in special orders and prevailing upon our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and discuss solutions that will both reduce the debt and preserve the medicare system. a person who understands this better than most, who has made firsthand trips to hospitals, who has written books in fact, or at least a book, as i seek to credit you beyond your authorship, mr. ryan, but certainly someone who understands the importance of coordinating care in such a manner that an enlightened new republic that we are will be able to participate in the wholeness and wellness that can come from this paradigm shift afforded by the affordable care act and where reasonable minds can come together to achieve these goals. i yield to my colleague.

mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. i want to say a deep thank you because i think this is one of the key issues that we need to address as a country in order for us to have healthier citizens, have a healthier economy, drive down the national debt. and as you said so eloquently, the big driver for our national debt and deficits is the medicaid and medicare program, issues dealing with health. look at what's weighing down businesses right now. small businesses especially. huge increases in health care year in and year out. 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%. we've had people come to our office, it went up 90% this year. how am i supposed to plan for capital investments? i need to buy a new machine. on and on and on. where we need to start is our current health care system

isn't working. we spend $8,000 per capita in the united states versus $3,000 in developing countries, and we have worse outcomes. we have worse outcomes here, and what we're talking about with the c.e.o. of aetna is talking about is how we take this system and recognize and begin to appreciate in 2013 in america that if we put some money into prevention, if we pay doctors and nutritionists and dietitians on the front end, we're going to save a boat load of dollars on the back end. are -- ealth care costs go to chronic diseases that are mostly preventable. so here we are bogged down by a stem when the answer is,

patient-centered care and having people participate in their own health care. this is a challenge to every american to take responsibility for their own health, their own well-being and to create a something that incentivizes everyone who's in the system to operate in this fashion and help drive down health care costs in the long run. and we all know this intuitively that if you take care of yourself, your diet matters, your nutrition matters, your exercise matters, your checkups matter, and through the affordable care act by having everybody covered, it begins to change that business model of having the insurance company incentivize to keep and help people get and stay healthy. and i think it's time for us to take the advice of the c.e.o.

of aetna. this isn't john larson. this isn't me. we're looking at the statistics here in our country, and we've got to say this is unacceptable. we have so many sick people in our country and we're doing nothing to prevent them from getting sick in the first place. i yield to my friend. mr. larson: mr. ryan, it just isn't the c.e.o. of aetna. as i was pointing out earlier, in a number of studies, whether it be done by reuters, whether they be done by a number of -- dr. blemen thall and a number of -- blumenthal and a number of groups that's been focused on this issue, they all arrive at the same conclusion. the system is inefficient in its form. and how do you improve that system we're at a fork in the road here. as dr. blumenthal from the commonwealth fund points out,

health care policy -- we either are going to end up in a situation, as the poster points out, where we cut payments, reduce benefits and restrict eligibility for public programs or we re-engineer health care and improve the health care costs, improve the outcomes for patients. as mark from aetna says, the answer lies not in cutting people's benefits but improving their care. and this is the juncture that we're at. and it would seem to me that especially in this body that we now have an opportunity. we all agree that the national debt is a problem. we know that health care is the primary domestic driver of that debt. we have an opportunity to

change that. we have a structure. the framework of which, as i said in my opening remarks, is provided by the heritage foundation. and was pioneered by mitt romney in massachusetts as a governor and done successfully. let's expand on that opportunity, only make it better. make it better because we know the great very tuesday of public health and all -- virtue of public health and all that's meant for this country. we know the great strength of our hospitals and doctors and our scientific community, our innovators, our manufacturers, our medical devices, our pharmaceutical companies. we know the great genomic project that's going to have remarkable abilities that are going to enhance the quality of life like we've never seen it before. nstead of arguing the old wars

and the last battles, we have to be embracing the future in a way that it makes the american citizenry secure in the outcome of knowing that science, technology and innovation, their government and the best of the private sector are all working on their side. it's not a question of choosing one or the other. it's embracing all three in a y that both lowers the cost, demonstrated in study after study after study that will also enhance the quality of health for our individuals. so many people in ohio, i know, have problems and have dealt with this. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. ryan: and to figure out how to target the technology -- and we were out at walter reed a few weeks ago going through and

seeing all the various techniques and approaches that are being used for our veterans coming back and they talked about having high-tech health care, high-touch health care. and we have most in a good portion of our health care costs are driven up by the sickest 1% of the people and the top 5% of the people in health care are driving a lot of the costs. mr. larson: 50% of the costs. mr. ryan: from the top 5%. so the top 5% or 5% of the people drive 50% of the health care costs. and i think what a lot of these folks are finding out, if you can surround that patient, the patients in the center and figure out exactly what's going on and make sure that that patient has preventative care and a consistent doctor and a consistent nurse and a

consistent somebody help to make sure they're taking their medication, these techniques, these medical homes, these accountable care organizations to surround the patient, to make sure they get better and then reward the doctor and the nurses and everybody who's -- the hospital, everybody who's involved and say we're not going to pay you the same amount of money every time you see this patient that still has the same problem that they had from the first time they came in. you will be paid to make them healthy. and that begins to shift the incentive and squeeze some of that excess out of the system that the gentleman from connecticut talked about. mr. larson: well, you know, inefficiencies i said was going to be our focus. let's talk about that just from a practical standpoint. you say the word inefficiency and what do people actually think? think about the last time you're in any doctor's office or made any trip to the emergency room and the number

of forms you had to fill out. the number of forms where we have complicated a system that needs to be streamlined. one of the things that our colleagues and i should embrace is the need for us to streamline regulation in the process so that it becomes simple, cost-effective, electronically or digitally driven in a way that both reduce costs and adds to the quality of life for the individual. when one speaks, he talks about, as you point out, developing coordinated care with our centers of expertise. whether it's the mayo clinic or in ohio the cleveland clinic or whether it's sloan-kettering, whether it's jackson labs in the state of connecticut, by working in conjunction and coordinating the best outcomes and then also doing this locally from the bottom up,

that coordination quite frankly hasn't existed before. that's what's driven our health care costs up so dramatically. no other western democracy in the world, some that have more aging populations than we do, face the similar crisis. we have the opportunity to attack this like no other nation in the world. jackson labs is located in my district in connecticut. and they're known for their nobel prize winners because of what they've been able to do with mice. mice, i know the gentleman from ohio knows, because of their lack of an immune system, allow them to be great vehicles to test with respect to break throughs in disease and how we deal with disease. well, when we add the genomic

project to that and the advances that we can make in cancer, heart disease, diabetes, all of the areas that plague us, we now have at our disposal, but instead of multitude of tests and random testing, we can now get down to an individual's d.n.a. and make that change. that is enormous cost savings. that is the full embrace of science and technology and innovation. that should be the discussion on the floor here is the greatest break-throughs and what we're going to do and how it's american ingenuity, it's american innovation, it's american doctors and surgeons and medical manufacturers and medical devices and chemistry through pharmaceuticals and all the science that we brought to bear. we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years.

can we solve this problem? of course we can, and it's on the cusp of being resolved. let's embrace what the private sector is doing. let's embrace our scientific and university communities and our labs in a way that we're coordinating with them, coordinating in a way that we drive out the inefficiencies because, because our end goal here is the consumer. it's the patient. it's the citizen of this country who's paid tax dollars for this, who's brought into an insurance system, who believes that his country -- or she believes that their country is there for them in their time of need as we make these critical transitions. the american people want to see us here in this body working together. let's work around the issues that drive us -- the national

debt, securing medicare for the future and understand that we have the tools, many of which we owe to the public health system and the innovation, the labs, the center for disease control, the national institute of health and all that's been done at our universities as well as the entrepreneurial expertise and the creation and innovation that comes from our great system. let's enjoy that in a way that we solve problems. solution-oriented legislation that gets over the ideological divide and recognizes that we need common outcomes on behalf of the american people. mr. ryan: and i think take what is working in areas systemically but also techniques. up at walter reed, for example, they're using things like acupuncture. they're using things that can

help with stress reduction. they're using mindfulness base stress reduction, because we now know in 2013, given all of the brain science, all of the research that the neuroscientists have done all over the country and the world, dr. richard davidson at the university of wisconsin, the doctor at the university of miami, all of the greatest institutions in the united states and the scientists that run these labs, that study the body, study the mind, they know that the future of health care is self-care. how do we help people reduce their stress? how do we help some of these soldiers that come back that are on six, eight, 10, 12 drugs? . $300 billion a year on pharmaceuticals, that is more than many other countries combined and we aren't saying you shouldn't have prescription drugs because you

are going to need them in this system that tries to utilize all the tools in the tool box to keep people healthy, but how do we create a system that a doctor can have more than five minutes with a patient and it's onto the next one and onto the next one and that isn't protecting the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship and that could be a healing relationship, being able to sit down with the doctor and find out what's wrong, how much stress and anxiety do people have when they don't know what's wrong. mr. larson: it's a point that underscores that within this system, as the gentleman points out, we are going to need that high quality of care, but our care coordination problems have been driven by flawed designs. the coordination of care in the

new era with all the science, technology and innovation we can bring to bear on this problem and the flawed design of our payment systems are what we need to correct. the beneficiaries will not only be our veterans that return home and in need of our care, but our germ population in dealing with this. the exchange is going to present a great opportunity, an opportunity to have a paradigm shift. an opportunity for us to come together and solve major problems. and you know what? as the gentleman from ohio knows, if we solve the national debt problem, then we don't have an issue with sequester or debt ceilings and get about the infrastructure system that we desperately need in this country to further enhance jobs. but within the innovation technology and manufacturing of drugs and medical devices and

the technology that grows out of health care, we have a whole economy that's ready to burst and boom as well. that's what we've got to be about. that's what i believe the -- ican people want to us see us solving. mr. ryan: if you think about the small business person who has suffered the brunt of these huge health care increases over the percent de or two, 120 some increase in the last 10 years for a small business person, their health care for that period of time has gone up. if you start reducing that cost, the money that business person will have to re-invest can be a stimulant for the economy. mr. larson: i see that our time has expired. i thank the speaker and i thank everyone for the opportunity to lay out this case of coordinated

care and cooperation, reducing our national debt and securing medicare for our citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio for a motion. mr. ryan: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. the house stands ad

>> they will fight on the side of this hill, the afternoon of july 1. two days later, july 3, in the ddle of what we today call picke tmp ts charge.

the next day, july 4, when they assemble these units the 26th carolina regular meant having gone into the battle with 800 men can only assemble 100 men, still surviving and still capable of fighting. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg begins on sunday. >> the supreme court today

struck down 5-4 a federal provision within the defense of marriage act denying benefits to legaly married gay couples. tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to heterosexual couples. the court cleared the way to resume same-sex marriages in california. there was reaction outside the court. i just come from the courtroom where the opinions have been filed in both cases. i will make statements on behalf of the evangelical church alliance, which represents thousands of evangelical clergy

from around the country, as well as 350 military chaplains. as you have already heard, the court has struck down the defense of marriage act as unconstitutional. on the found no standing part of the advocates of proposition 8 in california. i will be addressing both of those outcomes on behalf of the evangelical church alliance, churches like ours, as well as traditional christians who advocate for marriage as between a man and a woman. no matter how any of us feel about the outcomes in these cases, one thing is true. the supreme court has no

authority when it comes to the nature of marriage. that authority belongs to the creator, whom our founders declared is the source of all our rights. the public conversation over marriage continues and that is a good thing. when it comes to the defense of marriage act, there are a myriad of perspectives among evangelicals and other christians of traditional faith, but some believe it is best to get the federal government out of as many areas as possible, including marriage. so there are those of us who are disappointed with the court's action on doma, while others say others of us say

yay, another tooth has been extracted from the federal monster. on proposition 8, the question of whether the people will get to decide for themselves how marriage will be practiced in their states appears to await another day. and that's a good question to pursue. we're disappointed in the short-term results and the short-term questions that remain unsettled, but the public conversation continues and that's a good thing. one thing true about today's court's decisions on marriage. they do not change the biblical or timeless truth of the nature of marriage as between a man and

a woman. but just as importantly, for christians of traditional faith, like evangelicals for whom i speak, today's decisions are an invitation to look at the reality of same-sex couples and families differently through the lens of god's love to seek and minister with grace to all people. the gospel is open to all regardless of their sexual orientation or the configuration of their families. this is a challenge that our folks need to meet and in prayer and with god's wisdom i know we'll meet it. i will be making extended remarks and leading a brief prayer service at the podium

over to my right following the comments at the microphone, thank you. >> i concur with my brother's tatements. schenck, rob evangelical church alliance. >> my name is jennifer kerns, i was the official spokesperson. i'm here on behalf of the seven million voters on behalf of the state of california who voted for proposition 8. i'm here today because the state of california has a system of direct democracy. more than seven million voters voted for proposition 8 and more than 10 million voters in the

mid-1990's voted for proposition 22. while i have been quiet for the last five years for this proposition to take its course in the legal system. i'm here on behalf of the voters in the state of california and i'm extremely disappointed. every vote should count. > again, my name is jennifer kerns. person for e spokes prop 8. to ongressman huelskamp issue some comments about this. in the decision today, the supreme court has offered two very contradictory rulings on one hand, they claim to make a

decision that the states have a right to decide the definition of marriage. and the second decision, they said the states, voters do not have the right to decide. and the dissent on the first decision was very clear. this court has taken upon itself, a radical attempt to redefine marriage and what gets lost in this judicial amendment to short circuit the democratic process is on behalf of our children. this decision has allowed adults to trust the needs of children. every child deserves a mommy and a daddy. [cheering]

u.s.a.] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> u.s.a. > u.s.a. cheers and applause]

