you get enough detail that you need for the story but there a only so much you can do on general assignment. there's an education factor that built in. this is where the public affairs officer comes in. in that translation to provide the historical context, contextde the technical and explain it to you as best as butan -- i'm not saying you everybody. but these are the important watch to understand as we thereandscape change, and is a lower factor of trust of working with reporters who don't necessarily have the background, or who don't have the time to do other than what they can quickly do on a google search. when i worked with the tim heelers of the world, i could

rust him to calm t -- call the scientist directly. when new reporters came in they ofn't have the understanding the environmental context and couldn't do that as well. o i needed to be that translator. over 32 years of my career i and d at federal level state level government and in the military. years -- i will get to that in a second. point. that additional what is basically happening is job and my job has do more of the that i -- tion facilitating. there to explain

the complex information and, more importantly, find the matter expert who can explain things to you. working in ntioned hives and it is true. a lot of our subject matter microfocused. the point about the 32 years, i worked at career with scientists, engineers and cops and none of them speak in language. so, they may be experts in their field, but they may not know lab, it is they do in the on the street, that affect as larger policy, or how something implemented outside of the lab. context that you are looking for. ecause most of the time a reporter doesn't want to know the gee whiz science in the lab, to know how this will

affect things in the real world. the other part of this is subject matter expert, government officials, are talk to thefraid to press. and it is not because of the possibly quences of getting in trouble but they heard reports and have seen of misquotes and heard that they took it out of context story wrong. balanced ctly well story comes out but it wasn't a , so that to them is a nightmare. they put down my program. no, they told a balanced side. him, he is y talk to on the opposition. that is your job, to give the story.nd balanced so, the government officials don't really recognize the fact story is as good as we are going to get.

and, again, that is our job. have to tell you as public affairs officers, believe it or not you may think we are the bad uys but we are normally advocating on your behalf internally. we are the ones who are officials they should talk to you. we are the ones who are helping matter he subject experts, the scientists, engineers, cops, comfortable and being able to get out get in front of a microphone or folks. and talk to ould it help to keep the subject matter experts focused? we follow up on the interviews you information that will add to your understanding of the story. ensure that when you walk out of the office or hang up the of the at the end "send" you have every bit of a ormation you need to write complete story. that is our goal.

another thing you are probably not going to leave, i come from d.o.d. background, i was active duty navy and in reserves years. but military public affairs folks are trained to the maximum disclosure, minimum delay. i have always worked under that and a lot of people do, not just that to hearttake in a lot of government agencies at federal, state and local levels. really want to get out as much information as they can of the minimum amount delay. come here do the delays in? before information can go out we have to make sure it doesn't violate one of four things. caveats. four one is -- and boundaries -- it security. we don't want to reveal information that will violate security. just for your understanding, security and damaging information are not necessarily same thing and carolyn and i

had a discussion about that with questions and is we should have probably brought that out into two separate damaging because information has nothing to do with security. damaging information, damaging reputation, has nothing to do whether you are damaging security. accuracy. we want to make sure what you are getting is absolutely correct. policy.rd is it also includes privacy. when i say, that the government nature of what we do has private a lot of information. we get business sensitive information from industry. we get personal identifying information from people who are applying for services. there are all sorts of things where those things come into play and it is government policy release the names of injured before their next of kin have been notified. then the final thing is propriety to make sure we are there insult being the

sensibilities of the public. those are the four things we look at when we screen information. meets those it criteria. that s the important step is happening behind the scenes. trust is you now again a mutual thing. we need to be able to trust each other. need to understand where we are and we need to understand where you are. i will ask you if we get to the advice thing and we will probably get to that later but i now don't hide your agenda. when you give us a call, tell us you are really writing. tells what the story is about. i had a reporter call up and ask a question about standards technology. ok. why did you want to know about the standards of x-ray technology? he really wasn't writing about that. about standards

in general and how they apply in an industry. that as an ng example. because in our interaction he told us what he was writing i him an enormous story on standards and how they are applied and how they are set instead of just microfocusing on he initial question, which was writing about the x-rays. so, tell us what you are really help g about and we can you better. and don't automaticably assume that the government is evil and stuff because that's not the case. a code of have ethics. trust but verify. but also not to violate the truth. just as well the government public affairs folks, believe it code of ethics a and that code of ethics from the national association of that ment communicate oors truth is inviolable and sacred and that providing public an essential civil service and that the citizent large and each

then has a right to equal, full, understandable and timely facts about their government. at the ell you now that federal, state, local, government levels public affairs take had to heart and strive to uphold the spirit of those ethics. thank you. thank you all. is there anything that was said side that you all department get a chance to include in your comments that you want to touch on? is there anything that you want to talk about in terms of starting about perhaps with a discussion -- it seems like you did a pretty thorough going over how media and public affairs officers interact. to here anything you want add in terms of, for example, core of the is the debate, which is the requirement in many agencies that officials only talk to reporters through office.ic affairs

