedure and he has a preference for narrow decisions. my guess is he will ask a series of questions today about prop 8 case and the procedural problem. that's got a similar problem that the state of california is not defending prop 8. the private plaintiffs, the private sponsors and i bet john roberts says how do you have standing to be here? i think he will try to get the case to go away. on the doma issue, the one i

think there's an outside chance that some of the conservative justices, including john roberts might say marriage law has always been a matter for state. states decide who's married. so there have been some libertarian conservative who is said as a matter of federalism and states rights, you ought to strike down the defensive marriage agent because -- act because it has the federal government second-guessing the decisions. >> and back live again to the scene outside the supreme court this morning as the court considers the federal defense of marriage act. smaller crowds today but the lines are still long to get inside the courtroom for about two to three minutes to view the oral arguments this morning.

indiscernable conversations]

indiscernible conversations]

[crowd noises] [cheers and applause]

>> gay, straight, white, straight, black, young, old, everyone. >> whoo! cheers and applause] [indiscernible conversations] there's a poll here.

and all of you, all of those people who are a part of this history and on the path for history that we are blazing here today. so i ask you, please put your hands together for everyone who has volunteered to be a part of this. cheers and applause] cheers and applause]

>> 170 events in all 50 states around the country. you organizers know that is incredible and significant accomplishment.

your passion, is what fuels all of us today. rain or shine, snow or sleet and we've experienced some of that this week too. we are so grateful for your time, for everything that you have invested to make this as safe and enjoyable celebration of the american march toward true equality. are you ready? >> i'm ready. >> all right. >> let's go. let's get this start party started. [cheers and applause] >> let's bring up the first speaker. so it is my extreme pleasure to introduce you to emily saysman. she is a former executive director of the young democrat of america. emily? >> oh, my god, this is a beautiful day for all of you eautiful people out there.

so i went to law school in 2005. like everyone else, i wanted to make a difference. i'm looking through my book and i'm looking for all those different laws that i can enforce for all those different communities that i care about. so i see the civil rights act. i'm scrolling through and the i'm like where are my gays? so i'm looking through and i don't see any laws. really, there's nothing there to enforce it. i've always grown up knowing gay people. my grandmother was one of the first volunteers for the gay men's health crisis in 1981. you have always been a part of our family. it is clear what we needed to get done. i got a degree in constitutional law to be in front of the supreme court today is like too cool. i can't believe it. you guys are going to make the difference. so i became the executive

director about a year ago in early 2012. so that was right about the time that they called upon the democratic party to put marriage equality into in the platform. i was vaguely aware of it but i but one moment, i see there's a leader, nancy pelosi had come out and endorsed the marriage plank. she is too great. so i see this and i think to yself holy -- if a 73-year-old catholic woman can be ahead of the issues, the young people are going to be there. we know that 81% of young people are for this issue.

his is how we grow up. we have joined together on this issue. we have reached above party ines and we are taking action. indiscernible conversatio

host: live pictures from around the supreme court this morning. we expect the court to hear about two hours. it was expected to start about 10:00. if that did happen, they are about an hour into it. the federal defense of marriage or doma as it is called, defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. it was signed at the law in 1996 by president bill clinton. lower courts have found it unconstitutional and president clinton called for it to be repealed. in an opinion piece in "the

washington post," president clinton wrote doma will come before the supreme court in and the justices must decide whether it is consistent that honors freedom, equality and freedom above all and is therefore constitutional. as the president, i've come to believe that doma is contrary to those principles and incompatible with our institution. -- constitution. at the conclusion of the court's deliberations, we will bring you live remarks from the attorneys who argue the case as they speak to reporter this afternoon and then we will have the oral arguments around 2:00 p.m. and we will follow that with your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. also coming up today after the court completes their debate on doma, house minority leader nancy pelosi will hold a briefing to cuss the same-sex marriage issue. live coverage of that will get underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will bring you coverage of a couple of discussions on same-sex marriage this afternoon. we will start at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, live at the

cueto institute for a review of the two cases before the supreme court. authors of two recently released book debate same-sex marriage at harvard university in late january. it is hosted by the harvard federalists society. it's about an hour. >> thank you. richard foul lan is the professor of constitutional law at harvard law school. he served as a law clerk. he has written extensively about constitutional on federal courts law. he's the author of several books, including the dynamic constitution and i want.

s in the constitution. we are very grateful for him to participate in this event. andrew copperman is the professor of law and professor of political science at northwestern university. he received his bachelor's degree from the university of chicago and his j.d. and ph.d. from yale law school. his scholarship focuses on issues at the intersection of aw and political philosophy. he has written many books ", including "anti-discrimination law in social equality" and more than 80 articles of books and scholarly journals. shareek is a j.d. candidate at yale law school. he won prizes for best thesis in philosophy as well as the donte ociety of the donte prize.

he's the author of the recent book "what is marriage, a man and a woman." which has been described as the most formidable defense of traditional marriage ever written. we are grateful for him in participating in this event. >> thank you so much for the introduction. thanks, everyone, for coming and a special thanks to professor koppelman. i've had the pleasure of speaking on a panel with him before and i not only respect his work a great deal but his intellectual integrity. he's willing to examine the assumptions behind views that are a lot of people are willing to just treat as dogma and that's something very admirable and to be moderated by professor foul lan, whose case book i have to read for homework tonight, it's surreal and very much an honor. because the discussion that

we're having today is one that's not often had in the we that we're having it, i thought it would be useful for me to say what i'm not going to say. it's very easy to hear what we assume is associated with a view rather than what's actually been said in its favor. and a quick summary is i'm not arguing from morality or from religion or from tradition. none of my arguments predispose about the moral status of gay relationship. there are lots of valuable relationships that don't get recognized as a marriage by anybody's life. so that can't be the decisive factor. they don't really on any -- rely on any particular tradition. if it did, something like the view i'm going to defend today, has been common to religions across time and many cultures and we will still want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating those theologies. and i'm not arguing that because it's always been this way.

it always should be. another thing is that my argument can't be answered by appeals to equality. we yarblely think that that is the right respondent when we think of a marriage debate is a debate about whether to extend or expand the pool of marriage. looks like marriage is a good thing. should be available on an equal basis and you get rights from same-sex marriage from there. i think this debate is about a prior question. it's a debate about what marriage is and why the states involved in the first place, which of course has implications for which unions get recognized as marriages. and my proposal is that the main vision of marriage, that's on offer, in support for same-sex marriage is mistaken, that it's wrong about what marriage is. in other words, that it can't explain much less controversial features that we all agree set

marriage about from a-- apart from other bonds. by enshrining that different vision of marriage in the law and therefore, over time in our public opinion and in culture and practice would be harmful for the common good and in particular, for the common goods that get the state involved in marriage in the first place and in light of both of those things, the mainstream argument for same-sex marriage actually has lots of internal contradictions that are rarely examined and that i think creates just the kinds of problems for that same-sex marriage view that most of its proponents think my view has in terms of justice. so what is that vision of marriage that's on offer? well, you can think about it by asking what it is if we recognize the relationship of any two people in love, but not other forms of relationship. what it is that sets those apart. you know what, it is that makes two men in love who can get married in new york different from two brothers who just never stopped living together and who