>> guys, we need some space here. >> come up here. >> we're trying to create some room. >> come on up. >> good morning. i'm the executive director of the american foundation for equal rights. great privilege to be here this morning with the plaintiffs' legal team and founding board members of the american

foundation for equal rights. peaking first will be david. >> this is a great day for america. 10 years ago today, the united states supreme court in lawrence against texas, took the first important step to guaranteeing that all americans regardless of sexual orientation were equal citizens under the law. today, the united states supreme court in two important decisions brings us that much closer to true equality. in the decision striking as unconstitutional the so-called doma or defense of marriage case, the united states supreme court held that there was no purpose for did he primbing gay

and lesbian couples on the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. as justice scalia noted, that holding, that preliminary guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. in the california case, the supreme court held that the proponents of proposition 8 did not have standing. what that means is that in that case, the supreme court could not reach the merits. but everything that the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion where they did reach the merits, demonstrate that when that case finally does come to the united states supreme court on the merits, marriage equalit will be the law throughout this land.

our plaintiffs now get to go back to california and together with every other citizen of california, marry the person they love. cheers and applause] >> next step is to translate the promise that was in lawrence and reafffirmed today in the doma case that every citizen in every state has the right to marry the person that they love. the supreme court's decision on standing is important for another reason. when we started out in this case, we said we were going to prove three things. we were going to prove that marriage is a fundamental right and the other side accepted that. we said, second, we were going

to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens the right to marry the person they love will seriously harm them and the children they are raising. and even the opponents agreed with that. and third, we said we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person that they love regardless of sexual orientation, did not, could not harm anyone. and not only did the proponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today, the united states supreme court said as much because they said the proponents have no concrete injury. they cannot point to anything that harmed them because these two loving couples and couples like them throughout california are now going to be able to get married. and so this is a wonderful day

for our plaintiffs. it's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and in california in particular, that wants to be able to marry the person they love, but it's a wonderful day for america, because we have now taken this country another important step towards guaranteeing the promise that was in our constitution in our declaration of independence that all people are created equal, that all people have the and nable right to life, the pursuit of happiness. we thank all of you and perhaps most important, we thank all of the people who have devoted so much to this battle over so many decades. people who did it at a time when it was not as easy as it was to go into court. the only thing i regret today is my friend and colleague ted

oelsen can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle and he is in another court in another part of the country arguing another case, but his spirit is here and he will be with me tonight and we will celebrate, because this is a victory, not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even for the people who have worked for so many decades but for all americans. >> we will have comments from the plaintiffs in the case. >> today is a great day for american children and families, sandy and i want to say how happy we are, not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california, no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are or what family you are in, you are equal, you are as good

as your friends' parents and as your friend. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country that you are just as good as everybody else no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love. and today we can go back to california and say to our own children, all four of our boys, your family is just as good as everybody else's family. we love you as much as anybody else parents love their kids. and we will be equal and we will be married and equal to every other family in california. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> today, we want to say thank you to all of you, our supporters and amazing lawyers and thank you to the constitution and thank you to justice that was served today in this court. it was amazing. we thank the justices for

overturning doma and thank the justices for getting us get married in california. it's not enough. it has to go nationwide. it's not just about us but kids in the south and texas and kids everywhere. and we really want to take this fight and take it all the way and get equality for everyone in this entire country. thank you all. it has been an honor and pleasure to represent you. [cheers and applause] >> we'll hear from jeff and paul, also plaintiffs in the case. >> i don't need these. [laughter] >> our desire to do something and get involved in this case to be plaintiffs was very important to us. it changed the conversation, it altered the game, created a groundswell of momentum and passion that brought us here to

the supreme court today. today, the court said we are more equal. our love is just like our parents and our grandparents and that any children that we may have in the future will be more secure. i look forward to growing old with the man i love. our desire to marry has only deepened the last four years as have our love and commitment to one another. we look forward to using the words married and husband, because those words do matter. they are important. i said it in my testimony in court, if they weren't important, we wouldn't be standing here today. i would like to give special thanks to ted and david and the even tire legal team, but ted and david specifically, because their passion for equality is only trumped by the size of their hearts. i would like to thank chris and sandy for taking this ride with

us, chad griffin for his amazing strategic vision and the entire team for at the american foundation for equal rights and the support we have received from people we don't even know but who will benefit from this ruling. it's a great day to be an american. [cheers and applause] >> i'm not sure i can add anything after those three great statements, four, including our lawyer. today is a great day. we entered this building and always see those words, equal justice under the law. and today, we are closer to that equality. we are lucky and we know that the fight continues across this country. we can't forget our lgbt brothers and sisters. we will continue the fight until all of us are equal. proposition 8 did one thing.

it helped us turn anger into action. it led to the foundation, the american foundation for equal rights and led to this case and to today's victory as well and stand on the shoulders of so many people who came before us, who risked their lives. they gave us the legs to stand up on today and the momentum to run with and the voice to speak loudly and say, proudly that we are gay. we are american. and we will not be treated like second-class citizens. so although we celebrate today, although we celebrate today, we work to make sure that jeff and i and chris and sandy. we want to get married because it's the natural next step. we want to join the institution of marriage not to take anything away but to strengthen it and live up to its ideals. today is a good day. today i finally get to look at

the man that i love and finally ?ay, will you please marry me [cheers and applause] >> we'll now hear from the co-founder of human rights campaign, chad griffin. >> thank you very much, adam and thanks to these incredible plaintiffs and the legal team led by ted and david. what a magnificent job they have done representing thousands upon thousands of people in california and ultimately around this country. thanks to these historic decisions today, we are one step closer to finally realizing those words inscribed upon that building behind me, equal justice under law. and today at long last, this nation has wiped away the shame of proposition 8 and the

discriminatory defense of marriage act once and for all. but the work of equality is far from complete. and at this moment of celebration, we got to rise to this historic occasion with an urgent new commitment, a commitment to the gay and lesbian americans in the 37 states without marriage equality, who didn't feel the reach of justice by today's decision. it took less than five years to strike down proposition 8 and restore marriage equality to the most populous state in this land. so today, let's set a new goal, within five years we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states. [cheers and applause] >> these incredible plaintiffs, we cannot wait for justice.

because they fought tirelessly every single day. today american values have prevailed. now it's up to us to make this historic victory reach each and every corner of this country, because while marriage equality will soon return to california, loving and committed couples in places like hope, arkansas, or altoona, pennsylvania, will still be waiting for justice and every moment of delay has real-life human consequences. because every day in these places, a child is born, a parent dice and the person you love may be rushed to the hospital. and the inability to access these basic protections of marriage destroys families and ruins lives. so make no mistake about it. tomorrow is certainly a new day.

but the sun will still rise on an unequal country. and we've got to commit to fight like we've never fault before, because at this moment, ap think no better thanre bigotry. in congress and what was so clear today, again in our federal courts, this movement for equality will advance on all fronts like we never advanced before. and i promise you in the end, equality, fairness and basic human dignity will prevail as it has so many times in this country's history before. thank you very much. cheers and applause] >> we will hear from the

attorney. >> i thank you. my law partner is in court so i wanted to say a few words. proposition 8 is dead. let's let the weddings begin and people can get married in california. and two decisions together, i have copies, paved the way, marriage equality in this country. with california back, with marriage equality back in california, 40% of the population in the united states is covered by marriage equality. and the doma decision, the framework that is laid out by the court in doma paved the way for striking down marriage restrictions across this country. this is a huge day and we are so pleased and great day for the supreme court. the court has demonstrated a commitment to equality, justice and fairness and found that gay and less byian citizens -- less

ian cannot be treated like second-class citizens. the wave that started four years ago just got way bigger and going to sweep this country and equality across this country. > we'll take your questions. >> they are celebrating right now in san francisco. >> we are on our way to california and see you in los angeles and san francisco in the ext day or so. >> may the marriages begin. thank you very much. >> thank you!

>> house democrats and republicans also reacted to the supreme court rulings, appearing first house minority leader nancy pelosi and members of the l gmb bt task force. it is just under 30 minutes. >> happy day. equal justice under the law, those are the words inscribed on the wall of the supreme court, which i also have in my office. this is the value and the ideal upheld by the supreme court today. from the start, many of us had believed section 3 of the defense of marriage act was unconstitutional and in fact we believe the whole bill is unconstitutional. today the supreme court agreed and justice was done for

thousands of lgbt families nationwide. think what it means to them. from the start, many of us believed that proposition 8 had no place in the state of california. the supreme court agreed and justice will be done for lovely lgbt couples in my home state. on this day, nearly 44 years to the day after the stonewall riots turned into the challenge of discrimination against lgbt americans, the supreme court bent the arc of history once again towards justice. the highest court in the land, the federal government will no longer discriminate against united married in the states. and recognizing the basic rights. equal protection will not be a promise unfulfilled but a promise kept. today, victory is not at the end of the journey for civil rights

for our heritage and hope. this ruling will only make us work harder in the courts in the state legislatures to ensure that all men and women in every part of of our country are granted equal rights no matter who they love. this is an extraordinary day for american values, america's best traditions of progress, for lgbt americans and for all americans. this is another day that will go in the history book as a moment when our history -- our nation expanded the reach of the highest ideals of our constitution and our democracy. i want to say on a personal note how important today is. i feel personally the spiration of harvey milk and eve windsor and i heard the story of her love. i know she will be seeking now

or later today. i congratulate today, i thank her for her courage. in march, a week apart, many of us stood on the steps of the supreme court. one day were hearing oral arguments on the voting rights act. the next week it was about proposition 8 and doma. many of the same people were there both days, because this is really the same subject about discrimination in our country. so we have work to do in terms of expanding rights and ending discrimination against those in the lgbt community to make america a more american, but we also have very important work to do on the voting rights act, again, the same subject. i'm pleased to yield to a person who has been a leader on this issue for a very long, long

time, our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. before he speaks, though, we are waiting for one more of our lgbt task force members and they are our stars today and we salute them for their courage and leadership and for the joy we all share today. mr. cicilline. >> as disappointed as i was yesterday, i am happy today. today the court stood up for the principles of america of equal justice under law. opens doors of opportunity for thousands of married couples in maryland and of course we had a vote in maryland and they said we want to have equality in