>> two things. that there was some censorship or if thereng freedom and drawn.some line i will never excuse the bad poor ces of particularly public affairs officers. there are a lot of them out there. i don't excuse some of the poor work by reporters either. and i know none of you do either. going to have the reporter in the room when policy place.rations are taking no one would expect that. so, somewhere there's going to drawn as to when it is to be 't appropriate communicating with reporters. time, how much,

there are reasonable standards that, i think. but where they are on any a ticular issue will be matter of some negotiation. but i think that is clear. censorship when an officer is in the room, i think hat is probably a little bit hyperbolic for what a good press might be trying to do. think there are ways for professionals to do it the right way. i think we could do a lot better it theteaching how to do right way. i think we ought to be teaching it in an appropriate and respectful way so more information gets out. a reputation for really liking reporters, which i don't now if that is a good

reputation or not. but i have great relationships with reporters. respect gligent and what they have to do and i think there are good ways to work that way. as you were talking i was thinking to myself we should not such laudable public affairs people up here. we should have found some crappy ones so we could point to their ways because these guys do it right. tony, you said that reporters shouldn't be punished for going the press office. what about government employees? >> yes, they should be punished. >> whippings, beatings? >> right. here is the way i look at it. used to talk to our staff especially at treasury departme where john mentioned, a lot of staff, it or not, you don't

really, really, really don't want to talk to you. i'm trying to talk them into to you. they don't want to. reluctance a real and distrust of a lot of officials to talking to reporters. one thing. we are up in the corners of these rs to help officials understand that they can talk and you can trust this reporter and talk to him. is ok. and they just feel like they are going to be screwed, they are embarrassed. there is going to be a quote in the paper that's going to hurt them. of it? they get out what is good for them out of it? often i'm the abdicate for reporter. the second part is if you are to reporters all the time

time, you are known as the erson who talks to reporters all the time. and that is not necessarily reputation.our so, when there is the leak about that is maybenews t is damaging or whatever, where is the first place they look, the guy that talks to reports. >> or the last guy they tell because he's a blabber mouth. >> so it is not great for your reputation. i have some who didn't want to embarrassed that they couldn't talk to a reporter and their uld call me into room and they would say i'm going to call them become, could listen in.y talking to you were someone without someone listening but they wanted toebody there to help listen the conversation so that they could be helped

along in it. >> they want a witness to the fact that they didn't say what showed up in the paper. definitely people who don't want to talk to reporters. but then there are people who ight want to talk to reporters and so my question remains, do two agree with the rules on the books in the ppbg for pentagon forsay -- example if they talk to fficials outside of official channels should be subject to disciplinary action? > i think in the national security -- in national security is a es i think it different standard than in other agencies. a different standard because sometimes you know, aling with, you market sensitive information. book ing to have an open on market sensitive information. that -- i think that should

e subject to some form of discipline. i do think there are different standards and different on the level of information that you have, absolutely. want to add you anything? >> i was basically saying it epends on what's at stake and how damaging the information can be. and i'm talking damaging to national security. i would like to elaborate on a things.of it was said earlier a good reporter will go around the and that is assuming if you work through a p.a.o. and you have worked through channels and you are not a good reporter and i don't think that's the case. a good reporter is the ultimate quality of the he uracy and the balance of t final piece. hether you go through official channels or around them has nothing to do with whether or not you are a good reporter.

what it comes down to is how well you trust your source and ho you are looking at for the source. >> i would disagree with that, ecause i think that obviously good reporters work with public affairs people. ut if a reporter is stymied by a public affairs person a good reporter will go around that the n and try to find information in another which. don't you agree with that? >> but we expect that you are that. to do and that's not good reporter versus bad reporter. would be rter something who gets the no and walks away. what i'm saying is when you said -- or someone said a good the p.a.o.,s around that is not -- when necessary. >> that's a whole different type of thing. we really expect you are going that. to do but i see much less of the some stymying that you are referring to.