nobody would call marriage. and i think when you think of it that way, you see that what sets marriage apart on this view is a certain kind of emotional union. or intensity, or priority. my claim is that that that vision of marriage collapses the definition of marriage and a much broader definition of companionship. it does not explain the less controversial features that we both agree set marriage apart. the pledge of permanence, most of us think, unlike other forms of friendship, to get off the ground, marriage has to be pledged to prominence. emotionalit apart is regard. there's no reason it should be pledged permanent as opposed to it be pledged to remain together as long as the emotional union last. or exclusivity and, perhaps for

some couples, sexual exclusivity foster's emotional union. for others, some degree of agreed upon sexual outlets. most of us agree now that is bet makes a marriage would at best contingent. the same thing is true of the idea that marriage is a union of two people. emotional union of a certain sort, if that's what makes a marriage, then the same is true of three men together. does the idea of plural marriage usually tells us there are 500,000 such relationships in the u.s. with a different gender distributions. the likes of the same-sex marriage argument, there's no relevant distinction between those and two man in love. both have the emotional union

and what makes a marriage. it becomes harder to explain. if all that sex contributes to marriage is a certain fostering of emotional attachment and vulnerability and tenderness, it's hard to bsee why sex is crucial. that is some of the reason i think this vision of marriage gets marriage wrong. it misunderstands the human good we are after. you might ask what difference it makes, why it's not just enshrining the alternative vision of marriage in the law? to get a handle on that, you must first ask why we recognize marriage at all, which is a puzzling thing. the state regulates our business

partnerships but not so much our friendships. why marriage? relationshiponal that recall marriage? history is useful. we have almost every society that has left a trace of itself as the idea that sexual relationships are between men and women. of relationships produce human beings who require years of commitments from their parents on the the whole that it's the best scenario to reach physical and psychological maturity. every aspect of the common good, every institution of civil society, the economy, and the state depend on that kind of that cannot provide that as well as the mother and father that bring the child into being.

that's what steps the state involved in marriage. it is the social needs to promote those stabilizing norms. it is those norms that undermine -- are undermined in principle and then over time in practice as we internalize the idea that marriage is just companion ship, that it has no more internal requirements ban companion ship does, which is a broader category. that if the norm of sexual complementarity is just a kind of emotional or traditionalist attachment, then so is permanence and so is expressivity and monogamy. why do i say that? can jump offsay we those bridges when we get there, we don't have to worry today about polyamory as relationships. the logic of their position does

not allow that to answer. the logic of their position is that what makes a marriage and emotional union, it's arbitrary, and therefore require sexual complementarity, but by the same token it is equally arbitrary to require monogamy or permanents in even a presumptive way. this is not just a point that conservatives make. it's an argument that is increasingly made by the leaders of movements for same-sex marriage. savage, a sympathetic new york times magazine profile has them magazine profilehow the norm of sexual exclusivity is just as arbitrary and invest as harmful in some cases as the norm of complementarity. 300 activists who identified as lgbt signed a document in 2006 saying justice requires recognizing not just same-sex

relationships but multiple partners unions, multiple household unions, non-sexual unions, and so on. and igree increasingly -- can cite many other people -- that if sexual complementarity is arbitrary, and so are these other norms. whether disentangling these things in marriage is a good thing or a very bad thing. you might ask yourself what is the alternative? what is the other vision of merits that can explain all the other features? that's what we tried to sketch at some length in the book "what is marriage?" i can give you a summary to give you a sense of despair it is a vision you might recognize as being reflected in the judeo- christian tradition and in the muslim tradition to a great extent. not just in monotheistic religions but in the work of

someone like gandhi. not just in church laws but in the common law. and greek laws. in the thinkers of ancient greece and rome like socrates, people thanlutarch, had no connection to duty as a or christianity. so that makes it worth listening to, at least. the way i would summarize it is in this vision, marriage is a comprehensive agreement. in all the ways that make a community at all, a community that we understand as marriage to be comprehensive. any form of community is made by a union of partners with respect to certain goods in the context of a commitment. its activity towards a common end. in those respects, marriage is comprehensive.

united. i just heart and mind but also body. bottled union means what it means within an individual. a part of my body or yours are one because they are actively coordinated towards a single end of the whole that encompasses them. that remarkable, bodily unity is possible between two people but only in the sexual act that unites a man and woman where the bodies are actively coordinated toward a single end -- reproduction. it is comprehensive in the good that fulfills the relationship. a drama troupe is fulfilled by aesthetic event. again, the best way to make sense of it is on the

traditional view. their and a woman feel marital love by the fact that also makes new life. it would be extended and fulfilled by the rearing of children and the rich life that calls for cross all the good. in the dimensions of the partners united and in the goods they are united around, it calls for comprehensive commitment, permanent, and exclusivity. this is a vision of marriage that i think makes sense of lots of features that would make no sense on the other view. consummation of marriage only through coitus. that marriage calls for permanence and expressivity even apart from the partners or preference. the idea that the state has any interest at all. it makes sense that it be cross-

cultural and cross-millennial tradition. replacing that vision of marriage with a vision of merit as emotional union not only undermines the norms and makes them impossible to explain? but also over time makes them impossible to enforce. that would hurt every common good that we recognize marriage in the first place to serve. thanks. [applause] >> ok. for better or for worse? same-sex marriage is one of the most successful social movements in american history. outside the realm of political possibility as recently as the early 1990's. becausecceeding largely its opponents have been inarticulate and they have

remarkably failed to pass on their views to their children. i'm not going to ask for shorthands as to who in the room is predisposed to agree with me and who was predisposed to agree with mr. sharif, because it would not be friendly. [laughter] according to the gallup poll, 46% of americans oppose same-sex marriage. a 53% are in favor. the percentages for support has doubled in only 15 years. there's a huge generational divide. the hmong people 18 to 29 years old, 73% support same-sex marriage. that onlyr drops so 39% of those 61 or older support same-sex marriage. barack obama is the first democratic president suits or

sport same-sex marriage and is the last democratic president to oppose same-sex marriage. that is never going to happen again. [laughter] the republicans are painfully beginning to do likewise. us onok that he gives what is marriage, it is an important book. it is clear and tightly reasoned and is a philosophical argument, but it is a fast read. one of the leading statements against same-sex marriage. there are some people who have argued against same-sex marriage because of its purported baleful consequences, it's going to have a terrible effect on heterosexual families. are parasitic on deeper philosophical claims. so i will focus on those deeper philosophical claims. the workral claim --

that he offers comes out of the new natural law theory that has by out for some decades robert jordan of princeton and others, they argue there are some universal human goods, cross-cultural goods such as life, health, knowledge, a french ship. i agree with him about this. their claim is that marriage is such a good, cross culturally universal good, and it is a distinctive kind of bond with its own new value -- its own and itnd structure arises from the bottle union that only a man and a woman can achieve. their challenge has always been to explain what the intrinsic difference is between same-sex