maryland. in 12 other states and the district of columbia, recognizing the same hiff sex partners under laws of their states are entitled to the constitutional equal protection of which we have spoken so often. the court today listened to voices of millions of people who said that they wanted to have justice and be able to choose those whom they love. justice kennedy's majority opinion makes it clear, and i quote, doma's avowed purpose and practical effects are to have a separate status and a stigma upon all who enter upon same hiff marriages. today, that stigma has thankfully been erased. i joined in the brief under the leadership of pelosi with other senate and house democrats making the case of section 3 of

doma violated our constitution and stood opposed to our most basic values as americans. this is a good day for every american. one of my first votes when i was elected to the state senate in 66 was to vote to repeal the discrimination statutes in maryland 50 years ago. in the another step equality, justice and inclusions. >> in presenting mr. nadler, what more can i say than to say he has a personal invitation to with eve when she makes her remarks today. >> thank you, nancy. much of the history of the united states can be read as our

expanding understanding of what the declaration of independence meant when it says all men are created equal. in 1776, it didn't mean black men, didn't mean any women of color or creed or white men without property. most of the history, we continue to expand that definition to include hopefully everybody. and today is another step in that continued evolution of this country toward greater liberty and equality. it is a day for true celebration and brings equal liberty for all. for thousands of married loving gays and lesbian couples, this ensures well-being of their families and will receive the respect and support that their lifelong commitments and marriages deserve instead of the contempt in the defense of marriage act passed by congress

years ago. to my constituent, means that the money she had to pay in taxes when the government treated her and her lawful wife will be returned helping she has the resources she needs. we must celebrate today. it's a great day, but our work is not yet over. we need to wipe doma in its entirety. senator feinstein and i with many co-sponsors will be reintroducing the respect for marriage act. it repeals do mmp a. the court has struck section 3, but section 2 was not before the court. section 2 seeks to excuse states considering whether a lawful marriage could be performed by a sister state. we need to repeal section 2. the bill also provides recognition for married couples and moving ambiguity for their recognition under federal law. celebrated and recognized by the

federal government. no matter where the people live. so this is a day for celebration. it's another day in the march of our country toward a greater understanding of equality. and it is a rebuke to those who still support doma which the court labeled it as hatred and discrimination. it is a great day and congratulations to everyone involved in it. >> moments ago, i was on the steps of the supreme court when these two very exciting decisions came down and two things really struck me. one was that thousands of people were there all eagerly anticipating the decision and every single person i saw was on the side of equality, on the side of respecting marriage for all americans. it was remarkable to me that i didn't even see one protestor or

one voice on the other side who denied their fellow americans equal rights. perhaps they no longer dare show their face, but there are those among us who continue to deny their fellow americans equal rights. the second thing i observed this is the system working for families like mine. this is the system to help keep couples together and help people raise children without the fear of losing custody or what to do if their partner falls ills. i applaud the supreme court for making the decision that america is more than ready for as america shows they are in the majority and step towards the committed relationships that gay and lesbian americans have. but the battle is far from done. in over 20 states, people can be fired from their jobs just because they are gay or lesbian. in schools, gay kids face

bullying and sometimes have no place to turn. while the supreme court made a step forward today, congress still has a critical role in workplace discrimination, protecting kids from bullying and housing discrimination and other areas where gays and lesbians continue to live in fear. i applaud this step. we want our committed relationships to be celebrated before our friends and family. we don't want to have to worry about the responsibility and rights that come along with marriage. and today, couples that are married in the states that allow it will enjoy those full rights under federal law. 'm excited to i'm very excited to now introduce the representative from rhode island, david cicilline. >> thank you. i am delighted to be here and i first want to begin by thanking our leader, leader pelosi, and our whip, steny hoyer, who have been strong advocates about the necessity of striking down doma and thank jerry nadler for his

leadership. i'm proud to have been part of that brief and to all of my colleagues. today, our court brought our country one step closer to realizing our constitution's promise of equality for all americans. and i had the opportunity to read the full decision, and what struck me is this simplicity of the analysis and the power of this decision. the quote went through and said doma was designed to segregate individuals, to stigmatize them, to deprive them of certain advantages and to harm them, that is individuals that are gay and lesbians in our country. it denied them access to health care. it denied us fairness in our taxes. it denied us the ability to be buried together in our veterans' cemetaries. it simply said this violates the equal protection of the law. a basic provision of our constitution. it spoke very powerfully, and in this decision it has helped transform the lives of millions of families all across this country who now will be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

this is a huge victory, not just for the lgbt community, but for our country, because it gives meaning to our values. this is a country where individuals are treated equally and discrimination is not permitted. and so i applaud the court's decision. i hope it will inspire us, continue the work to be done toward full equality. i congratulate everyone that's been part of this. now i turn it over to the distinguished gentleman from the state of new york, sean patrick maloney. >> thank you very much. a short while ago i called my partner, randy, of 21 years and tell him about the decision and to congratulate him. i couldn't get the words out. i realized in that moment it was the first time in 21 years, 20 of those years spent raising our three amazing children,

that i wasn't talking to him as someone who was seen as less than in the eyes of my own country's laws. and what this decision means, for families like mine, when i get up and get the kids ready or school, make them breakfast and make sure the left shoe is on the left foot and pick them up at soccer practice and all the things we do every day, it doesn't mean they have to grow up in a country thinking that our family is less than somebody else's and that's a ood thing. and so i want to congratulate the court and i want to congratulate the people who fought so hard to get us to this point because -- because on june 17, 1954, the court said that it was wrong to segregate us in education and

on may 12, 1967, the court said people who are brave enough to love across the barrier, the legal barrier of anti-racial marriage laws, their love matters too. une 26, 2013, will be a date that we made more whole the promise of america and the idea -- the beautiful idea that this is as old as scripture and as fundamental as our founding documents and that we saw for the first time today and that it makes us even more american is why i love this country, it's why i'm proud to serve here with my colleagues here in the congress. congratulations to veryone. >> well, this is a great day for our great nation. as an openly gay member of congress, married member of

congress, our nation now recognizes the love and commitment that two people make in states that recognize equality. 93 million people now live in states that will be recognized for their marriages. 58% of the country supports marriage equality. we now have the people, the constitution and the courts behind us in this important decision. also, the prop 8 decision allows for 18,000 california couples to have their legal marriages recognized. it's a very important day. however, it also reminds me that i live in the state of wisconsin. as someone who's been with my partner almost 11 years and married for over 6 1/2, we still face barriers and we have to make sure that every single person who gets in that loving and committed relationship can be recognized. there are still going to be tens of -- hundreds of thousands of people who are not

able to have basic things like hospital visitation rights, decisions about end of life matters with someone they've made a commitment to for decades. this is certainly a day to celebrate. i'm ecstatic but it shows the path we still have to do in our congress and in our states. i'm so happy for the supreme court today. >> my name is mark takano. i represent the 41st district of california. this is indeed a victory for the people of my state. i challenge every clerk in the state of california to start issuing marriage licenses to every couple that desires one today. i feel jubilation. i feel fabulous. i feel every gay word i can think of. [laughter] justice kennedy did something i

try to teach my students as an english teacher. i taught high school for 23 years. i always thought it was important to write beautiful sentences, to reach for the poetic. i was worried he was going to get -- because of the question he was going to get weighed down and bogged down in the language -- the legal lease of federalism and states rights. but today he went for the poetic justice kennedy that i've seen evidence of in previous decisions. he predicated this decision on the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment, equal protection. he used words, stirring words like -- doma humiliates the children of same-sex couples. you know, humiliation is the opposite of equality. this decision reaches to the very essence of who we are as americans.

it is the advancement of our founding principles of freedom, ustice and equality. and this is a -- there's going to be dancing in the streets in washington, dancing in the streets in san diego, dancing in the streets of san francisco where i'll join the leader this weekend. so thank you very much. >> so proud of all of you. kyrsten sinema was supposed to join us. i want to mention barney frank. steny and i were at the unveiling of his portrait in the financial services room of the rayburn building and he's worked so hard on these issues for so long. when his painting was unveiled

he talked about things he was proud of. proudest most of his wedding ring that he was married to immy, his husband, who was there, and all that that -- and all that said about america. i want to acknowledge his great leadership over the years. when mark was talking about the writing, i was thinking about -- about the proceedings when the oral arguments were heard at the court on doma. and the justices was asked on more than one occasion, did the republicans know this was unconstitutional? and the answer was, well -- whatever. we knew they knew it was unconstitutional because why else 10 years after doma passed would they have a bill in the congress that would strip the court of the right of judicial review claiming that it was wrong if they thought that doma was constitutional? so that -- shall we say, animus that jerry referenced and mark alluded to was something that

was definitely present in that debate. hopefully with this court decision, it is rejected from the debate and our country on the subject. i know my colleagues would be very eager to take any questions you may have. >> what does it mean for transgendered and bisexual couples to push in regards to lesbians and gays? >> i will take that. transgendered couples face a different set of challenges, frankly. in some states they've been able to get married because in some cases the sex of the birth certificate is recognized. in some states their current gender is recognized. sexual orientation and gender identity is two different things. some are straight, some are bisexual, some are gay. again, certainly those that is transgendered and also gay and recognize as a member of the gender of their current gender identity in states would be able to also have their marriages counted for federal purposes. there have been again some in

the past that have been allowed to marry because they are identified as a gendered that was on their birth certificate. >> one of the acts that was passed in congress that became the law of the land was the fully inclusive hate crime legislation. people said to us, why don't you take out transgender, and we can pass this bill easily? remember that, steny. we said, what would be our point? our purpose is to end hate crimes on the basis of iscrimination. so we recognize how important the whole lgbt classification is, but associate myself with the comments made by jared polis with this decision today. >> the impact that the doma decision might have for the thousands of gays serving in the military, particularly

getting them involved in the benefits system there? >> well, it simply means they, like any other american, any other gay or lesbian american, can get married now if they live in a state -- well, they can already if they live in a state which already recognizes it. from now on, the federal government, for all purposes will recognize their marriage, whether it's military, visitation rights in military hospitals or health benefits in the military, death benefits, anything will now -- going through the federal government will now go to them on an equal basis. >> congresswoman bachmann put out a statement and she essentially said that the decision today cannot undo god's word. how do you react to that? [laughter] >> well, let me respond this way. in the fullness of time, i firmly believe with every

conviction in my heart that every american will come to celebrate this decision. this decision was not imposed on the american people. it merely ratified what was already in the hearts of minds of the great majority of the american people. >> let me add to that, if i may. it's very important to understand that people can believe what they want. they can go to whatever church they want, what synagogue, what simple, mosque they want. we are not dealing with religious belief. we're dealing with what the state or the federal government does, and we have a separation of church and state in this country. so for government purposes you can be married. the church may not recognize this. it's their business. if you don't want to recognize it from a religious point of view, it's your business. no one is forcing anybody to get married. the point of the separation of -- when we deal with public business and the celebration of

marriage by the state, the recognition by the state of whose married is not a religious question. >> could you clarify the legal question of does this decision guarantee that same-sex couples married couples, if they are living in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, do they still qualify for federal benefits or is that something that your legislation -- >> my legislation would deal with that. the answer to that now is complicated. most of the statutes were not written with this in mind. they were written pre all of this. and some have language that would tend to lead to a result that says if you get married in a state -- if you get married in new york which recognizes same-sex marriage, which recognizes marriage equality, and you now live in a state which doesn't, some statutes would indicate that the federal government will recognize it for that purpose and some don't. to clarify it is one of the

purposes of the respect of marriage act. to say that the federal government will recognize a marriage no matter where you live, if it was legal when and where it was celebrated. if you got married in a state or foreign government for that matter, where it recognizes marriage equality, then no matter where you live, the federal government will recognize it. >> on the bipartisan legal advisory group. right. speaker boehner was the one that -- the republican leadership was the one that told them to defend doma. do you know the cost of how much that was? any details about what that -- >> well, it was not only a cost, it was a manner in which they spent the money. but to answer your question directly, $2.3 million of taxpayer money was wasted on this pursuit. and it's really unfortunate. what was interesting to note

was they kept talking about the bipartisan committee. but it wasn't bipartisan in the vote at all. it was 3-2, 3-2, 3-2. and that's why mr. nadler took the lead on the am cuss brief which we all joined in on. but it was $2.3 million. i would hope that the court decision would put at least that part of the doma to rest, as we try to undo the rest of it. we shall see. but $2.3 million. and it was done in a way that was not according to the regular order. but that's a whole other subject. maybe another day we'll go into the details of how they engage their contracting of this. today we want to absolute the court, celebrate the -- salute the court, celebrate the victory and extend our greatest gratitude to edie for her courage. there are other cases, we had

some in california, too, this was deemed to be the best case and clearly, clearly it was. so it's cause for celebration. now we're going to go try to deal with what happened yesterday in the court in terms of the voting rights act. so as i said, we were there together. a coalition of people who want to end description in our country, whether it was -- discrimination in our country, whether it was supporting the voting rights act or to overturn doma and proposition 8. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> shortly thereafter, republican study committee chairman steve scalise of louisiana, along with a group of house republicans, appeared before reporters to speak out against the supreme court's rulings today. their briefing is just over 20 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. we're here today to respond to the supreme court's ruling on the defense of marriage act and

proposition 8. we believe the court got it wrong on these rulings. the court's activist rulings on the defense of maveragee act ignored votes of a bipartisan majority of congress. this is a dangerous precedent which strips power away from congress with respect to defining national marriage policy. we must work to defend the rights of americans to make marriage policy. additionally, the proposition 8 ruling is a loss for the millions of americans who have gone to the ballot box to voice their support for marriage between one man and one won. -- woman. california's governor and attorney general who refused to defend the people's wishes abandoned the people of california. it is a loss for democratic self-government. with the supreme court denying them standing, they have left the people voiceless. while california's sigh lensed the voices of their citizens, the supreme court has not created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