>> why would you go around the p.a.o. when they will do the work for you? >> exactly. i will use an example in the was first teria discovered in the chesapeake bay. it is one of these odd little can change its physical form and can do that and 24 different stages forms and do it at will. hat makes it a little bit of a scary thing. what happened was when it feels something or to do needs a nutrient like i need vegetables. get a craving. i have a sweet tooth. chemical e their composition and will release a hemical in the water which triggers fish to be -- to get sensitive. and those fish will release a that is the trigger chemical for the microbe. stuff but , weird

there little algae eater can eater. a flesh so we were winding up with hundreds of thousands of fish dead g up on the shore with nasty sores on them. the commercial fishermen in catching fish with big open sores that they couldn't sell. were in a panic about what the heck was going on with fish. ell the scientists that were working for the government were this unique by microbe that they actually forgot the fact that people were afraid. so when the initial interviews and initial stories started and the scientists were talking about this amazing microbe and all these amazing that it does, they didn't it into the context of what was happening. was happening fishermen were ingesting the microbe in

so it was scary and it took the public affairs folks to and get the t scientists on track and say get put led out of the lab and it in real world context. what does it mean to people? the fish.at can they catch this or does it become a disease. that is an example i wanted to give of how the p.a.o. can really make a big difference. thank you. i think that we've spent a good this table so i want to revisit you all. want to give you a chance, just throwing it out there to whoever wants to comment. you have heard a lot. rather than me throw a question starters i want to give you a chance if there's something you heard that you want to particularly address, go it. >> first of all, i agree with -- john, if tony and >> which john. if agree with you, john,

tony and john were the others we were dealing with i suspect we very few problems. but what the statistics of bear out aside from the bell curve is that more p.a.o.'s are he exhibit being the problems that we are dealing with. tony, that reporters for going ished around or not abiding by the rules. p.a.o.'s have rules for reporters, not just for staffers. disobey the rules, there are consequences. black-balling that happens to some reporters. we will a hierarchy of give the information or we will old conferences with these reporters, we will even sends out press releases to these news outlets and not these. there is definitely a punishment factor.

that's why i think so many reporters have been silent for because, well, if i make waves, if i protest this, there consequence.be a another thing that concerns me s this idea of so many government people being afraid or unwilling to talk to us. think that there has to be an understanding among government all the way from the top to the name public servant nd civil servant still means something. we're their bosses. they need to be trained to be ok us. talking to they would rather talk to one 100 people ely than are the local area who concerned about x subject and out, that aredata calling them or e-mailing them. i think the idea that there are so many government people that talk to us, you talk to

your boss. it is just given. there is no organization where oh, i can't goes tell the boss what i'm doing. he scares me or she scares me. so, i think there needs to be a toining of government people some basic level, say, because government, the there's an expectation that you may need to talk to the public, public in the he form of a reporter or the public q citizens who calls or e-mails, that's what folks.ve to do, >> i think that one very basic hing that is not being addressed is the fact that on a frequent, on a very almost routine basis, when we away from theople "surveillance" the story is very and things come out,

sometimes massive critical things, that are not going to is out when the person agency.watched" by their they are in effect being watched y their bosses and the entire political administration. for time immemorial that is how come out and it is almost a routine fact of life. surveillance stops that from coming out. also, the thing about not reporters, thatn is kind of a distinction without a difference. if you stop everybody in the gency from talking without the surveillance, then you have stopped that communication. is one of the most extraordinary and serious things situationappen in any

or society. remind you nt to that almost 40% of p.a.o.'s said they do punish reporters don't te stories they like and prohibit the staff from talking to them. not something that is not happening. it is happening quite a bit. that is almost half. that is a lot. are wo-thirds of p.a.o.'s monitor i monitoring interviews. not an insignificant problem. >> if i could add on that, i wrong when i d it said it. i was not saying that rules on don't happen. said they ought not happen. my rules are for -- i don't control reporters. for other people. they don't work for me. -- except for sort of

standard, you know, rules in a press conference, right? and normal sourcing rules that to, agree on a sourcing, then we hold each other to that sourcing. and i think those rules are sort of mutually binding and beneficial. accompanying e you can to reporters, call them surveillance or my view it ought to be 100%, not 40%. i don't see it as a bad thing and i don't see it as ecessarily chilling of information. there seems to be a presumption if a reporter , is asking a question they are information ll the that an official has to give, and that is an extraordinary presumption