and opposite sex couples. the response is the union of opposite sex couples has an intangible assets that same-sex couples cannot possibly participate in. -- read fromooked the new book. "man and woman with a united bodily, they coordinate toward a toward the hole that they form together." this is something the same-sex couple cannot accomplish. there's no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate. in order for biological union to occur, the two have to be coordinated or something. in the human body, there's only one such biological end. i am not sure that this is true. there are some things that are things that you can do with your body as a biological function --

singing for example, something that you have to have your body do. so i am not sure coitus does not exceed by a union in the sense they have in mind, but that is a side issue. a central objection is that this argument about bodily coronation cannot explain why the line is drawn in the way they have drawn it so that heterosexual couples who know themselves to be infertile nonetheless are somehow within the circle. estero persons genitals are no more suitable for generations than an unloaded gun is suitable for shooting. sterile person's genitals are no more suitable life.nerating we get into an extended argument, which i said they

addressed to some extent in their boat and their treatments are scrupulously fair and accurate, they claim that even in that case, a body is coordinating towards an end. when any cult -- when a man and woman appropriate, they don't know that on that occasion there is going to be a fertile egg. the meaning of what they do now cannot depend on what happens later. at a broken gun is still a gun. true of a pile of gun parts. the infertile heterosexual couple unites with one another, achieves that good of unity, so the argument goes, in the same couple will actually fertilize a baby and,

if they succeed in doing so. there's a problem when one argues about good. ultimately, you need to take on the part of the audience. the audience has to be persuaded that the thing being argued for is in fact good. you just have to see it. if i were trying to argue about the good of french ships, the and i agree this is something good culturally. if i was going to try to persuade someone who never had had any friends and could not understand, it would be tricky and to get the person to see what we are talking about if they are insensitive to it. so i will just after report my own limitations. infertile spothe heterosexual couple of sheets, it does not seem to me it has anything to do with the creation of babies. they argued the infertile couples union is a valuable part of a valuable whole, but i don't

see what value there would be in deliberately assembling an irreparably broken gun, in a way that is related to the function of shooting. maybe you would want to put it in a museum. good newss not have as a reason for action. that is mysterious to me. it's a real question i want you to clarify for me. the argument also fails to note appreciates certain kinds of reproductive coordination. there are few dismissive lines about artificial reproduction in the book, but it's not clear why a couple engaged in artificial reproduction. if they're not also coordinating toward the bodily good of reproduction. there are other aspects of their account of marriage that are mysterious. they say that their views can account for monogamy, for

example. oneng organically united as flesh, spouses should have the exclusive and lifelong unity that the parts of an organic and help the body have by nature." monogamy is swell, but it does not follow biological unity. one person can coordinate bodily with a lot of others. if you study history, it has been done. [laughter] think of a chorus. lots of people coordinating bodily. that unlessclaim their understanding of merit is widely shared, society will diminish for a husband to stay with their wives and children or for men and women to marry before having children. and that's because only their understanding can be for marital stability. "as more people absorb the new

laws that marriage is fundamentally about emotion, marriages will increasingly take on emotion ."tyrannical inconstancy if you look at the top economic quartile of americans and we know that the group most likely to endorse same-sex marriage -- another reason why it would not have been fair for me to ask for ofpin's -- -- for a show hands -- basically what they were during the 1950's, you guys are likely to stay married. evidently perceive a reason to control emotion's tyrannical inconstancy, which is not the reason to reject same- sex marriage, because it's the same population who stays together. i am an example of this myself. my wife and i have been together for decades.

the third child is a sign the relationship is getting serious. [laughter] also think that the account of marriage in the book is so novel and esoteric that it's hard to believe in has any effect on ordinary people's behavior. i'll bet most of you in the audience are still trying to get it. they cited a few ancient philosophers who held ideas of marriage that were brought a consistent with the bears, but i don't think you'll find this don't think you ill find this bottldily unification from the ancient philosophers. love dan savage, but i don't agree with everything he says. they claim that the authors' view holds that marriage has an

essence and it is essentially an emotional union merely enhanced by whatever sexual activity partners find agreeable. the logic of that view is there are no principal boundaries to marriage, so it has to sweep into itself political groups and celibates who happened to share household such as brothers. living brothers they are right about. rivals.t the marriage is a historical, cultural formation. it would not have arisen or not the case than human beings reproduce sexually. that's how it came to a rise. but it does not have any essence. there are irregularities about it. the way that married people behave. 99% of heterosexual couples report that they expect sexual

exclusivity in their marriage. violations of its our cause of divorce across lots of cultures. that's a good thing for you to know. keep that in mind. but marriage might be a practice that suits human needs but it can be modified freely as our understanding of human needs evolves. difficulty inl the claim, i think, is the short distance for the premise to conclusion. from the premise to conclusion. of anion of the marriage heterosexual couple is good because the uni andion is uniquely good. this brought in tuition comes decorated with a complex theoretical apparatus, but the apparatus does not do any work. is a publicr book service. i'm grateful this book is out there, precisely because this is a prospective that fewer and

fewer americans share and that a lot of people find unintelligible and i think it's good for the country for people to understand. their fellow understand right now there are a lot of your fellow citizens being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world. it is just good to understand what your fellow citizens are thinking. this is a lucid window into a dying world view. it's not likely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with its claims and is not going to have much impact on its intended contemporary audience. value really does have a in advancing our understanding of the landscape of arguments today. for that we should all be grateful to them. it also be of enormous value to historians. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank both

participants in this debate for doing this presentation. i have heard any a number of people shout at each other about these issues over the years, but have seldom heard valuable and reasoned discussion before audience such as this. so we should all be grateful to them. toant to give you a chance answer. let me go first on something at the end, because it captures some what the question i was going to ask. you began by saying your argument was not going to be a moral argument. as i understood you correctly, you said that you were going to explain what we might think of as the conceptual logic of the what is of marriage or essential to marriage. i am a little puzzled about how

that argument can be made without it being a moral argument. for example, suppose i say i homosexualiage couple, two men who marry each other in the state america chooses and are recognized by the state of massachusetts and have all the privileges of marriage within the state of massachusetts. , the purelyity conceptual view would be an when i say that, i have echoed the state of massachusetts in making a mistake, that's what i have said could not possibly be true. it is as if the state of assachusetts issued dog licenses to cats. but that did not change the pattern to a dog. a cat just is something.

when he refers to the essence, i take it that marriage is not like that. back in order to determine what ought to count as marriage and what ought to not count as marriage, we have to make moral judgments. am i correct in that? if i am correct in that, do you want to take this opportunity to be a little bit more straightforward about what the precise moral argument that you are urging? >> the argument does not depend on saying that same-sex relationships were immoral. the simple reason is we don't think that marriage law is just supposed to include all the valuable and morally good relationships. we are all in countless relationships that are not recognized as marriages and that no one thinks it is unjust for them not to be recognized. it is moral in the sense that it's talking about the human good, but the state is

attracting and as reasons to track. but it's not moral in the sense of relying on a claim about the morality of same-sex relationships or any other relationship. let me say a little about the idea that there is something to marriage cross-culturally. theve heard very often claim that it cannot possibly happen. i have never heard an argument for that. i think there are actual arguments for the other side of that question. let me go through a couple. you might think there's just something mysterious about requirements of human good that we did not tell the truth? that view would quickly lead us relativism.oral it would be impossible to explain human rights and justice, to explain anything backspin -- any kind of

normative claim we might make. the problem is not expect that there cannot be objective criteria for anything, but just that there cannot be for a social institution like marriage. has contradicted that idea in this very discussion. i think most of us would agree that there are things that very cross culturally. something you cannot capture unless you're gone to someone else has certain features. it's nothing more mysterious than that which i am also claiming about marriage. in light of that particular good, certain requirements arise for participants, like in the case of french ships and like sexual exclusivity. the reason i cited some of these other thinkers from ancient greece and rome was just to find people who you could not say were motivated by religion.