38 states have affirmed the belief of their citizens that marriage exists between a man and a woman. we must work to defend the rights of americans to make marriage policy. we should work to promote the truth of marriage between a man and a woman. it is wise policy to uphold the reality that every child deserves a mom and a dad and society as a whole benefits when they do. and now we have some statements by some of our other members here. first we have steve scalise rom louisiana. >> it's a sad day when unelected judges turn their backs on the will of voters and elected -- their elected representatives who have made it clear that we want to continue to maintain the

tradition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. far from resolving this issue all that this ensures is that now the definition of marriage will be fought out in courtrooms by unelected judges as opposed to a state legislatures and here in congress where ultimately elected representatives in the state of unelect -- instead of unelected judges should be aking those decisions. unfortunately it creates a lot more chaos than we had before the doma law that was passed by a bipartisan coalition of ongress. >> i'm john fleming from louisiana. i'd just like to comment first on marriage itself. marriage is a fundamental building block of our civilization. it precedes this nation itself. it's the fiber that keeps our civilization so strong. and certainly it's the ideal model from which we raise children.

that is a marriage, bond between one man and one woman. with regards to the issues at hand, today's decisions, i agree, i think that the supreme court got it wrong. it's surprising that the supreme court in the case of obamacare, a bill that was passed purely on a partisan basis, unpopular, and somehow the supreme court had to make that constitutional. in the case of doma, the supreme court bent over backwards to find a way to make it unconstitutional even though it passed on a bipartisan basis. and has been very popular. the good part about doma that we find is that the 38 states that currently do not recognize anything but traditional marriage are not forced to recognize anything that they themselves do not do through their own laws deem to be appropriate marriages. so this is i think a good

starting point to work from here. thank you. >> i'm congressman joe pitts from the 16th congressional district of pennsylvania. i cannot disagree more with today's supreme court decision. congress was well within its rights to define marriage as it has been construed for thousands of years for federal purposes. doma did not dictate to states but now the supreme court wants to dictate to the american people what elected legislators can do regarding federal law. i want to personally thank speaker boehner for defending the house of representatives and the democratically passed law. the people of california voted in a fair and free referendum to protect traditional marriage. their rights were compromised when state officials abdicated their responsibility to represent the people. in both of these cases, the people acted through the democratic process to define

marriage as between one man and one woman and now see their decision invalidated by the court. the majority got it wrong in both cases. but they didn't take the even more radical step of redefining marriage for every state. i believe today's decision will have negative consequences for children who are best raised by a mom and a dad. we redefine marriage at the expense of strong families. the essential building block of our society. >> thank you. i am scott garrett there new jersey from new jersey. it's been a precedent throughout our nation's history that a court decision cannot decide moral questions for the american people. we must not forget that our constitution established a government of we the people. anlt people through their elected officials have the

final say on such matters. the court therefore obviously got it wrong in both cases. in prop 8 and in doma. in prop 8 the debate regarding the definition of marriage should not be in the hands of the courts. instead it should be returned where it rightly belongs, with the people. the institution of marriage should not be manipulated. either by the courts who are unelected, nor by elected officials who have failed to uphold their responsibility. in the doma case, court's failure inappropriately therefore leads to states dictating to the federal government on various policy and obviously in that case the courts got federalism wrong. regardless of the supreme court's ruling today, ultimately decisions such as these rest in the hands of the people and the debate over marriage policy will and should continue. i yield now to mr. walberg.

>> congressman tim walberg from michigan. in my state we have clearly defined marriagetop to be that relationship between a man and a woman. nowhere have we defined what a love relationship is. what a relationship is in any case. we have not said that those relationships can't continue. but we've said for the best interest of society itself and more importantly to make sure we understand that the desires of adults are not more important than the needs of children, we have defined marriage to be that relationship between a man and a woman for the best interest of those children. it's also for the best interest of society because without the designed building block, the designed building block of a marriage, a man and woman coming together, society itself . at risk and cannot continue

and so i believe that the bad decision, the wrong decision of the supreme court today on these two cases, taking away the authority and the right of the people, taking away the voice of the people will only continue the debate that goes on and it will probably be good for our country. as we look at what works and what is best for our children and goes away from just declaring our needs to be the most important, the most important thing, and saying, how can we do best for those that are counting on us for the future? i appreciate standing with my colleagues here today and i appreciate standing with our states who will debate this issue and decide this issue. and now it gives me a privilege to turn over to randy webber of texas -- weber of texas. ex cue me, doug la malfa has come in. 'll turn it over to you. doug, i'll turn it over to you. >> good afternoon.

well, besides the ideal that marriage has been debased by this decision and that the moral fiber of our country is affected greatly by this long-term, we have seen that this is going to mute the people's voice. as california legislator, i've lived in the state legislature as zean as well. now, as a federal legislator we see this happen today. one thing that comes back to my mind is when you're out there on the street and you're talk ing to people, campaigning, going door to door, things like this make the people's voice muted and people say, why should i even vote because a court's going to wipe away the decision i've made? so that takes away the faith people have even in the system. as well as when they see their elected officials like an attorney general in california that refused, because of politics, to defend what the people had done. not once but twice in california. prop 22 before and then prop 8 more recently. when politics enters into it

and they say, we're not going to defend what the people have to say, then we find out that they have no standing in court because no one will stand for them, they don't have the right legalities. their faith is eroded in the process. this is a very bad decision for families as well as the legal process and the voters, the people's faith in their government. so, where do we go from here? i don't know. i don't think it ends here because i believe that they won't be satisfied with this decision. they'll now want to go on and force their way into people's religious freedoms and see the churches may have to perform things that they're against in their institutions. and so i don't know where it does end but i do know it's a sad day for america. >> thank you. i'm rabiddy -- randy weber from texas 14 and i'm extremely disappointed in the supreme court's decision again. i might simply say that it

seems to me that they are in collusion, the supreme court appears to be in collusion with the president and his justice department when they decided to not defend doma, that they could selectively enforce whatever laws they felt like they wanted to. unfortunately it's been at the expense of children. marriage is the government's least restrictive way to provide a good upbringing for children. it's also going to be at the expense of the religious institutions. i believe that this is just one more attack on one of the deep abiding institutions of american society, you'll recall that president washington said, morality and religion were two of the pillars of -- the foundation of our country. and once again we see a supreme court that seems out of control, that will override voters' wishes as my colleague doug lamalfa said, and institute their policy in its place. it's a sad day in america. we need to decry the supreme court's decision. we need to make sure that we

stand up for the least protected amongst us, those children who statistics will tell you that have the best chance of growing up and being productive citizens in a normal family with a mother and a father. that's what's best for children. the supreme court has ignored the needs of children, they've ignored the wish, ignored the wishes of the american vote, and i will remain committed to fighting this decision to being a part of the discussion that will be ongoing and seeing the states' rights are upheld and we continue to promote this great american society that we have which is built on those true pillars and now i'm going to yield to my good friend from texas, congressman louie gohmert. >> thank you. i appreciate what you've done, putting this all together. it is a sad day. some may try to brand us hateful. this is not a hateful group. this is a group that has love

and compassion for our country. and when you know that the president -- now we know that he went to a debate with rick warren, a very informal one, and he abandoned what he had been saying previously about homosexual marriage and support for it. and said what he knew he needed to say in order to get elected and now after he has won a second term, and actually before he won the second term, after these years, he comes out and says something different. we have an attorney general who has come before our judiciary committee and lied. either lied to us or lied to the court. and now we have a decision today that includes -- it has to include further decision to stand a lie -- for their decision to stand a lie. page 22 of the windsor decision

, these five new holy quinn tets say -- quintets say the principle purpose is to prevent inequality not for other things like government efficiency. they know that's a life. they're very smart individuals. they know that's a lie. they know that wasn't the principle purpose. it was the great purpose you've heard my friends up here cite. i read the windsor decision first before i read the prop 8 decision. i was very disappointed with the intellectual dishonesty but i knew for the court to be consistent since they say that -- since they said that members of congress would basically have a standing to defend the law that they passed, which gave the supreme court the authority to strike it down, well at least on the prop 8 case they would have to say, those who pushed through this referendum, the people that

pushed it through and passed the referendum, the voters, they would have to have standing in order for the court to be intellectually honest and consistent. and they would have to say they have standing and they'd have to cite all these same provisions they did in windsor that says the state has total authority to decide what marriage is in that state. in essence. but then you read the prop 8 decision and you find they were intellectually dishonest and intellectually very inconsistent because they then struck down the party as having standing that actually passed the referendum. so, dishonesty, inconsistency and for them, i mean, i don't know what kind of cloistered walls this court has been behind for them to make the statement at the bottom of page 13, for others, however, came

the beginnings of a new perspective. a new insight. because they just said marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by people as essential. very definition that have term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. but apparently they've been very cloistered, they were not aware that the most wise men in history, solomon, said there's nothing new under the sun and this isn't new and it's been tried over and over and it's usually tried at the end of a great civilization. so just in closing, i would remind you of the document that allowed the united states to claim its independence and be free as recognized by england. the treaty of paris, 1783. and if you will look at that document, you will see big, bold letters at the very top because put yourself in the place of the americans. what would you make britain swear under that they would be

so afraid to go back on their word? what would you make them swear under, under that document that required england to recognize our independence? well, what our founders came up with were these words. in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. that's why it started that way and they did not believe that even the adversaries in war would have the nerve to go against that. what we now have today is a holy quintet who goes against the laws of nature and nature's god. and that's very unfortunate. >> i'm michele bachmann from the sixth district of minnesota and to these decisions are offensive on so many levels. but primarily because we are a nation of laws. not men. we're a nation that exists

under the concept of limited government. what the supreme court ruled today was on the basis of equal protection and yet one of the greatest ironies in this decision, they denied equal protection to every american in the united states. how did they do that? because they undercut the people's representatives when they voted on the defense of marriage act in the first place. the people were duly represented, they represented the will of their constituencies and the supreme court today undercut the equal protection of every person who elected their representative. they did it even more so, even more personally in the california case, where voters directly went to the polls and cast their vote. by the way, the same year that they voted to elect barack obama president they voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state

of california. but the supreme court denied the equal protection, the right of that vote to every californian. this is historic. because you see, what the supreme court is saying is they're asserting the supremacy of the court over all three branches of government. they're saying, we do not have three co-equal branches, the executive, the congress, the court. we have the supreme court. and so you have five individuals on a court. who have decided that it is their morality or immorality, their view of morality or immorality which must prevail. five people. is that a denial of equal protection? and now we have an effective ole -- oligarchy of five who decide what the most fundamental issues of our day? you see, we are becoming a nation that our founders would no longer recognize.