presumption, that all of the information is open to reporters. not -- that's never been a tradition of government at all. here is going to be some judgment involved and some appropriate s not for dissemination at the moment happens to be asking the question. nefarious, that is not censorship. or ais not anti-democratic violation of any of the amendments of the constitution. just a matter of common ense in the middle of a deliberative discussion or ometimes an official doesn't actually know whether it is appropriate to divulge some be rmation because it may actually illegal for him to divulge certain information if national security issue. is the presumption that it s

a n any time a reporter asks question is an extraordinary presumption. > do you think the presence of public affairs officer in an interview would lead someone to potentially varnish what they or not say something that is critical to get out there? have any effect? >> absolutely, it can have some impact. > by the way, you did not misspeak. you said that you did not think retributionhould be for reporters. you didn't say it doesn't happen. heard you and you said it right. >> i was going to say more often p.a.o. in aving the the room ensures that some information does get out. officialsmetimes when are speaking they will go off on a tangent or kind to stick to point and never get around to completely answering the question. times than not you will see

folks saying you forgot to mention this and don't forget that. the other part that tony was about where sometimes the information is not releasable and into is really a crisis uring situation where you don't know how many people are injured or ou don't know the cause of things and most of the time when there is some sort of crisis questions that come out from the reporters are the incident in hand and more about who is to blame for this. and we don't know that and we not going to know that and we are not going to point speculate. that is a critical thing, and i think if we keep in mind when i things that i e would like to advise reporters your agenda and don't assume we are hiding something, us to o don't ask speculate because we are only going to be able to give you facts. you want to make any

additional points. particularly i would like you to point they are making that they can't just allow any government official to at any time and control, in eed to the interests of accuracy who talks. that is legitimate? >> i think it is painted with too broad a brush. generally, the government is extremely or -- on the side of caution. so, many government officials who would be just fine talking give us information -- and we are not talking sensitive about subjects or a crisis. we are talking about the day-in workings of government. isy of them, like i said, it sort of in case and it does have shutting the

conversation down or shutting the understanding and the down because you are too much worried about what if. >> can i add one thing? >> sure. a lot of agencies, and depending on the kinds of work is pretty he policy broad and it depends on the agency and work they do. know many places where i have worked over the years the policy was if a reporter you in the field about what it is you are working you d what you are doing, can talk to them about it, tell them about it within the parameters of your expertise and you know.nd what but don't talk to them about how this affects larger policy. if you are a road repair guy and you can talk about the repair road.e doing on the what does this mean to the state's road repair budget? don't comment on that because not your lane of expertise. tell folks. we

go ahead and talk to the reporters. if you sit there and say i have to call my p.a.o. first that uncomfortable. so, a lot of times, depending on and the kind y is of work going on and kind of information they are protecting, the of times they have authority to talk to a report. they need to let us know right away so we can track it. biggest thing is that the boss doesn't want to find out something has happened by the newspaper. >> for public affairs officers here or are any watching on tv, more than ever you -- most nk, is "bad stories" i have ever ealt with are usually because there wasn't good communication between the public affairs reporter.d the and the reporter, who didn't enough knowledge to write story is.he

now, that's not always the case. with reporter who knew a lot more about some issues than i did. forced me to have to get a lot smarter on things. are dealing with really complicated issues, a lot of different beats, a lot of pressure it write. you cann a cannot let reporter write not great on information. you have to really work hard need to rters and you do it when the news isn't happening. you should overwhelm reporters --h access and education and just help them. he very best reporters i have ever dealt with came into my office and said can you help me .nderstand this nd i spent a lot of time just

talking and help understand. not when they are not writing a in and say , come help me understand this, can i talk to his person and them because they wanted to climb up the learning curve on .n issue and i have so much respect for really took the time to work hard at it. but as a public affairs officer obligation to do it. you cannot just point after the story has been written and say didn't know what he was talking about. t is your job to make sure the reporter knows what he is talking about. it is your job to make sure that information, meaning incomplete information, is getting out in place.blic and no reporter wants to put bad information out, ill informed information. >> those relationships are so critical. >> can i get a show of hands of how many want to ask a question idea?have an