there were not motivated by bigotry either. many of them were in an homoerotic cultures that had nothing against same-sex relationships as a moral matter, but there were in a time and place when the idea of like we have did not exist. so it was not bigotry or religion or party concerns. property concerns. they must have had an insight into the structure of marriage just as we might half of french ships. most of you are probably that untilto views the same thing, that there is an objective standard of what marriage is. if marriage is just whatever the majority said it was, there would be no independent standard for saying that a marriage law was unjust, that it

unjustly excluded some relationships that are true marriages. clustert say that is a of social good that the instrument called marriage law might served and those goods can evolve over time and therefore so can marriage law. i have neverion willa good answer to, i retract the whole book on facebook in an hour. you arequestion of -- excited now. >> this is great. [laughter] >> let's take an example. three men in love, there was a sympathetic profile of them in new york magazine in the three- person couple. they lived together and are in

love. they share all the burdens and benefits of domestic life. they don't want their relationship to be stigmatized or if they raised kids together they don't want them to be stigmatized. they want to be co-chairs. -- co-heirs. the relationship they identify as most fulfilling from them with the general definition we give. if there's no idea about what marriage is, this is valuable to them. cost, ahave some social social cost that is so great that it justifies violating what is otherwise a basic right. basic rights usually prompts even great social cost. what could that beat? there's no answer in what the professor said and no answer in the years that my colleagues and i have been making this kind of

talent to people. i think it draws people back to the point that there is a structure to marriage in a way that there's a structure to friendship.s -- even in non-marital relationships can also have a different and separate value. in response to some of the profs points, one more thing, if you take any difficult moral issue and you drill down to the bedrock, you are going to come up with complexity. the argument will not sound routine and it will be difficult. the law passed to take a position on who is a person. if you look at literature on , where some who think a person is not anyone under the age of two years, it's difficult

and complex. that does not mean people don't have a rough grass of the concept. it does not mean our laws cannot depend on getting the concept right. for millennia, no one has seriously questioned the idea of complementarity as part of marriage. no one has questioned social regulation of a particular good is crucial for the common good. the fact that we drill down and come up with arguments we find the novel does not mean they don't try to make sense of them and that they don't succeed in making sense of what's at a rough level people understand. if you think romantic love is fulfilled in marriage and that what romantic love seeks its total union with a beloved, or if you think that it involves sexual union as a rule, the challenge of the boat in the

first chapter is to explain those facts which are pretty widely recognized, without something like our view. them chapters do explain and says it was shared by lots of people. i'm afraid it's easy to say that it's not routine. is there are not equally articulate views on both sides. then we can compare intuitions and the degree that it fits with history and with our legal and social practice. i'm pretty confident we would do well in that case. >> i will try to be quick

because of what they're to be time for questions. three-mant the relationship? is it possible for an institution to be socially constructed and still for the institution to have rules and for proposals to change, for them to levels? think about the game of chess, something that clearly evolved over time. i'm pretty sure the move of the night came last, because it is with the rest of them. -- the move of the knight. this is not the question that's going to get resolved. it will get resolved by the question of in terms of the in good stead internal to chess, are going to improve it by changing it in this way or not.

to add theway conversation about the three- man relationship. you could still have a question about justice even if the institution is socially constructed. if there's a lot but says it's illegal for a white person and a black person to play tennis together, of course that can be an object of justice. >> let me put one question to you. that if you charge want to defend a vision of marriage that includes same-sex couples, you've got to give some account of what the essence of prevailing and the understanding of the part of supporters of same-sex marriage is that the essence of marriage is emotional union. do you agree? >> no. not everything hasch an essenceeverythinges -- not

everything has an essence. does not have an essence. this is not an argument about essence. >> is this an improvement in the concept of marriage and that society has operated with if marriage is now understood in a way to encompass same-sex couples? >> it makes a lot of people better off and i don't think it makes anybody worse off. >> if you zoom in on the question of whether to give particular group of particular benefit, there's always a reason to do it. there's always a particular reason to give a particular person a tax break or increased social status. that's not the question. the question is what are the competing present cons for enshrining in our law and therefore overtime in our hearts and minds one or another vision of what marriage is? is there a value socially or otherwise in preserving certain

norms constituting marriage as opposed to other forms of valuable relationships? the best recent example of the implications of this question has nothing to do with same-sex relationships. it's no fault divorce. people were arguing that no- fault divorce was a win-win situation. the relationship has a high level of conflict, but want to get out of it anyway. nobody who has a happy marriage will avail themselves with a no- fault divorce, so it's only a benefit for everybody. a generation later and that is a very questionable claim. you have increasingly liberals as well as conservatives saying no fault divorce did not just make it easier for marriages to break up, it changed what people thought there were getting into. it changed people's understanding of stability and security of marriage and made

them less likely to stick with it the medium-level conflict, which studies suggest can be overcome and to the good of the spouses and children, and that the casualties were not just a spouse as emotionally and financially, and otherwise but the children. when we are asking the question , reacted take it at the level it is proposed, as a policy question and say what are the implications for the future and for future marriages and four those that get involved in regulating it of any proposed change? >> could you be more specific see? the arms that you >> the state sends a couple different messages when it recognizes same-sex marriage as equivalent to opposite sex ones. one of them is what makes a marriage different from other bonds essentially or just in

social conventions is a certain kind of emotional union. a second thing it teaches is that mothers and fathers are replaceable for the purpose of parenting. the fact that it's bigotry to suggest otherwise. sticking with those two things, you see a couple different harms. the more people in internalize internal lower their motivations will be and the lower the social pressure will togethercouple to stay when the motion wanders, when seen a father does not contributed anything significant to the family or the children's upbringing and so on. there are other kinds of harms and one that we talk about a book. degree define marriage by

or intensity of the union, then you are suggesting that what is not marriage is simply less. as a result of bad, people who are not married or stay single for any reason will find it harder to find a deep emotional fulfillment in non-marital bonds, because it will be socially less acceptable to find the emotional fulfillment outside marriage, now that marriage has been defined by being simply the end point of the spectrum of closeness to another person. this is not something i am making up. i think you have seen an increasing literature about this, including in the new york times recently and in the book we cite the atlantic riders who make the same point, or certainly not with us on marriage, but strong in connection. there are ramifications of blurring the distinction between the marital form of

community with someone else and companionship more generally. >> to make sure i am getting claim is that children in future generations will be worse off and lots of other people will be worse off because they will find it harder than they would if we continued with the traditional generation -- traditional definition of merit to find clothes, enduring connections. >> outside of marriage, yes. and for the children, yes. every aspect of the public good that depends on and help the next generation will be heard as well -- hurt as well. y. one last repl >> we are really out of time. >> we are eager to have questions, but we insist you go to the microphone. there's one right there.