because as a nation that exists under the rule of law, as limited government, that means that we as a member of congress, we can't do anything we want, we are constrained by article one and specifically by article one, section eight. we are constrained. the executive is constrained by our constitution. and let this be a newsflash to the supreme court. they too are constrained by our constitution. though this decision belies the constitution. you see every time the supreme court meets it's then another constitutional convention. because they say it is. i believe that the people are more important than the supreme court. and i do believe that the people will have their sway. this decision is one that is profound. because the supreme court not only attacked our constitution

today, they not only attacked the equal protection rights of every citizen under our constitution, they attack something that they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever, the foundational unit of our society. which is marriage. that is something that god created. that is something that god will define. the supreme court, though they may think so, have not yet arisen to the level of god. and so we are here today, standing foursquare in support of our constitution. and for the institution of arriage. >> thank you, congresswoman hartzler. congressman tim huelskamp from the state of kansas. i apologize for walking in a little bit late. hopefully will not repeat things. one good thing out of the decision, the court did not declare there's a

constitutional right to same-sex marriage. much of the decisions were illogical. on one hand the state of kansas will be able to maintain its marriage amendment which i helped author a number of years ago. at the same time the voters in california, seven million voters have been overruled essentially by the court's ruling. but what i'm afraid that gets lost in this discussion is that a narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal preferences on marriage for the will of voters and their elected representives here in washington, d.c. and those who are hurt the most in my opinion are the children of america. because very clearly every child in america deserves a mom and a dad and with this attempt to redefine marriage, using the courts, because they failed in numerous other cases, i think those that will be hurt the most are our children. decades of research, centuries of human experience indicated that a stable marriage is the best thing to raise our

children. and i fear for their future. i will be working with my colleagues for a response to this. i think we have some options and again a very sad day for the children of america. >> thank you for being here today. this concludes our opportunity here to share with you today our thoughts. so thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> it's not a press conference if you don't take questions. no questions? one? >> house republican members reacting to today's supreme law ruling that a federal opposing gay marriage was unconstitutional. the court also included the way to have same-sex marriage in california. we'll show the reactions to you later beginning at 8:00 p.m.

eastern with wrarks remarks from supporters and opponents of the decisions. we'll also take your live phone calls and bring you the two oral arguments that were argued before the high court earlier this year. it's all tonight here on c-span. and lots of reaction to the decision from members of congress as well as president obama. he said -- >> a busy week for president obama as he begins a week-long trip to africa. he arrived there earlier today. tomorrow he'll meet with the

president of senegal before traveling to south africa on friday. saturday he speaks to students at a town hall meeting at the university of johan he isberg before delivering remarks the next day at the university of cape town. on monday he visits tanzania before visiting a power plant on tuesday. and finally the president returns to washington next wednesday, a week after his travels began. >> this sunday, american history tv on c-span3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> this is one of the very few confederate regmental monuments in the field. the exceptional thing about this monument is the unit that it represents. this regiment comes into the battle with just over 800 men. they had not been in many serious, hard fighting engagements yet so they had not taken many casualties yet but they will fight on the side of this hill here, the afternoon

of july 1. two days later, the afternoon of july 3, they're in the middle of what we today call the biggest charge. these north carolina troops attacking the virginians and others who participated in that attack. the next day, july 4, when they assembled these units together, the 26 north carolina regiment having gone into the battle at the start with just over 800 men, can only assemble about 100 men still surviving, still capable of fighting. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage sunday beginning at 9:30 eastern. historians throughout the day including --

>> on capitol hill earlier today, the house oversight and government reform committee held a hearing on the internal revenue service's contracting practices. this portion focuses on the process allowing for veterans to be eligible for veterans-based contracts. here's a look. >> i'm not well but you're welcome. >> you're still hurt? your left foot? >> yes, ma'am. >> my feet hurt, too. in fact, both of my feet burn continuously and i feel like there's a nail being hammered into my right heel right now. i can understand pain and suffering and how it can cause long-term, unyielding, unstoppable pain. so i'm sorry that twist in your angelina until high school has

now come back to hurt you in such a painful way. it's also an opportunity for you to gain the status for your business as you were trying to compete for contracts. but i also understand why something can take years to manifest themselves from when you hurt them. in fact, i have a deer, deer friend -- dear, dear friend who sprayed agent orange who it took 40 years, 40 years for the leukemia to actually manifest itself and he died six months later. so i can see how military service, while at the time you seem very healthy, could 40 years later result in devastating injuries. can you tell me if you hurt your left foot again during your football career subsequently to twisting it in high school? >> ma'am, i don't understand the high school comment. >> posthigh school. ok. prep school. before college. prep school.

did you injure your left foot again after prep school? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> you played football in college, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> as a quarterback. >> yes, ma'am. >> did you hurt -- did you injure that same foot again subsequently in the year since you twisted in it in prep school? >> not to my recollection. >> ok. why didn't you, mr. castillo, tell the v.a. that your doctor's note to them was inaccurate when you knew that it was? >> i don't feel that it's inaccurate, ma'am. >> ok. >> would you like me to address that? >> yes, go ahead. >> yes, ma'am. so, my -- one of my doctors that submitted letters as part of the injury, you have to establishes that chronic and reoccurring. so when i returned home to san diego, my doctor from san diego had also returned -- had said that he treat med for the injury that i suffered on

active duty. when i moved to las vegas a couple years later, that doctor submitted that he continued to treat me for that left broken foot injury. finally when i moved to virginia, i went to a doctor and it continued to hurt and he established that, dr. sam wilson, who was also stationed. >> i'm running out of time. >> i just -- so let me finish. in talking to dr. wilson, who himself is a disabled veteran, and very familiar with the fort, his son had went there as well and played football, he was the one that talked to me about, hey, this may be something that is connected and i believe i told him -- >> i have to cut you off. i have to cut you off. this is not an argument. i'm talking. i'm up here. do you view that the 30% rating that you have for the scars and the pain in your foot is accurate to the sacrifices that you've made for this nation?

that the v.a. decision is accurate in your case? >> yes, ma'am, i do. >> my right arm was essentially blown off and reattached. i spent a year with over a dozen surgeries in that time period. and in fact i'm still in danger of possibly losing my arm. i can't feel it. i can't feel my three fingers. my disability rating for that arm is 20%. in your letter to a government official, i think it's the s.b.a., attention jena mood, you said, my family and i have made considerable sacrifices for our country. my service connected disabblets status should serve as a testimony to that end. i can't play with my kids because i can't walk without pain. i take twice daily pain medication so i can work a normal day's work. these are crosses, these are crosses that i bear due to my

service to our great country and i would do it again to protect this great country. i'm so glad that you would be willing to play football in prep school again to protect this great country. shame on you, mr. castillo. you may not have broken any laws. we're not sure yet. you did misrepresent to the s.b. a. but you certainly broke the trust of this great nation. you broke the trust of veterans. iraq and afghanistan veterans right now are waiting an average of 237 days for an initial disability rating and it is because people like you, who are gaming the system, are adding to that backlog so that young men and women who are suffering from posttraumatic stress, who are missing limbs, cannot get the compensation and help that they need. the pain that you played on that foot through college, i recovered with a young man, a navy corpsman, who while he was running into an ambush, where his marines were hurt, had his leg knocked off.

with an r.p.g. he put a turn kit on himself and crawled forward. he is who played through the pain, mr. costello -- castillo. you did not. you described the status just today that other companies are using these special statuses as competitive weapons against you. you who never picked up a weapon in defense of this great nation very cynically took advantage of this system up. broke the faith with this nation. you broke the faith with the men and women who lie in hospitals right now at walter reed in about a they had da -- about a that's -- in walter reed, in about as they darks you broke the faith with them. if this nation stops funding veterans' health care and stops -- and calls into question why veterans don't have benefits, it's because of cases like you have poisoned the public's opinion on these programs. i hope that you think twice about the example that you're setting for your children. i hope that you think twice about what you are doing to the nation's veterans who are

willing to die to protect this nation. twisting your ankle in prep school is not defending or serving this nation, mr. castillo. mr. chairman, i'm sorry. you've been very indulgent. i yield back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> that was a portion of a hearing held earlier today. you can watch that entire event tonight beginning at 9:00 p.m. eastern. n c-span2. >> in some ways, had there not been a chairman, lincoln maybe would have been nominated but he wouldn't have won the election. he went on to defeat -- he won 56% of the popular vote. george mcclellan had a lot of momentum in september. he was writing letters to scherman and others as if he expected to become the president of the united states. and suddenly sherman took atlanta and for one week he didn't say a word. lincoln didn't say much. just smiled. and as he would say often of sherman, he went into one hole and i don't know where he is

now but he came up another hole. and all's good. it saved the union effort and i can't think of anybody in the time of george thomas even or sheridan who could have done that. >> on afterwards, military historian victor davis hanson talks about five generals that he says single-handedly reversed the direction of the war to their country's favor. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. throughout the day we've brought you reaction to the supreme court ruling that a federal law opposing gay marriage was unconstitutional. and tonight, more reaction from capitol hill as supporters, opponents and members of congress weigh in. we'll also take your live phone calls starting around 9:20 p.m. eastern. but right now, back to march 27, when the defense of marriage case was argued before the supreme court. it's an hour. >> i meant that we would take a

break. the continuing argument in the case on the merits. >> mr. chief justice. the issue of same-sex marriage certainly implicates profound and deeply held views on both sides of the issue. but the legal question on the merits toward this court is actually quite narrow. on the assumption that states have the constitutional option either to define marriage in traditional terms or to recognize same-sex marriages or to adopt a compromise on civil unions, does the federal government have the same flexibility or must the federal government simply borrow the terms in state law? i would submit the basic principles of federalism suggest that as long as the federal government defines those terms solely for purposes of federal law, that the federal government has a choice to adopt the constitutionally permissible definition or to borrow the terms of the statute.