we should probably get started on that. please come up to the microphone. if you would state your nameed a that is appreciated. >> some time sarah wexler we are union of concerned scientists and we often here from scientists who want to talk too afraid. but are some of you have gotten our rading of the agency media policies but for some of them we -- ally have to do foy why foia a of fia gosh requests. but on our web site we have all those agency media policies. so if you are in a position you are not talking to a p.a.o. as nice as these two you might be able to refer to those agency media policies. question for the panelists and more the reporter side. o you ever reach out to

nonprofits? often those folks -- i used to be a journalist and became a advocate. they have a point of view but they often know a heck of a lot and know a lot of people at agencies or people who sed to work at agencies who sometimes we can be match makers. i wondered if you ever did that. certainly do. i continue to. let's try to keep the responses we don't have too much time for questions. any of you want to talk about nonprofits. >> i think it is one technique. you are allowed to talk to not.e where we're that is sad to say. and rking with nonprofits of ing with a variety entities is important for all of us in communication. later on we can chat about some we've actuallyre

gone to the nonprofits on the side of an issue and brought them in and sat them a n and went out with consolidated message and sat down with the reports to explain detailed echnical issue and got both sides out at the same time. i think it is a critical thing do. > some time sue darcy with a newsletter that covers medical devices. the agency i have to deal with drug food and administration. i have watched in just the past five years this agency really reporters.o so i have a couple of questions you know the answer or maybe not. i'm now at the point where i can't even build a relationship because the there press office doesn't allow any , porter to talk directly having an interview, only on rare occasions and you have to interview.e how can we make this process work better?

and what is it that these agencies are doing with slides they have agency staff show at big public meetings? because i have been to three or them, these big public meetings, slide presentations are shown and immediately on the the meeting if you are a reporter attending you ask for them and they tell you we have the slide first. is this censorship or not? that is stupidity, frankly. in any re shown slides public space they should be immediately available. stupidity.y it is you are trying to get information out, why would you not want to make it available? i was told by the current press officer for my division at f.d.a. i should contact her two weeks before the meeting so she an relay to all the staff that you are going it give slide presentations that they have to give it to the public and can't on them and hold it for a week or two because by then the can't write and i

my story without the slide a sentation because it gives lot of scientific information. > i want to note that tbush administration was apparently more open. i believe it was during the bush administration when he got a lot of e were leakers at one particular agency and may have been agriculture or e.b.a. but he -- e.p.a. but he arned all the staff, all answers must come from the press officer. you could no longer have staff directly talking to reporters. i swear to god i believe that is what has happened at f.d.a. because everybody i try at a public meeting at f.d.a. is frightened of me. oh, no, my boss will fire me. f.d.a. is one agency i looked at when doing research for this and as far as i can tell they that t one of the ones bans contact between officials. come on.

>> no, no, no. in their official policy. point i'm making. that regardless of what it says in the official policy -- i can speak for f.d.a. i don't know what their are.tices i will say there is absolutely o question they deal with very market sensitive information. so, if a staffer at f.d.a. would for example, u, that a drug or medical device is not ready or is going to be no approved -- ng >> [inaudible]. so i can write about it in my newsletter. >> i think we need to move on networks person. thank you. >> interrupt department iled a lawsuit to block the merger between american airlines airways.

senator amy klobuchar asked if reduce er with competition and increase prices for passengers. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> when there are fewer customer s are to get businesses prices tend to rise and services tend to decline. as you know and pointed out, we great wave of consolidation in the airline industry the past five years with this merger. we would be down to only three network carriers. hat is the minimum number necessary for competitive markets? would two be enough? what is the tipping point? you argue that your merger in any way defies the go c concept we see prices up and services decline? >> we think this enhances competition in that it creates arirline on par with delta and united. creates a competitive

counterweight to those two big airlines. the new american will compete in the global marketplace so we don't just delta, united, southwest, jetblue, the low cost carriers here at home. we also compete with the likes emirates andsa and singapore. we think this is about creating competitive industry. >> but since 2000 there's only new carrier in our country virgin america. we have on the others one in minnesota but there new carrier viable since 2000. and don't you think there are to entry that make it hard for new airlines to competitive? over thenk if you look last many years there have been industry.ts into the jetblue is a great example of a -- that sprang

grown last decade and has nationwide. so, i think there are ample opportunities and capital vailable for new airlines to enter the market. >> i note that jetblue is only we have nowrket and these three major carriers. do you want to respond? first off, again noting how complementary our two networks by putting them together we create a third competitor -- fourth competitor to what are three airlines larger ta and s, united, dell southwest and allows more competition, not less. 12 laps overlatch being out put00 -- overlapping we can more efficient service to consumers. also note that in the $1 billion synergies that i noted there s not one assumed fare increase. he synergies are not built on