ask a question. >> come on. you know you want to. >> my name is david. thank you both for taking the time. when i listened to your speech, i am a little confused by the notion of marriage has to have an essence. i suppose for me marriage is more a social recognition of a relationship that also carries illegal benefits. you could limit it to complementarity of and vagina, but i also think it has to go beyond that. at least in the respect that the alternative you give, what about polyamory will relationships? that seems more objectively easy to reject. for instance, we don't want to abuse legal benefits conferred on marriage. could you speak more about why couples who don't choose to have sex, couples who don't choose to

be exclusive, or couples who are or a man and woman who don't have the requisite and genitals should be allowed to get married while all homosexual couple should not have the legal recognition and social recognition of their relationship? >> this reminds me of something the professor said that i wanted to address as well. one of the question, first, is implicitly you cannot possibly have captured a valuable category. it's just about the equipment. aboutint i want to make that is you can do this to any view. i can say you think there's something special about climax. that's a way of putting it undermines the value that proponents of that view pinkberrry as. the question is not that of

whether there is an accurate decision then highlights the distinctive value. if we did not just say heterosexual monogamous union is a valuable because it's valuable. we give you a general account of thenmarriage is about and we have shown you how only the union man and woman can form answers to that description. so it is not circular. i think it's easiest -- use a polyamory is easier to answer objectively. you said that as an abusive marriage definition, which is just a restatement. it'suld be like me saying just a fact that complementarity is crucial. none of you would accept that as an argument. it just would be restatement of a position. there's still a lot of thinking to do on that. we might test ask why the state

is involved in this in the first place. if you don't think there's a new and good that can been tracked. if you just think it's a matter of when people live together they have certain practical needs, which is another stand by here in what you're asking, then i can agree with you. i can say you are right. a lot of the things that are most often mentioned, i agree. people should have access to certain things just by virtue of living together. but there's no reason that should be limited to a sexual relationship. two brothers live together should have those benefits as well. so it would not require redefining marriage. dowould not be an unjust to it through those means because it would been too limited. if you don't believe in the idea marriage has objective criteria, just ask why the state is involved. i think that will make progress -- that's another way of getting at what we think would have to

converge into something like the conjugal view. >> why don't you say something in response to that while we look for another hero to step forward to the microphone to ask a question? >> i think that i have already -- >> why is the states in marriage? >> there are two reasons. one of them is where at harvard i will call it the henry flip reason. people are in these relationships. these relationships have a public effect. they transact with lots of others. foracilitates transaction everyone else to know what the relationships are, it facilitates relationships between the parties to know what these relationships are. so marriage is like a business

one-size-fits- a all set of rights that probably will pitch a lot of people. same-sex couples say we have households, children, all the same reasons for wanting legal recognition. somethingrises out of that has been barely mentioned today, a nasty history of discrimination against gay people. excluding couples that look a lot like their sexual married couples from this institution partaking of the pattern of stigma and discrimination we are trying to move away from. this is a way of moving away from it. >> there is a question. >> you'll get to respond. i know it takes a lot of courage in the circle that you run in at yale and harvard to say the things you bully. i don't agree with you , but i with that courage. we are in a roomful of people in law school and they can follow

the philosophy behind your arguments. broadly and society, we can all acknowledged that if people are in tune with the philosophical points you are making, they don't rationalize it that way. we live in society where a recent yuka study that there -- where every sense a united kingdom studies that outed homosexuals are less stressed out. nine students killed themselves related to their perceived or actual sexuality fairly recently. professor feldman says a lot of people are against gay marriage because they're against gay relationships. that particular bias affects all the children and the children of gay couples.

do you really think in that context that your argument outweighs the broad societal perception and the ability through transforming merit to perhaps erase anti-gay bias? quick points. thanks for the question. the first thing is wanting that is implicit in the argument is the middle point on the spectrum is the one that's really difficult. if more people had something like the conjugal view of marriage that it is oriented to family life, the less people would infer from that anti-gay anything. the failure to recognize same- sex relationships would not be predicated on the idea that they are less worthy, but that they are just different forms of relationships. it's not anymore an insult than to not recognize the best

friendships or something like that. that might be an argument that could cut either way. if you're going to support this view, don't stop there, but make sure there's more evidence rather than a general view of marriage. that's very much my own position. i don't think it makes sense to just stop here. this is in order to regain a foothold to rebuild the other aspects of american culture. the appealnderstand of redefining marriage as a way of fighting anti-gay bias, but i think it makes a blunt instrument. as anmarriage law instrument of inclusion, as a signal of in approval -- of approval or normality would then further drive into the margins of society where people for whatever reason, if they identify as a sexual or whatever else, don't get married.

the answer to fight bullying -- the answer to bullying is to fight bullying. while there may be some benefit of defining marriage to accomplish a worthy purpose, not only would it have the collateral affects i'm talking about, but its bluntness as an instrument would have bad unintended effects. >> on behalf of all of us in this room, i'm sure i want to take this opportunity to thank the two participants in this very informative interview. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you can see the discussion again in the c-span video library along with our coverage over the debate on same-sex marriage. go-to guy our website, c- span.orgwe are live. outside the supreme court building as the court considers the federal defense of marriage act, defining marriage as only between a man and woman. if we believe the justices set aside two hours of debate on doma. started this morning around 10:00. it should be wrapping up shortly.

at the conclusion of deliberations, we expect to get remarks from the attorneys representing both sides. if that will happen at the steps of the supreme court building. we plan live coverage of those remarks. at 2:00 p.m. eastern we expect to bring you oral arguments from the case today. that will be followed by your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. >> also, coming up today and after the court to complete their debate, house minority leader nancy pelosi will hold a big discussion on same-sex marriage. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern. while we wait for the attorneys to arrive, we will go back to this morning's washington byrnal, where we were joined the legal affairs editor for mortars. she talked about the two cases and the constitutionality of same-sex marriage this morning.

-- editor from reuters. host: what is the defense of marriage act? guest: signed in 1996. wasdefense of marriage act a reaction to some of the early state action notably in hawaii moving toward same-sex marriage. hawaii ended up fizzling and massachusetts became the first to legalize. members of congress and other people across the nation became concerned about states moving to allow same-sex couples to get married. members of congress pass a law that defines marriage as only between a man and woman. critical is the provision that says federal benefits can only go to married opposite sex couples, even if you are legally married in massachusetts or new york, as the couple before today's supreme court case was

from, cannot get benefits. host: what were the constitutional arguments for and against in 1996? more: in 1996 there was traditional, religious, cultural societal arguments about why marriage should remain between a man and woman. were somehen, there state constitutions that advocates are trying to use to say that same-sex should be allowed in various states. there was no federal pushed for same-sex marriage. what the federal officials were trying to do it the time was to stop it and to ensure that if one state allows same-sex marriage step the federal government would not have to honor it. host: how did it get to the supreme court in 2013? guest: it has to do with section 3 of the provision but said federal benefits only go to the opposite sex couples.