>> [inaudible] -- for the state decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government -- [inaudible] then to come in and say -- [inaudible] no marriage adjustment, no social security benefits. your spouse is very sick but you can't get leave. [inaudible] one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this? >> and i think the answer to that would be to say that that's a marriage under state law and i think this court's cases, when it talks about the fundamental right of marriage, i take it to be talking about the state law status of marriage and the question of what does that mean for purposes of federal law has always been understood to be a different matter. and that's been true certainly in a number of situations under a number of statutes so it's simply not the case that as

long as you're married under state law, you're absolutely going to be -- >> [inaudible] same thing? federal notion of divorce and it doesn't relate to the state's attributes? >> we've never had that, your honor and i think there is a difference when it comes to divorce. with divorce uniquely, could have the possibility that somebody's married to two different people for the purpose of state law and federal laufment with the basic question of, even whether to recognize the marriage or probably the best way to put it is just whether the federal law treats you as married for a particular purpose or not, there always have been differences between the federal law treatment and the state law treatment, the federal treatment, for example, recognizes common law marriages in all states whereas a lot of states don't recognize common law marriages but federal law recognizes that for some purposes. social security act, i think it's page four of our brief. and -- >> only if the state recognizes it. >> i don't think that's true for purposes of -- > there's a federal law common

definition? >> i think that's my understanding -- i thought it was reversed. that if the state law recognized it, then the federal law would. >> the federal law recognizes it in the social security context, even if it doesn't. and there are situations, immigration context, tax consequences, for tax consequences, if you get a divorce every december, you know, for tax consequences, the state may well recognize that divorce. the federal government has long said, look, we're not going to allow you to get a divorce every december just to get remarried in january so you have a filing stat us that works for you that's more favorable to you. so the federal government has always treated this somewhat distinctly. it always has its own efforts and i think for purposes of the federalism issue, it really matters that all doma does is take this term where it appears in federal and define it for purposes of federal law. it would be a different case if congress had in 1996 decided to try to stop states from defining marriage in a

particular way or dictate how they would decide it. >> -- that applies to over what, 1,100 federal laws i think we were saying. i think there's quite a bit to your argument that if the tax deduction case which is specific, if congress has the power it can exercise it for the reason that it wants. but when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state-based power which is to regulate marriage and divorce, custody. >> two points. first of all, the very fact that there are 1,100 provisions of federal law that define the terms marriage and spouse, goes

a long way to showing that federal law has not just stayed completely out of these issues. it's gotten involved in them in a variety of contexts where there's an independent federal power that supported that. now, the second thing is the fact that doma affects all 1,100 statutes at once is not really a sign of irrationality. it's a sign that what it is and all it has ever been purported to be is a definitional provision. what it does is it defines the term, wherever it appears, in federal law in a consistent way. that that was part and parcel of what congress was trying to accomplish with doma in 1996. >> but it's not really uniformity because it regulates only one aspect of marriage. it doesn't regulate all of marriage. >> that's true. but i don't think that's a mark against it for federalism purposes. it addressed a particular issue at point -- remember, in 1996, congress is addressing this issue because they are thinking that the state through its

judicial action is about to change the definition of marriage from the way that it had been defined in every jurisdiction in the united states. and what that meant is that when congress passed every one of the statutes affected by doma's definition, the congress passing that statute had in mind the traditional definition. so congress in 1996 at that point so congress said, the states are about to experiment with changing this, but all those were passed with this definition in mind. it has to be rational then for congress to say, we're going to reaffirm how this is meant for purposes of federal law. >> especially look at the estate tax provision which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. what was the purpose of that? was the purpose of that to foster traditional --

traditional marriage or was congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit? >> i think for these purposes actually, to go back to the beginning of the estate tax, congress was trying to provide uniform treatment of taxpayers. if you look at the brief that senator hatch and others filed they discussed the history. what was happening in 1948 when this was put into federal law, you had community property states and common law states. and actually there was much more favorable tax treatment if you were in a community law state than a common law state. congress didn't to have an artificial incentive for states to move from common law to community property. so they said we'll give a uniform federal deduction based on marriage. i think what that shows, when the federal government gets

involved in a the issue of marriage, it has a particularly treating est in people the same across state lines. this argument is -- her argument is about two new york couples, but it's rational to say we want to treat the same-sex cup until new york the same as that in oklahoma. >> but that's begging the question because you're treating the married couples differently. you're saying that new york's married couples are different than nebraska's. >> but the important -- there is a difference. the only way they're different is because of the way state law treats them. just to be clear, what this case is about and how short of anomalous this treatment, the

differential treatment of two states is, this is not based on a marriage license issued directly after the state of new york after 2011 when new york recognized same-sex marriage. this is the status of ms. windsor as married depends on new york's recognition of an ontario marriage certificate. >> say congress passes a law and says there are some states, they use 18 as the age of consent. some go to 17, if you're 17 when you get married, no tax deduction, no medical, no nothing. or some states had a residence requirement of a year, some have six months, some have four months, congress passes a law and says, unless you're there for a year new york medical deduction, no tax thing, no benefits of any kind. that would be perfectly constitutional, wouldn't be arbitrary, wouldn't be random, wouldn't be capricious.

>> i guess i would say two things, the first question is, what's the relevant level of scrutiny and i assume -- >> bottom line. the bottom line here is i can make them up all day. differences between states have nothing to do with anything. residence requirements, we have medical exam, we could make them up all day, how old you are, and congress passes a law and takes 0% of the people married in the united states and says no tax deductions, no this, no that, no medical benefits, none of these goods things for about 20% or 30% of all of them. can they do that? >> again, i think the right way to analyze it would be, is there any distinction drawn that shows the level of scrutiny implicated. if the level of scrutiny is on a rational basis -- >> i'm trying to think of examples but i can't imagine what it is. >> i think the uniform treatment of individuals -- >> so you're saying uniform

treatment is good enough no matter how odd it is, no matter how irrational, there's nothing but uniformity, we can take the -- you see where i'm going? >> i see exactly where you're going. obviously every one of those cases would have to be decided on its own. but i do think there's a powerful interest in treating -- >> but the first part, every one of those cases has to be decided on its own. ok. now what's special or on its own that distinguished and thus makes rational or whatever basis you're going to have here, treating the gay marriage differently? >> well, again, if we're coming at this from the premise that the states have the option to choose and then we come at this from the perspective that congress is passing this not in the past, they're passing it in 1996. what they're confronting in 1996 is that one state through

its judiciary will adopt same sex marriage and then by operation of the full faith and credit law that will apply to any cup that will wants to go there and the state is thinking about doing this, it's a nice place to go and get married, congress is worried people will go there, go back to home jurisdictions and insist on recognition of their same sex nargee hawaii and the federal government will borrow that definition and then by the operation of one state's judiciary, same-sex marriage will be recognized throughout the country. congress says, let's take a time out here. this is a redefinition of an age-old institution, let's take a more cautious approach where every sovereign gets to do this for themselves. section two of doe ma says that we're going -- of doma says that -- >> well what is the federal government -- what gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is?

sort of going in a circle, you're say, we can create this special category, men and women, because the states have an interest in traditional marriage that they're trying to protect. how do you get the federal government to have the right to create categories of that type based on an interest that's not there, based on an interest that belongs to the states? >> at least two responses to that, justice sotomayor. e is that one inference that supports the federal aply decision of this term is whatever underlies the statute that's affected. >> so they can create a class they don't like, here, homosexuals or a class that the consider a subset of marriage category and create

that class and decide benefits on that basis? when they themselveses have no interest in the actual institution of marriage as marriage. the states control that. >> just to clarify, i'm not suggesting that the federal government has any special authority to recognize traditional marriage system of if the assumption is that nobody can do it if the states can't do it either, the federal government can't do it. the federal government -- > i assume the states can. >> the federal government has two sets of authorities that it is sort of a legitimate interest to wade into this debate. one is whatever authority underlies the statute. the second and complementry authority, the federal government recognizes that it's a big player in the world and has a lot of programs that might give states incentives to change the rules one way or another. one way to stay out of the

debate and let the states develop this and let the democratic process deal with this is to say, look, we're going to stick with what we always had, traditional definition. we're not going to create a regime that gives people an incentive and points to federal law is one reason to have same-sex marriage -- >> i'm saying -- i hadn't thought of the relation between section two and section three in the way you said section two was in order to help the states. congress wanted to help the states. but section three, the congress doesn't help the states which have come to the conclusion that gay marriage is lawful system of that's inconsistent. >> they treat them -- we say, they are preserving, helping the state in the sense of having each sovereign make this decision >> we're helping the states, if they do what we want them to. which is not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage and questions of

rights of children to the state. >> with respect, wrussties kennedy, that's not right no state loses benefits by recognizes same sex marriage. things stay the same. but they don't open up an additional class of beneficiaries under their state law that get additional federal benefits. ut things stay the same. >> they have every aspect of ife, your partner is sick, social security, it's pervasive, it's not as though there's this little thing here it's only a tax question. as justice kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, affect every area of life system of you're really diminishing what the states have said is marriage. you're saying no, states said two kinds of marriage. full marriage and then the sort

other marriage. >> that's not what the federal government is saying. the federal government is saying within its own rem in federal policies where we assume the federal government has the authority to define the terms that appear in their own statutes, that in those areas they are going to have their own definition. >> for the most part, and historically, the only uniformity the federal government has pursued is that it uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the states. so this was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing. and it suggests that it may be something -- maybe congress has something different in mind than union tomorrowity. so we have a whole -- than uniformity. so we have a whole series of cases, when congress targets a group that's not everybody's favorite group in the world, we

look at those cases with some, even if they're in the suspect, with some rigor, to say do, we really think that congress was doing this for uniformity reasons? or do we think that congress is -- congress' judgment was affected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth. i guess the question that this statute raises this statute that does something that's really never been done before, is whether that sends up a pretty good red flag that that's what was going on. >> a couple of responses, justice kay began. first of all, i take issue with the premise, fers of all that this is such an unusual federal involvement on an issue like marriage. look at historically, not only has the federal government defined marriage for its own purposes distidgetly in the context in particular programs, it's also intervened in other areas, including state prerogatives, there's a reason that four state constitutions

include a prohibition, because the federal congress insisted on them. there's a reason that in the wake of the civil war congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaved who fought for the union or do it -- in order to do it had to create state law marriages. in the confederacy, the slaves couldn't get married so they developed their own federal sort of condition to define who is married under those laws. where there have been needs in the past to get involved, the federal government has gotten involve. the other point i would make, but i want to get around to the animus point, but the other point i would make is when you look at congress doing something that is unusual, that deafuates from the way they've proceeded in the past, you have to ask, was there good reason? and in a sense, you have to understand that 1996, something is happening that is in a sense forcing congress to choose between its historic practice

of deferring to the state and its historic practice of preferring uniformity. until 1996, they have it both ways. all the states have the traditional definition. >> is what happened in 1996, and i'm going to quote from the house report here, it says, congress decided to reflect in honor of collect i moral judgment and express moral disapproval of homo sexuality is that what happened in 1996. >> does the house report say that? of course the house report says that and if that's enough to invalidate the statute then you should invalidate the statute but that's never been your approach. this court, it suggests we're not going to strike down the statute because a couple of legislators had an improper motive. we look, is there any rational basis for the statute. the house report says some

things that we've never envoked in trying to defend the statute but the house report says other things like congress was trying to promote democratic self-governance and in a situation where a unelected state jew dish ware in hawaii is on the verge of deciding this highly contentious issue for everybody, for the other states and the federal government, it makes sense. >> your statute applies also to states where voters have decided. >> that's true. but again, i don't know that that fact alone makes iter rational, i suppose that could be -- >> just to be clear, i think your answer is fair, we've switched from federal power to rationality. there is a difference. we're talking, i think we're assuming now that there's federal power and asking about the degree of scrutiny that applies to it. or are we going become to whether there's a federal pow her they're intertwined. >> i think there is clearly a

federal power but there's no definition, but we assume there's federal power and if there's not federal power that's a problem independent of doma but not a doma problem. >> i think it is a doma question. the question is whether or not the federal government under our federalist scheme has the authority to regulate marriage. >> and it doesn't have the authority to regulate marriages as such but that's not what doma does. doma defines a term as it appears in federal statutes and with they provide burdens, provide disclosure obligations. it appears in lots of places. >> congress could have achieved exactly what it achieved under section 3 by excising the term married from the united states code and replacing it with something more neutral, could have said certified domestic units and then defined this in

exactly the way that section 3, exactly the way doma defines marriage. would that make a difference in that instance, the federal government wouldn't be purporting to say who is married and who is not married, it would be say who is entitled to various federal benefits and burdens based on a federal definition? >> that would make no difference, justice ali to. -- alito. but when the federal government is defining this code it is not regulating marriage as such and it is important to recognize that people that are married in their state based on either the legislative act or by judicial recognition remain married for purposes of state law. >> the authority started by, i think agreeing, maybe not, that uniformity in and of itself was nothing else -- with nothing else is not likely to prove sufficient at least if it's rational basis plus.