assumed fare increases but putting networks together that attract more customers and to attract ustomers in a more efficient way. then the only other note i would barriers to entry, the reality is that there are no entry today that were not there in the past. they have struggled many years to make a return. hose >> we have a lot of growth and may not be new ones added of late there are plenty intensely nd

competitive and it allows us to compete better against these airlines. >> tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern a look at the future of marriage in america. we will talk with journalists and lawyers about the legal and briefs fromions and supreme court decisions and legal challenges it state laws prohibit gay marriage. we will take your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments at p.m. here on c-span. e will hear from two of the plaintiffs in one of the supreme court cases. they were among the guaranty overturn ing to campbell's ban on gay marriage. 15 minutes.hour and >> good evening, everybody. can't tell you how excited i am to be at the pedestrian yum with a group of such illustrious

trailblazers in this area. i had the opportunity to do this several months ago before this. with us on the panel and they never disappoint. of have so many nuggets information to share. you will walk away scratching a little ready it cry bit, ready to smile a little bit hear even with the great decisions there's still a lot of work to be done. to help you anel sort that out and figure out whatare the next steps and does this mean for us nationally for marriage in america. i would like to take a quick moment to introduce the leader association of san francisco dan burkhardt who is ere and our president, our 100th president, chris harney. welcoming me in

them. [applause] to do a brief introduction of our esteemed panel this evening. m r right is in creenrique a everyone naga. the law attorney with firm of gibson, dunn and crutcher. is kristen perry. she is one of the plaintiffs in hollingsworth versus perry kiss. the we've a plaintiff in hollingsworth versus perry case. deputy her is the national legal director of the aclu. last but not least chris stall attorney for ff lesbian nal center of

rights. a brief overview of what was decided in the two cases?ght and did the supreme court get it right? the last preme court yes.r is always let me say two framing things. here are really two sets of marriage cases in the supreme court last week. here was the winter kiss and perry case that was reported in reports and ates there is the wind stkor case and perry case reported in "new york times" and cbs news and i think kisscases.ry different he political cases were enormous victories. the heal cases were -- legal more moderate and it is person for the public and lawyers it not confuse the two.

the prop eight case probably needs no introduction. we remember prop eight. the california supreme court in ay of 2008 decided that it was a violation of the state constitution not to allow same-sex couples to marry. opponents had qualified the proposition and it went to the most probably the expensive noncorporate proposition ever to go before voters. we lost 52-48. court as a state challenge that failed and then there was the famous federal challenge claiming that prop eight violated the federal ted someion brought by seven and david boyd. was ing that prop eight invalid under the federal constitution. issue, could core the states under the federal state ution, could any prohibit same sex couples from marrying. it was framed originally as a

50-state case. the case has a surprise in it almost from the start, which is state of california walks in and our esteemed government says is itarzenegger constitutional? i don't know. why don't you tell me. goes in and general says well, we are not going to issue these plaintiffs marriage we're enforcing it but i think they are right, it unconditionastitutional. in 1996 congress passes the and you have to call it so-called -- defense of marriage act. i think everyone i think everyone

will admit to be used as a device it says when you put it together with the rest of the code we the federal government really don't care very much about the definition of marriage. n which case we the case comes up with windsor who lived with her partner 41 years and been three, i think. her partner dies and the her estate, she is ompelled to pay a $350,000 federal estate tax because the federal government treats them their rried even though home state treats them as if they are married so it is teed doma unconstitutional. then there's another surprise. not unlike the surprise in the federal e which is the government comes in and says we are not going to give her the enforcing the

defense of marriage act. but we think she is right. and unconstitutional violates the federal constitution. so you have two cases posing a similar question. can you deny same-sex couples to treatment you give opposi opposite section couples in marriage and is the government going to enforce the law but we think it is unconstitutional. when the governor of california refuses to appeal the ca case. government in the windsor case keeps appealing it cases ps it alive so the arrive at the supreme court with two questions in each of them. deny equaln, does it treatment under the federal constitution to treat same-sex differently? is there still really a fight here? with a live dog in the fight? come out.w they in the prop eight case the court really there isn't