a woman by the name of edie windsor lost her partner of many years. they had been married in canada and the marriage was recognized in new york state. when her partner died, edie windsor and got a pretty high tax bill for estate taxes that she would not have gotten it for partner had been a man. the newspaper host: the newspaper reports he will be in the courtroom today. guest: i spoke with her lawyer. she will be there. i think that's pretty exciting for the people on that side. host: who will argue for that side? guest: >> roberta kaplan from new york. she will represent edie windsor. there's a long line of today beginning with vicki jackson, a harvard law professor, specifically appointed to argue the case cannot be decided on the merits because the federal government no longer is

defending section of three of the defense of marriage act. republican-dominated group of house members has come in to defend it. the question is do they have legal standing to do that? host: people are heading into the court right now as we are talking. it's only about 7:40. upst: many people were lined since last thursday for and these cases. eventually they will let them in out of the cold to go to the bathroom. once we get to this point on the day of an 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? guest: 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 bipartisan group, does it have 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. first, it will be vicki jackson, and then a deputy solicitor general will come up next to

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 clear yesterday. the justices did not want to go anywhere near a natural rule for same-sex marriage one way or

another. they were almost looking to say we're not going to decide. i think we're going to see no 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. struck it down. judges have believed this is 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

today.awaiting attorneys they are expected shortly below the steps of the supreme court building. they will bank statements and answer reporters questions. we plan to have live coverage of the remarks. the defense of marriage act generally withholds federal benefits from gay married couples that are given to opposite sex couples. the challenge came from and 83- year-old woman who was faced with a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars when her partner died. if she had been married to a man, she would not have owed anything. we may also get remarks from the plaintiff in the case. we saw her walk in this morning grade a reminder, at 2 p.m., we spent to bring you oral arguments from the case today. that will be followed by your calls, e-mails and tweets.

[no audio] ground sourou nds] >> as we await her marks from the attorneys, a discussion from the washington journal on the two cases before the supreme court this week.

>> the issue and then was if one state like for like it's same- sex marriage, than all the states will have to do it because of the full faith and credit clause constitution. congress wanted to head that off. we are not going to make it a national matter. it turns out that is not been a problem at all. states also said most must recognize same-sex marriage and the federal government won't either. no state had same-sex marriage. massachusetts and nine others do. legallydred 30,000

married couples are in the united states. under the current law, a couple can be married in massachusetts, they sit down to file their federal income taxes month, they can't check married filed jointly because the federal government does not recognize their marriage. if one partner dies, they can't get a social security survivor 's benefit. if are in the military, they can't get the same health benefits because the federal government does not recognize their marriages. the question is, does that discrimination against their marriage violate the equal protection clause. how did it take this long before the supreme court would review same-sex marriage? guest: it took a while for couples to be -- starting in

2004, people started marrying in massachusetts. shortly after that, the one -- the woman who won the case in massachusetts, a number of couples came to her and started talking about different problems they had, practical notlems but the law did treat them as mary. challenginglawsuit the defense of law act. because hehile needed real people with real problems to litigate the issue. host: who were the players in the arguments? guest: the attorneys? in bostonppeals court and new york, this is been a new england phenomenon. is been inver doma new england. the courts and boston and new york say this is unconstitutional. a series of appeals came

forward. someone had a problem because elena kagan was in the justice department and the ship could not sit on this. they took the case from the new york. the two sides in this case involved the bush and obama administration. the house republicans hired paul clement. he will argue that congress made this decision, it is reasonable for the federal government to maintain the view they always have, marriages between a man and a woman,, that is all when he to recognize. the obama administration general is going to argue that it is discriminatory and it discriminate against gay couples and there's no justification for it. they are legally married, therefore you ought to say sinclair and -- you ought to

say this loss should go. an attorney from new york city a plaintiff in the case, she was with her partner, a female partner that met in greenwich village and they were together for 40 years. that married in toronto in 2007, lived in new york, and her spouse died in 2009. $3000 estate to tax bill from the irs. 69,000 bill. the irs treated her as if they were not married. she filed a suit saying this is not right. her cases the actual case that will be airing today or tomorrow. host: her lawyer will be representing her. was interestedt

in the question of this case comes up in an odd posture. i alerted to it. alluded to it. usually the government says we will defend the law. this is a situation where the government is on the side of the plaintiff and the house republicans are defending the law. the court wants to hear an argument on whether it has juries -- jurisdiction to decide this because it is not look like a real case. vicki jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that. she argues that paul clement does not have standing and he does not represent the government anymore. it is not a real case. the government is on the side of the challenger. , i think theis court will decide the case because they have to. you can't have a situation where federal law is unconstitutional in new england at it is constitutional in the rest of the country. how can the irs deal with that?

, theay or the other supreme court has to decide whether or not it is constitutional. people are listening through their smartphone today. they are going to be hearing cases that could be brought up when talking about doma. what is one that could be brought up? this is not an area where there is a lot of precedent. the only president is the two opinions that justice kennedy .rote in 1996 he wrote an opinion that struck down an anti-gay butter initiative from colorado and said this law reflects animosity to a particular group of our fellow citizens, gays and lesbians. you can't do that. he also wrote an opinion in 2003 which struck down the last of

the sex laws that were targeting gays. he had the same view that gays and lesbians are entitled to respect, not to be demeaned by the law. a lot of people will cite this president, this suggests marriage is a right and others will say no, they did not involve something as important as marriage. host: what do you think will be clues as to how he will decide? guest: i will be interested in that because i don't have a lot of clues as to how he views this issue. this is one we have not seen -- the court has not had a gay marriage case or a gay rights case where you -- he has had to talk much. he will get the cases to go away. john roberts is a stickler for procedural -- the proper

procedure, and he has a preference for narrow decisions. my guess, he will ask a series of questions today about the procedural problem. that is a similar problem at the state of california is not defending properly. .he private sponsors i bet john roberts says how are you standing to be here? i think he will try to get the case to go away. , there is anssue outside chance of some of the justices might say marriage law has always been a matter for states. .tates decide who is married it is perhaps improper for the federal government to get into marriagewho's -- whose is really count. been some conservatives who say we ought to strike down the

defense of marriage act because it has the federal government second guess the state decisions. outside the supreme court building where all the action is today. highine justices on the court considered the defense of marriage act signed into law by president bill clinton. the law defining marriage as .etween one man and one woman president clinton has called for the repeal of clinton in intervening years. he wrote this in part, on march 27, the bill will come before the supreme court and justices as the president who signed the act into law has come to believe that the bill is contrary to principles and are incompatible with our prostitution. -- constitution. in thiselical clergy

country. we also represent by way of a brief in this case, more than 200 and the worst military catholics who carry a very grave concern that if doma should go the in a decision against defense of marriage act by this court, that their religious freedom, their religious liberty in a holding to a definition of marriage that is taught by their churches and religious institutions -- a definition that is thousands of years old and has been the uniform definition here with the federal government is at risk. the very vigorous interaction between the attorneys and the justices, you can tell by the time, the justices were quite industry. you will hthgal touments