why? because we can think of weird categories that are uniform. so far what i've heard is, well, looking at it on the merits, there's a lot of harm, on the plus side what there is is, one, we don't want courts deciding this. but of course as just pointed out, in some states it's not court, it's the voters. and you say, oh, but we want, too many courts deciding it. now is too many courts might decide it. what else is there? i want to be able to have a list, you know, really specific things that you are saying justify this particular effort to achieve uniformity. i want to be sure i'm not missing any. so far i've got those two i mentioned, what else. >> i didn't understand the courts were so central to your question, i thought you didn't

want the voters in one state to dictate to other states any more than you would want the cors in one state to dictate to other states. >> i think that's true, justice scalia. but the -- >> the courts do dictate in respect to time, they do dictate in respect to age, in respect to all kinds of things. what i'm looking for is what in your opinion is special about this homosexual marriage that would justify this other than this kind of pure uniformity, if there is such a thing. >> let me just get on record that, take issue with on of the premises of this, which is where somehow rational basis plus lands. i would suggest strongly that three levels of scrutiny are enough. if you're thinking about the justifications that defend this statute that justify this statute, it's uniformity but -- not just that congress

they didn't say, we need a uniform term, let's pick something out of the air. was the ed a term that efinition everybody used and it was as they correctly predicted a judicial decision. and they're thinking about an individual this couple goes to ontario get a marriage certificate a couple from oklahoma could have gone and gotten a marriage certificate the same day and gone back to oklahoma and from the federal law perspective, there is a rational basis in treating those two couples the same way. i reserve my time. >> thank you, mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, hay it please the court, the equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two points, first, what does section three do and second, to whom does section three do it.

what it does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. that means the spouse of a soldier killed in line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notify eags of next of kin. >> but congress could go the other way, congress could pass a new law today that says we will give federal benefits, when you say marriage in federal law, we mean committed same-sex couples as well, and that could fly across -- apply across the board or they couldn't do that? >> that wouldn't raise the same equal protection problem like this does. >> you don't think it would raise a federalism problem either, to you? >> i don't think it would raise a federalism problem but the key for our purposes is that in addition to denying these fundamental -- fundamentally important benefits is who they're being denied to. >> so you don't think there's a

federalism problem with what congress has done in doma. >> no, we don't. the question is the constitutionality of equal protection purposes and because it's unconstitutional and embedded into numerous federal statutes, those statutes will have an unconstitutional effect but it's the equal protection violation from the perspective of the united states. >> you think congress can use its powers to supersede the traditional authority and provide states the ability to regulate marriage in all respects, to have a uniform definition of marriage that includes age, and other -- >> i'm not saying that, your honor. i think if congress passed such a statute we'd have to consider how to defend it. >> then there is a federalism interest at stake here. but you've told the chief justice there was not. >> with respect to section 3 of doma, the pob is an equal protection problem. >> but surely the question of what the federal interests are

and whether those federal interests should take account of the state prerogatives in this area is relevant to the equal protection inquiry? >> it's central for the enquirry, swrussties kay began, i completely agree -- kagen, i agree. >> what section three does is impose this exclusion from federal benefits on a class that has undenyably been subject to a history of terrible discrimination on the bay sess -- >> i understand that. that's your equal protection argument but it's not responsive to my concern that i'm trying to get an answer to. you don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this. >> the equal protection question would be different in the other circumstance. >> i know the equal protection argument but do federalism concerns come into play the following way, mr. clement made the argument that whatever states can do in terms of

recognizing marriage or not recognizing marriage, the federal government has commensurate authority to do or not do. we don't think that's right as a matter of our equal protection analysis because we don't think the federal government should be thought of as the 51st state. as we told the court yesterday, we believe heightened scrutiny ought to apply even to state decisions. >> you're insisting we get to the very fundamental question about equal protection, we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with. what we're asking is, is it valid otherwise? what is the federal interest in enacting this statute and is it a valid federal interest, assuming, before we get to the equal protection act. >> we think whatever the outer bounds of the federal government's authority and there are outer bounds, would be apart from the equal protection violation, we don't think section three apart from equal protectionage sess raises a federalism problem.

but we do think the federalism analysis does play into the equal protection analysis because the federal government is not the 51st state for urposes of the interest that mr. clement has identified. >> let's go become to the exaverple you began with, where a member of the military is injured. let's say three soldiers are injured and they're all in same-sex relationships and in each instance, the other partner in this relationship wants to visit the soldier in a hospital. first is a spouse in a state that allows same-sex marriage. the second a domestic partner in a state that allows that but not same-sex marriage. the third is in an equally committed loving relationship in a state that doesn't allow either. your argument is that under federal law, the first would be admitted, should be admitted but the other two would be kept

out. >> the question in the case, justice alito, is whether congress has a sufficiently persuasive justification for the exclusion it has impoised -- imposed and it does not. the only way the arguments for the constitutionality of this statute have any prospect of being upheld is if the court adopts the minimal rationality standard. >> take you back to the pample, your position seems to be yes, one gets in, two stay out, even though your legal arguments would lead to the conclusion that they all should be treated the same. >> but the question before the court is whether the exclusion doma imposes violates equal protection and it does because you can't treat this as though it were a december tings between an optometrist and an ophthalmologist as the optical case did, this is a different situation because the discrimination is being visited on a group that historically has been subject to

discrimination. >> that's the same in the example he gave you, that discrimination would have been visit odd then same group and you say there it's ok. >> no i didn't say that. i said it would be subject to equal protection analysis certainly -- >> so you think that's bad as well. all three of those have to be treated the same despite state law? >> they have to be analyzed under equal protection principles but the situation in which the cup tl lawfully married for purposes of state law and the exclusion is the result of doma itself, the exclusion has to be justified under this court's equal protection analysis. >> i have a question. you think, i think from your brief yesterday and today, that on some level sexual orientation should be looked at as a standard of scrutiny, heightened in some way. going back to the chief's question about a law that was

passed recognizing common-law retrosexual, homosexual marriages. i think under your theory, that might be suspect because that law might be suspect under equal protection because once we say sexual orientation is suspect, it would be suspect whether it's homosexual or heterosexual. the law favors homosexuals it would be suspect because it's paced with on sexual orientation. >> you would have to impose the heightened scrutiny. >> exactly. so in -- when we decided race was a suspect class, people who are not black had received strict scrutiny on whether the use of race as a class, whether they're white or black, is justified by a compelling -- >> that's certainly true. if i could turn to the interest i t flag has identified,

think you can see what the problem is here. now this statute is not called the federal uniform marriage benefits act. it's called the defense of marriage act. and the reason for that is because in statute tissue the statute is not directed at uniformity in the administration of federal benefits. there are two equally uniform system, a system of respecting the state choices, and the system of -- that flag is advocating here and what flag has to do in order to satisfy that scrutiny -- scrutiny is justify the choice between one or the other. the difference is that the section three choice is a choice that, section three choice is a choice that discriminates. simply a matter of saying uniformity is enough, section three discriminates. as soon as one state adopted same-sex marriage, the definition of marriage

throughout the federal code had to change because there's no doubt that up until that point, every time congress said marriage they understood they were acting under the traditional definition. >> i don't know, mr. chief justice, why you wouldn't assume what congress was doing when it enacted a statute, the cularly one that had ord marriage in it, that the normal rule that applies to cognizing the state marriage definition would apply. >> so you don't think congress had in mind same-sex marriage. >> no, not that they were making a specific choice as my friend suggested they were. whatever is the case when congress enacted doma, that choice of exclusion has to be justified under equal protection principles. and so the issue of uniformity just doesn't get you there because there's no uniformity

advantage to section three of doma as opposed to the traditional rule. at a basic level, administrative concerns ought not to be important enough interest to justify this kind of discrimination under the equal protection clause. but even if we look at them, there are no genuine administrative benefits that doma, anything, section three of doma makes the federal administration more difficult because now the federal government has to look behind valid state marriage licenses and see whether they are about state marriages that are out of compliance with doma, it's an additional administrative burden. there's no administrative advantage to be gained here by what congress sought to achieve and the fundamental reality of it is, i think the house report makes this glaringly clear, is that doma was not enacted for any purpose of uniformity,

administration, caution, any of that, it was enacted to exclude same-sex married, lawfully married couples from federal the t regimes based on conclusion that was driven by moral disapproval. it is quite clear, black and white in the personal injuries -- he house report, page 38 >> in view of the 84 senators who were in favor of this and the president who signed this acted out of animus? >> no, we quoted, and i think there's a lot of wisdom, there may not have been animus or hostility it may have been what was described as the simple want of careful reflection or enstinthive response to a class of people a group of people who we perceive as alien or other

but whatever the explanation, whether it's animus, whether it's that more subtle, more unthink, more reflective kind of discrimination, section three is discrimination. and i think it's time for the court to recognize that this discrimination, excluding lawfully married gay and lesbian couples from federal benefits, cannot be reconciled with our fundamental commitment to equal treatment around law. this is dis-- treatment under law. this is discrimination in its most basic aspect and the house report, certainly would not suggest that it was universally motivated by something other than good will. but the reality is that it was an expression of moral disapproval of exactly the kind that this court said in lawrence did not justify the law that was struck down. >> general, your bottom line is it's an equal protection

violation of the federal government that involves states as well? >> yes, your honor. we took the position that we took yesterday with respect to marriage -- >> is there any analysis you could make to limit this keas to the federal government? >> as we said yesterday, we think it's an open question with respect to state recognition of marriage and they may well be able to they may be ests able to advance interests that would satisfy heightened scrutiny and justify it but here the federal government is ot in the same position. as they concede, the federal government can act at the margins in influencing digs about marriage and child rearing at the state level and the second circumstance and first circuit both concluded there's no problem at all because section three doesn't make it any more likely that

unmarried men and women in states that -- unmarried men and women who confront an unplanned pregnancy are going to get married and the elimination of section three wouldn't make it any less likely that unmarried men and women aren't going to get married, it opportunity have any effect at all. there's no interest at all in doma. >> there's no interest, i'm back where we were yesterday. forgetting your preferable argument, it's a violation of equal protection everywhere. if it is, then all states have have something that, and if they have to have that, they all have to allow marriage. we're arguing, do they all have to have marriage and you say no. >> my point here, justice breyer, whatever the issue is, whatever the outcome is with respect to states and marriage, that the federal government's

interest in advancing those justifications through section 3 of doma is so attenuated that two federal courts of appeals have seen it as nonexistent and cannot justify section three. >> thank you, general. >> mr. chief jus tisd and court. buzz of doma thousands of people who are legally married under the laws of nine sovereign states and the district of columbia are being treated as unmarried by the federal government solely because they are gay. these couples are being treated as unmarried with respect to programs that affect famfi -- family stability such as the family leave act. these couples are being treated as unmarried for federal conflict of interest rules, election laws and anti-nepotism

and judicial recusal statutes. and my client was treated as unmarried when her spouse passed away so she had to take $363,000 in estate taxes on the property that they had accumulated during their 44 years together. >> could i ask you the same question i asked the solicitor general. do you think there would be a problem if congress went the other way, federalism problem, obviously you don't think there's an equal protection problem but a federalism issue, congress says we're going to recognize same-sex couples, committed same-sex couples even if the state doesn't for purposes of federal law? >> obviously with respect to marriage the federal government has used the state definition. i think, mr. chief justice, what you're proposing is that the federal government extend additional benefits to gay couples in states that don't allow marriage to equalize the system. >> i'm asking whether you think congress has the power to interfere with the -- to not adopt the state definition if

they're extending benefits? >> i think the definition under the equal protection clause is what this is. >> you're following the lead of the solicitor general in returning to the equal protection clause when i ask a federalism question. >> with the federal government -- >> if congress passed a law saying we're going to adopt a different definition of marriage than those states who don't recognize same sex marriage. we don't care with you do as a matter of state law, when it comes to federal benefits, same-sex marriage will be recognized. >> it has been argued in this case by others that whether or not that's an enumerated power of the froth. we think the federalism principle gos toward the novelty question. whether or not the federal government could have its own definition argument -- >> is your answer yes or no? is there a federalism problem

or isn't there? >> i think the federal government could extend benefits to fway couples to equalize things on a programmatic basis to make things more equal. whether they could have their own definition of marriage, it could be argued that's outside the enumerated law. >> all these statutes use the term marriage and they say when they include marriage it includes same-sex couples, would that -- >> i don't know if that would work. >> i don't care if it works. does it create the federalism problem? >> it's -- the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. >> it's just saying for purposes, just what it's doing here. it says for purposes of all these federal sta hewitts, when we say marriage, we mean -- instead of saying we mean heterosexual marriage, we mean