anybody with a live dog in the fight. the people who are trying to case wouldn't be bound by the order and wouldn't have to pay attorney fees if they lost. to pay court have costs. the case is over. district court when the attorney general failed to file a notice of people. is what most constitutional lawyers a real ut terribly but uninterested art 3 of the federal constitution case about standing or whether there is a real details. in windsor they say 5-4 there is till a real case because she wants her money and they won't pay it. even if they have an agreement law is.at the 5-4 in what i call a vintage anthony onfusing kennedy opinion the court says that doma is unconstitutional of great lots rhetoric in it but very little constitutional law. to say they meant are modest legal victories. theayin prop

eight take it away, we don't want to decide it kicking it down to the district court. so-- windsor case ays this kind of different treatment is unconstitutional and not telling us a lot about the future. different.ally very >> so, this is for the plaintiff. you decide to become the lead plaintiffs in the prop ight cases and what was the greatest impact of the actual trial on you and your family? and what were the most moments for you and your families? nd what were the most rewarding, most challenging and most rewarding. you.ra, we will start with >> that is a lot to answer. what made us want to be is that s in the case we believed in the approach. we had been through the prop eight campaign and suffered the ame disappointment that

everyone else did and it was really quite devastating to us. in 2004 in san francisco when it was allowed epe -- taken away from us. legally.ken from us that really dealt a blow to us relationship. and it was difficult to celebrate omething so wonderful in our lives and experience disappointment and truly humiliation of losing that. we didn't get married in 2008 in a brief window because we were o concerned about the possibility of suffering the same humiliation and decided to ait until it was really legal, permanently legal and we could have that and not worry about .aving it taken away when we had the opportunity to case, we ved in the talked about it and thought about it and both agreed on the knew it was we possible we would not catch our the kids if asked

they would support it and told them there could be a certain media involved. we didn't know how large it might be become. it became quite large. without orted us hesitation, which was heartening to us. and we made the decision because we felt like it was the right fight, the right place, the ight lawyers, the right strategy. we were it feewas and thrilled with the victory. kristen. e weak idn't choose to b plaintiffs in the case. to be ffs don't choose lead plaintiffs. they come to you with a problem in a had been relationship 10 years and had four children and we wanted to be married and we were doing couples do it establish security and couldn't be married. we tried through the city

hall weddings in 2004 and that was taken away. so, we sort of went dormant in the sense that i think that we lives back private and just started going back to ork and parenting like we always had. when we found out that there --ht be a heal challenge and legal challenge and i was an acquaintance of tkhad griffin los angeles g in and president of the human rights campaign was looking for to help with this case. acquaintance of his we became involved in the case. that's how we got involved. believe that the other plaintiffs were his acquaintances as well. some of the challenging parts of there al is number one was a trial. what you might want realize or remember now that most of the marriage cases as a tell you with 't 100% certainty but i'm almost in tive marriage cases

california have been handled through an administrative rocess and plaintiffs were not really visible. they were not spokes people for a group. may have had their names lent to the effort and made some we arances but in this case thought we would be doing that. more.und out it didn't turn out that way. remember when we went it court to hear about the hallenging and scheduling that the lawyers needed to know about to file their briefs and do the did they do and boy a lot of work and you are all amazing. helped with ho amicus braves or came to watch support to the lawyers thank you because it took a team attorneys over many yea years. part is there was a trial and having to is the through almost three weeks of from the and arguments

other side that were very amiliar because they sounded like the political rhetoric they used on the campaign. the sort of , strategy they relied upon and political campaign and in court sort of cast lesbian and gay couples as different and worthy of not marriage and not good enough to be parents. who wewith four children love dearly and all the other that was n california too much it tolerate and it was hard to be in court when that was going back over. we watched the ad and listened judge about to a how we were not woeurpt and our children were there and heard it. a very difficult experience and i hope some day the video is unsealed and you saw and heard because even though they wanted to convince the judge that they they had no evidence

and they couldn't back up any of into claims and i think is why we won. comparedtnesses we had it the two we had were using data and evidence to explain how meaningful and helpful marriage is. .

fight for equality but for their courage and tenacity and their true sacrifice, california would still be forcing proposition eight and people would be denied their fundamental rights to mary. we didn't have an official search party for plaintiffs as kristin eluded to. they were all acquaintances of chad griffin who was the chair of the human rights campaign. he asked them and they agreed. what we were looking for were couples who were in loving, committed relationships and willing to make the sacrifice and willing to take the step for litigation where other people weren't ready to do it.