date with the justices. doma isppears now that very shaky. while we stand for defense of marriage as between one man and one woman, it is quite clear that definition on the federal level is at great risk likely .y 5 to 4 if that should happen, we have urged an hour brief that this court take into consideration theexquisitely guaranteeing religious freedom of military chaplains, civilian chaplains who are under orders by federal authorities as well as other clergy who are required by law to swear an oath to uphold the

constitution. in this case, may in fact, have solemnizeority to marriages held in doubt. today is a historic day in an putsent in the court, and at risk the religious liberties of dually-authorized clergy, particularly those who are under the authority of the federal government, such as the hundreds of military chaplains in this country. i am chairman of the evangelical church standing in the -- defense of the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. evangelical church alliance,

headquartered in bradley, illinois. reverend rob schenck. [no audio] [indiscernible] >> it is light -- quite clear five of the justices are not convinced that doma has standing. has legitimacy. tocourse, we always try remain optimistic on our side of

the argument, but i would say the questions put to the justice by justice kennedy but that in doubt. we will rise to that challenge. it would take an act of congress to guarantee the religious freedoms of military chaplains. it may take an action by this court, but whatever decision they make is to invite future litigation. we can guarantee that, because we will be back here. [indiscernible] >> certainly on our side of the argument, the decision remains with the states. if the state recognizes that individual as legally married, then the federal government has a question.

and that is, what it will do with that. it was clear in the argument that the federal government already discriminates on the thes three for example, where have different age climates for marriage. --is not they have an entire requirements for marriage. i will let the legal experts address some of that. i am not sure exactly why you're asking me that question, but we are concerned about our members and our members must adhere to their own church teachings, which means marriage is between one man and one woman. >> you're welcome. -- somebody asked about our membership.

the evangelical church has 3000 clergy members. >> before you hear from the attorneys, i might ask that chief justice roberts is a real on this one. our side of the argument found that very encouraging. >> i have to wait for our legal team.

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] >> just moments ago, we heard

comments on the debate on the defense of marriage act, the the reverend speaking on behalf of chaplains in the evangelical church. he revealed at least five of the justices are indicating doubt about ability of the the challenge to the defense of marriage act. thatve received word deliberations are done for today. they wrapped up at 12:20. we are standing by outside of the steps of the court to hear from attorneys on both sides. that should happen any moment. we will have live coverage as we respond to questions. we will bring you the oral arguments from the case when it is sent to us. that will happen at about 2 p.m. eastern, and we invite you to respond with your phone calls and e-mails. in just over a half an hour, the court wraps up there -- they're debate, the house minority leader will be holding a briefing to discuss the same-sex marriage issue. live coverage will begin

shortly, we will plan to have that here for you on c-span. [no audio] [no audio]

>> again, we are awaiting remarks from attorneys representing both sides in the doma. the court wrapped up deliberations at about 12:20. the lawyers are as expected -- are expected to arrive shortly. justice anthony kennedy, a conservative who often votes on the liberal side, has expressed concerns about doma. these comments came as other justices on the court seemed skeptical whether they should

proceed with the case. the court hearing arguments today in its second day of hearings on gay rights issues. cheering]

>> [crowd cheering] >> hey! [indiscernible]

>> good afternoon, everyone. i am the director of the l g b t s projects, proud to be one up -- of the lgbt project, proud to be one of the council. you will hear from my colleague who argued the case, another council 9 the case, for myself, donna lieberman, the executive director of the new york civil liberties union, and then what you are all waiting for, a statement from edith windsor. then we will take questions. >> good afternoon, everyone. today's oral arguments tell the lesson on what it is we have a

constitution, to bind us together as citizens of one nation, all of whom are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. and there is no one individual do better personifies the concept of equal protection and my clients edie windsor. a few facts. matter relates about -- hurt late spouse in 1960's. they were engaged in 1967. take a moment and think about that pre-1967. that was two years before the stone wall movement that led to the modern concept of the equal rights for gay people. think about the self-esteem, the courage, the bravery, and the self-respect it took for two women in 1967 to become engaged. but the truly heroic part of

is whatdsor's life happened for the next 40 years. when people get married to each other, they give traditional marriage vows, and that marriage about is to have and to hold, to love in sickness and in health, until death do us part. 12 years into their developedip, her wife a terrible disease, a progressive multiple sclerosis. asps edie windsor has described it, that diagnosis happened to both of them. through her illness, and she went from using a cane to using a wheelchair, to only been able to use one at thinker. they fought together to make sure that she could live the full life that she did it. that is heroism. anyone of us, straight or gay,

would be so blessed and so lucky to have a spouse like edie windsor. when i said at the beginning of my remarks that she personifies the concept of equal protection, she truly does. our constitution and deserves edie windsor and she deserves our constitution. thank you very much. >> i argue the case. [laughter] my name is pamela karlin. i am the director of the stanford supreme court litigation clinic. a few minutes ago, we came out of the front door of the supreme court. over that door are written the words of " equal justice under law." that is what we are asking for today. equal justice under the law for

all gay and lesbian couples in the united states. , ofalked down 40 steps which coincidentally is a tall it herdie windsor and what for together as a committed couple. this has been a long road. in 1963, the supreme court upheld the exclusion of gay aliens from united states. in 1980 of's, it held up law prohibiting homosexuals? . andre confident that today in your times in the future, it will just as under law will be a reality for gay and straight people in the united states. thank you very much. lgbtam the director of the

project at the aclu. i want to say a few words about what the defense of marriage act does. in our federal system, the federal system does not married people. states married people. but whether you are married and not makes a difference in a lot of different federal contacts. there are over 100 federal laws that depend on some way whether you are married or not. your social security benefits, your driver benefits, whether you get to family medical leave to take care of your spouse, whether you're federal government recognizes your spouse is your spouse. and yes, taxes change as well. at the same time, there are 130,000 married same-sex couples in the united states today who doma says requires the federal government to treat those 130,000 married same-sex couples as unmarried in each of those

federal contacts. is what caused what happened to edie to happen, that she was treated as on married although she spent 40 years with the woman who became her spouse. they spent time together, good times and bad, in sickness and health, just like any married couple, and for the federal government to pretend there marriage does not exist is unfair, an american, and unconstitutional. >> hi. i am donna lieberman, the executive director of the american civil liberties union. i am proud to stand here today as part of team edie windsor. my state, the state of new york, respects the right of all couples, straight or gay, to marry. so long as doma is on the books,

these marriages are not truly equal. the federal government' treats new york's lesbian and gay families as though they do not exist. it is time to put any end to system ofhe 2-tiered marriage it has forced on our state. and it is time to ensure that the federal government treats the marriages of all new yorkers with the dignity and equality they deserve. the federal government should never again be allowed to reduce the love of a married legal like this to the status of strangers. thank you. >> hi. i'm edie windsor. someone wrote me a large speech which i am not going to make. there are a couple things i want

to say. i want to tell you what marriage means to me. it is kind of crazy people and you live together for 40 years. we were engaged. we would not wear rings because i was still in the closet. i am here today and out lesbian to the united states of america, which is kind of overwhelming for me. when she died four years ago, i was overcome with grief. within a month, i was hospitalized with a heart attack. and that kind of conduct is usually looked at as broken apart centrum. in the midst of my grief, i realized the federal government was treating us as strangers and i paid at humongous estate tax. this was not easy. i live on a fixed income and it was not easy. many people asked, why get married? than 75 atre older