whenever we use it, heterosexual and homosexual marriage. if that's what it says -- can it do that? >> as long as people were validly married under state law -- >> no, no, no. that the sure what federal government could create a new federal marriage that would be some kind of marriage that states don't permit. >> the question i asked mr. clement, it just gets throifed word marriage, takes it out of the code completely, substitutes something else and defines it as same sex trks include same sex couples, can it do that? >> yes, that would not be paced on the state -- >> so it's just the word marriage and the fact that they use marriage. >> that's what the federal government has always chose ton do and that's the way the federal law has been structured for 200 years based on the state policy defining marriage. if the federal government changed that if it wanted and somehow it would be strange but

for certain programs, to have different requirements other than marriage and that would be constitutional or unconstitutional. >> estate -- state -- estate tax follows state law. wouldn't that create an equal protection problem similar to what exists here? suppose there were a dispute about the estate -- about the state of residence of your client and her partner, spouse. was it new york or some other state where same-sex marriage would not have been recognized. and suppose the state court said, the state of residence is the state where it's not recognized. would you not have essentially the same equal protection argument there that you have now. >> let me answer that question very clearly. our position is only with respect to the nine states and i think there are two others that recognize these marriages. so if my client is a new york -- in a new york couple married and moves to north carolina and

estate he spouses dies, tax is determined where a person dies, they wouldn't be qualified. with respect to residency, where people live or don't live, whether they're divorced or not, the federal government has always handled that and has never before and we believe this is why it's unconstitutional, separated out a class of married fway couples solely because they were gay. >> if i can follow up with one question, what is the hypothetical surviving spouse/partner in north carolina brought an equal protection case saying it is unconstitutional to treat me differently because i am a resident of north carolina rather than a resident of new york, would that be discrimination on the basis of

sexual orientation? and what would be the lev of scrutiny? >> that would be similar to the case you heard yesterday than the case we have today. we certainly blove that sexual orientation discrimination should get heightened scrutiny. it should be rational basis and the we would be what the state interests were in not allowing couples, for example, in north carolina, to get married. no one has identify -- >> no one has identified, and i don't think we heard it in the argument from my friend, any legitimate difference between married gay couples on one hand and straight married couples on the other that can possibly explain the sweeping, discrimination of doma. showed a -- i

will respectfully contend this is because there is none. rather as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this was rooted in moral disapproval -- >> what do you think -- the argument i heard was to put the other side at least one part of it, as i understand it, said look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there's been this uniform one man, one woman rule for several hundred years or whatever and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either dop the revolution or push it along a little or we stay out of it. i think mr. clement was saying, we've decided to stay out of it. if we stay out of it, go with the traditional marriage. that's an argument system of your answer to that argument is what? >> i think it's an encorrect

argument for this. >> i'd like to know the reason. >> congress did not stay out of it. section three of doma is not staying out of it. section three of doma is stopping a recognition of the -- by the federal government of couples already married buzz of their sexual orientation and what it's doing is undermining, as you see from the briefs of states like new york and others, the policy decisions made by stays that permitted gay couples to marry. states that have already resolved the cultural, political, moral, whatever conflicts in those states and by fencing those couples off, couples who are already married and treating them as unmarried for purposes of federal law you're not taking it one step at a time, you're not promoting caution, you're putting a stop button on it and you're having discrimination for the first time in our country's history against a class of married couples. >> the discrimination is not on

sexual orient eags but a class of marriage. >> it's a class of married couples who are gay. >> so i pose the same question eposed to the general to you. do you think there's a difference between that discrimination and the discrimination of states who say homosexuals can't get married? >> i think that they are different cases. i think when you have a couple who are already married you have to distinguish between those classes. the federal government doesn't give marriage licenses, the states do. whatever the issues would be in those states is what interest do the states here, as opposed to there is no interest the federal government has. there's little doubt why gay marriages were singled out. the answer can't be uniformity, it can't be cost savings

because you have to explain why he savings are being wrought by married couples or gi. questions in family law and parenting are doning by the states not the federal governmentful the only conclusion that could be drawn is what was in the house report which is moral disapproval of gay people, which the congress thought was permissible in 1996 because it relies on the decision that the court said was wrong not only at the time it was overruled but was wrong when it was decided. >> so i'll ask the same question, 84 senator based -- based their vote on moral disapproval of gay people? >> i think what's true is that times can blind. and that back in 1996, people did not have the understanding that they have today that there's no tesstings, there was no constitutional permissible distinction.

>> times can blind, does that mean they did not base the votes on moral disapproval. >> some clearly did. i think it was based on an understanding, an incorrect understanding that fway couples were fundamentally different than straight couples, an understanding that i don't think exists today and that's the sense i'm using that times can blind. we all understand that people have moved on this and understand that there's no distinction. i'm not saying it's animus or bigotry. >> why are you so confident in that judgment? how many states permit gay couples to marry? >> today, nine, your honor. >> and so there's been this sea change between now and 1996? >> i think with respect to the understanding of gay people and their relationships there has been a sea change, your honor. >> how many states have civil unions now? >> i believe it's -- that was

-- eight or never-before-seen. >> how many had it in 1996? >> much, much fewer at the time. i don't have that number justice ginsberg, i apologize. >> i suppose the sea change has a lot to do with the political force effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case? >> i disagree with that. i think the sea change has to do, just as was discussed before work an understanding that there's no difference, there's no fundamental difference that could justify this kind of categorical discrimination between gay couples -- >> you don't doubt that lobbyists supporting the enactment of same sex marriage in many states is politically powerful, do you? >> with respect to that, i would, your honor. >> really? >> yes. >> as far as i can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case. >> the fact of the matter is,

mr. chief justice, no other group in recent history has been subjected to popular renchda to take away rights already -- referendum to take away right already given. only two renchda have lost, one , and inle -- until 1990, fway people weren't allowed to enter this country. i don't think that the political tolerance of gay people today could possibly be seen within that framework and it certainly is analogous, gay people with weaker than women were. >> you referred to a sea change in people's understandings and values from 1996 until d -- when doma was enacted. i'm trying to see where that comes from if not the political effectiveness of groups on your side of the case. >> to flip the language of the house report, it comes from a

moral understanding today that gay people are no different and gay people's marriage relationships are no different than the relationships of straight couples. >> i'm trying to understand where that moral understanding came from if not the political effectiveness of particular groups. >> i think it came, it's very similar to what you saw between bowers and lawrence, enge it came to a societal understand. i don't think it came strictly through political power. i don't think that fway people . day have political power >> thank you, ms. kaplan. mr. clement you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. three points in rebuttal. fers of all, i was not surprised to see the solicitor general concede there's no unique federalism problem with doma because in the lit fwation in the first circuit of massachusetts, the 10th amendment, on that issue, the united states continued to

defend doma because there's no unique federalism problem with it as the chief justice's question suggested. if 10 years from now there are only nine states left and congress wants to adopt a uniform federal law solely for federal law purposes it is fully entitled to do that, it has the power to do that. i would say also that federal government has conceded in this litigation that there's a rational basis for the statute, something else to keep in mind. i would also say this provision is not so unique. >> mr. clement, there's a problem in your briefing. you seem to say that there's three tiers. if you get into rational basis, then it's anything gos. but the history of this court is, in the very first gender discrimination keas, the court did something it had never tone in the history of this country nder rational basis.

the court said this is wrong and it failed. >> there are many rational basis to support it. the solicitor general said the united states is not the 51st state but the federal government has interest in wrune formity that no other being has. if someone moves from new york to north carolina can lose their benefits this efederal government can say, that doesn't make sense, we're going to have the same rule, we don't want somebody if they're transferred in the military from west point to fort sill in oklahoma to resist the transfer because they're going to lose some benefits. it makes sense to have a uniform federal rule for the federal government. it's not so anomalous as the term marriage defined in the united states code. the very next part of the definition act defines child. these terms do appear in multiple federal statutes and it's a federal role to dephone those terms. the last point i would make is,

in thinking about animus think about the fact that congress asked the justice department three times about the constitutionality of the statute. that's not what you do when you're motivated by animus. the first two times they heard it was constitutional and asked a third time and were told it was constitutional the solicitor general would say it was because of careful reflection. generally kearful reflection comes from the democratic process, which requires people to persuade people. the reason there's been a sea change is a combination of political power, defined by the case that's getting the attention of lawmakers, that have -- they have that, but it's also persuasion. that's what the democratic process requires. to per swate -- persuade someone you're right. you don't label them as tivated by animus, you persuade them. it's going on across the country, colorado, maine,

seeing evidence of persistent discrimination because they voted town a state referendum thb, the next election cycle it came out the other way. >> thank you, counsel, the state is submitted. >> that case was argueden march 27 and earlier today the supreme court ruled the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. starting in about five minutes we'll bring you reaction to the decision from supporters, opponents and congressional members. we'll also take phone calls and comments around 9:20 p.m. eastern. but first, more about the decision from a reporter who overs the supreme court. >> what did the supreme court decide today? >> two decisions, one is proposition eight, a california ballot measure prohibiting same-sex marriage and the court

invalidated proposition eight which will have the effect of permitting same-sex marriages in california. in a second decision, the court in an opinion by justice kennedy struck down the federal defense of marriage act which is a law that prohibits same-sex couples from obtaining federal benefits. >> you're a regular watcher of the court. did anything in either of the two decisions surprise you? >> it did. a lot of the court reporters had come to the conclusion based on oral argument questions and prior jurisprudence that justice kennedy was likely to be the author of the opinion in defense of marriage, he's been sympathetic on gay rights issues before, 10 years ago today he wrote the opinion or issued the opinion in lawrence v. texas striking down that state's law against homosexual sodomy. and there's a dense that defense of marriage act would face very tough question as it did. there was also a consensus

among reporters that the court would find a narrow ground to strike down proposition eight limiting to it o, it to only california and use the legal ground of standing to do so. it was a little bit of a surprise that justice roberts was the author of the opinion. by and large it fell on expected fwrounds. >> what are some of the practical results of this? does this mean in california, for example, will the state start issuing marriage license for same-sex cup snls and in doma, does this kill the whole act? >> it does not kill the whole act, the challenge to the defense of marriage act was only to what is called section three which is the provision prohibiting same-sex couples from getting benefits. senator feinstein of california and others immediately said they would author legislation to strike down the entire law. in california, governor jerry brown and the attorney general said they have issued orders to

the 58 county clerks to immediately begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses but only upon the receipt of a particular legal proceeding from the ninth circuit court of appeals. technically what happened, a trial judge said proposition eight was invalid, the ninth circuit court of appeals put a stay on that, pending appeal and so now the ninth circuit court of appeals will have to lift that stay, let the injunction take effect and that could take up to 25 days. >> several substantive opinions over the last couple of days from the courts, in legislation that is important on the conservative side. the defense of marriage act. on the liberal side, the voting rights act. how do these seemingly two disparate opinions help shape or define the era of the roberts court? >> well the great thing about watching the roberts court is it's not entirely predictable.

contrary to what some pundits will say, justice roberts is not necessarily an ideologue and to the delight of people like myself, he is not entirely a predictable where he's going to duo. he was the author in the opinion yesterday striking down a key provision of the voting rights act, a conservative decision though one he telegraphed several years before. he was also, though, the author of the opinion today in effect striking down proposition eight as well. and the decision on monday involving affirmative action in university of texas, the court did not go nearly as far as some of the conservatives wanted, justices thomas and scalia would have struck down affirmative action altogether perhaps, instead the court took a fairly narrow approach and kicked it back to a lower appeals court. it's always more entertaining and frankly it seems to be a better form of justice when the

opinions are not utterly predictable. >> michael doyle covers the supreme court for mcclatchy newspapers across the country. thanks for >> coming up on c-span, reaction. democrats and republicans react to the rulings on capitol hill. later, we take your calls and comments on what you think about the court's decision. the supreme court wednesday struck down the federal provision denying benefits doj couples. the defense of marriage act 5-4.s -- the vote was the supreme court cleared the way for same-sex marriages in california. here is reaction