the time. but the fact is that everybody treated us as different. it turns out that marriage is different, ok? and i asked a number of different long-range gay couples who they got married, i ask them, you know, was a different the next morning? and the answer is always yes. it is a huge difference. ok, and when our marriage appeared in "the new york times die as we heard from literally hundreds of people, playmates and schoolmates and college and friends and relatives, all congratulating us and happy we were married. it is the magic word. anyone who does not understand why we want it and why we need it, ok, it is magic. i guess the only other thing i would say is, today is like a

spectacular advance for me. i have -- a lifetime kind of event. , watching and listening, we are very proud and happy of where we have come to. thank you. [indiscernible] going throughwas your mind? >> i felt very furious. very furious. i thought, -- i am halfway deaf. i heard every word and i really paid attention. >> edie, how do you think it went in there? >> how do you think it went? >> [indiscernible] >> i am not hearing. >> how did it go? >> i think it went great. i thought the justices were

gentle, if that is the word i want. they were direct. i felt that there was no hostility, ok, or any sense of superiority. i fell very respected -- i felt very respected. and i think, i think it will be good. [laughter] feel in there, especially about chief justice roberts, some of its locations -- his questions about political power? >> we had good answers. my client's question. i think it was good. [laughter] >> ok, we are very hopeful. we are not in the business of predicting what any particular justice will do, but we are very

hopeful they will affirm the decision of the courts below. >> while they were in there, did they give you -- [indiscernible] >> i think all the statements stood out. as edie said, it was good. >> [indiscernible] not you, of course, but in the earlier part. >> the court added those questions to the case. there were very serious, very technical questions. i do not think they were what you would expect. we feel confident that they will resolve on the merits of the case, and even if they do not, i think that people believe they will get their money back from the federal government. >> at how much do you believe the house republican report report [indiscernible] >> i think the reasons why this

law were passed will have a lot of influence on the court. this is an incredibly unusual statute. it is not in our constitution to doma enact to. i think that will have an influence on the court. >> [indiscernible] >> i think the court realizes it has an obligation to decide the constitutionality of federal statutes and that is what it intends to do here. use nationwiden -- did you address that? why have more people come around to acceptance? >> edie will have to answer that. go ahead. >> i think what happened is, at some point, somebody came out and said "i am the," and it gave more people the courage to take the step. we all really live behind masks.

what happened is, as we increasingly came out, people saw that we did not have morn's. arele learned that, ok, we their cousi andheir friends, all of whom are coming out for the first time. and i think it just grew. we are human beings, like anybody else. and i really think that is what made the change, ok? been hiding in the closet 10 years ago. [laughter] >> that is the point. what does it feel like to be here? can you believe that you are here? >> pardon me? >> how does it feel to be here? >> thrilled and exhausted and humble. very humble. great. >> [indiscernible] >> we did not memorize everything that was said, i'm sorry.

>> [indiscernible] isthe basics are that doma an extremely unusual statued. it cuts across all federal law. it affects a 1100 different federal programs from notification of the death of a spouse when someone dies -- what it means is the spouse cannot be properly notified. it means that gave married couples do not get the benefits of the family of federal leave act and they need it, and it means someone andedie has to pay an estate tax bill just by virtue of the fact that her spells happens to be gay and she happens to be dead. that is unconstitutional, no matter what standard is applied. we hope the court will agree. >> [indiscernible] is more a matter of how rather than if? >> marriage for gay people is a

fact. is a fact in nine states already. it is likely it will be a fact in other states as time progresses. i do not think there was anything unusual. that should be the facts. >> [indiscernible] >> excuse me. excuse me for all the people living in the district of columbia. i'm a new yorker. i cannot help myself. >> [indiscernible] >> yes, i think the court cannot help but be affected by the way that this statute rides gay couples and gay people out of the federal code. it is not just one statute or program. it is a redefinition singling out couples who are already married only because they are the. i think the justices are acutely aware of that -- singling out couples who are already married only because they are gay. >> [indiscernible]

>> all right. in 1967, ok -- first of all, we were driving in the car, and she said, what would you do if you became engaged? and i worked together with a bunch of people that we love. i never told the truth. i never told the truth until five years ago when i finally told the truth. she said to me, what would you do though if you wanted to be engaged and he wore an engagement ring to work? what would people say? i said, they would want to know who is the and where is he? so, instead she gave me this pin instead of a diamond ring. ok? my pin.mine --

i am going to excuse myself if everybody will not be mad at me. there are a lot of people who came to see me, and i am just going to go see them. [all talking at once] >> get your name? >> i am anthony romero. in the national director of the aclu. romero. national head of the aclu. [indiscernible]

>> well, folks, i apologize.

i guess they have stopped coming out. >> [indiscernible] not.parently we will see. i am under orders to wait it out. >> hearing statements from the plaintiff in a case challenging the defense of marriage act. so the plaintiff herself, edie windsor, who was faced with an estate tax bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars when her partner died. if she had been married to a man, she would not have owed anything. the attorneys argued that this was not equal justice under the law. we will of the oral arguments in the case in about an hour,

about 2:00 p.m. eastern. as always, we will take your phone calls, e-mail's, and tweaks -- tweets. attorneys from the opposite side will not be coming to the microphone. before we did that, mark sherman of the associated press filed this story. justice anthony kennedy common of plan b decisive -- often the deciding vote join the more liberal judges in raising questions about the defense of marriage act. he says the law scott appears to intrude on the power of states. other justices say it creates what justice ginsberg called " full marriage and skim milk marriage." again, we will have the oral arguments from the case at 2:00

p.m. eastern today here on c- span. we are also standing by to hear from house minority leader nancy pelosi. she is expected to hold a briefing to discuss the same-sex marriage issue. live coverage of that is set to begin at 1:00 p.m.. we will have that here on c- span.

>> live coverage continuing outside the supreme court today as the nine justices the

liberated the defense of marriage act today. they deliberated for about an hour and five men as. there were no remarks from the -- they deliberated for about an hour and five men as. we heard from the attorneys representing the plaintiff in the case. there were no remarks whatsoever from the other side. nancy pelosi will be speaking live from the u.s. capitol. until then, we will continue to bring you images from outside the court. [indiscernible] >> full of quality! -- full equality! right here! >> right now! >> whoo!

the arizona republic, a cautious court. divided justices seem wary of landmark change. the atlanta journal- constitution. gay marriage case gives court pause. and then finally, the chicago tribune -- court wary of major gay marriage ruling. that is the headlines across many of the newspapers this morning, predicting that the court is possibly divided and doesn't know what to do on the same-sex marriage case,

proposition 8. here is "the baltimore sun." they say justices show signs of their normal split and fear of going too far too fast. and then "the new york times" this morning says justices take same-sexbe wrong for marriage ruling. >> the procedural protections. right. >> a look at some of the headlines from newspapers around the country covering the same- sex marriage issue. as we continue to look outside of the supreme court today, the nine justices did date the doma issue we are waiting for nancy pelosi holding a briefing