we were so lucky to find chris, sandy, paul and jeff. i think their stories range so true and were so moving and you just look at them you and feel like they should be together. one of the happiest points in my life was to see paul and jeff get married once the lift and we saw that happen and it was a beautiful day. and congratulations, guys, on getting married. >> thank you. >> chris and sandy, where were you when the decision came down? >> we were in the supreme court. yeah, we were. in fact, so happy to be in the supreme court on that day. we were also there on the day of the arguments and march. again, i'll say, as laypeople and not attorneys, we've learned a lot about the legal system and come to respect it even more than we already did for it. protocol and pros sess and the decorum and the formality of it

brings respect to couples like us who are often not treated that way. to come into a place, our nation's highest court and to be treated in the same way everyone else is treated in the room was a very personally meaningful thing for me and i was really happy we were able to be in the courtroom both days, argument day and decision day. because not only were we in a room where people who care as deeply about this as we do and as helped -- and the whole country is helped by these decisions even though there is public opinion and the court opinion and they are slightly different. i think it brought us together as a country and as a state, unlike any decision recently. even just that week it had really pulled us apart. what i loved about being there was forever remembering sandy by my side, jeff and paul, chad and all the people that had been with us for four and a half years, just waiting for the day

that it would be over. even though it ended differently than we might have hoped it was over. [laughter] >> that was really a good thing. every time we thought something was over, our lawyer said, no, it's not over. and i just thought, oh, okay. so we'll go back again on an unknown day. but it was over and we walked out and people were so joyous and celebratory outside the court and the entire day i felt we were riding on this cloud of happiness and relief. >> chris, there is anyway that these two decisions can be undone in the future? >> well, fortunately that's an easy answer. the chances essentially is zero these cases could be undone. one of the nice things about being in the supreme court when you're interpreting the federal constitution your decision is about as final as final gets. so the only way that the supreme court's decisions could be overturned would be either a

federal constitutional amendment which is very, very difficult to do or a future change in the composition of the court that causes them to reconsider their decision and overrule themselves and neither of those is very likely any time in the foreseeable future. >> so, chris and matt, can you briefly describe what you believe the national impact of the two supreme court decisions is? and, from a legal perspective, can you respond to that from a civil rights perspective can you respond to that and from a societal perspective. >> well, from a legal perspective as i said, in some ways the case are modest. judge walker's decision was in place and it's the best decision in a marriage decision so far. but as you all know 1st district

judge's opinion is not binding. it's modest. the article three question is pretty uninteresting. judge walker's decision because it's so goodwill be valuable from a legal standpoint. the doma case gives us a little more. for the first time the court really suggests that even when it's -- the court has two basic ways of looking at equality. most of the time it says we'll leave questions of whether to two groups of people are equal or unequal to legislatures and congress. we'll presume that different treatment is constitutional because people are really in a totally different situation. and, quirarely they'll say we'r historically suspicious of specific classification and we'll look at those careful hreufpl the doma case doesn't say we'll treat sexual

orientation classification carefully. it leaves it back in the presumptively constitutional. but it does say when there's evidence that you single people out for different treatment based on hostility or desire to treat them differently or a sense they're different, that that changes the calculus and makes the court look at it and that's helpful for us in taking down anti--marriage laws in other places. i think it means we've got to be very, very smart about how we do it. we've got to look for the best targets out there and there are a lot of targets out there, about 45 targets out there. and we've got to look for the best of them and there are great differences between them. from the civil rights perspective, because the prop eight case doesn't get to the constitutional issues and the

doma case does so language-wise at best i don't think they're much of a boost. the court decided its judgment about voting rights was more important than congress's voting rights and the unanimous united states senate just a few years earlier i don't think they're a great boost in civil rights, i really don't. politically they're fabulous! really, i think what you've been conveying is exactly right. this is a trade and not going to be stopped. we're on it and the key to meet how you follow up is to make sure you make maximum mum use of the political traction and smart use of the legal traction which is probably at some point a somewhat modest pick the next best cases and get things lined up. you know, justice s's vote says

there is already five votes to strike down marriage. get the case here as quickly as possible. now you may think that the justice has had a sudden conversion and he's our friend and telling us what to do or you may think he thinks this is his last chance to get the supreme court majority to say that they don't have to require same sex couples to marry and he wantses something there uncrafted as possible and see if can he get anthony kennedy. and kennedy says not a word in any of the opinions about how he feels about that question and if you look back at the argument, he's deeply tormented. so what i take away from this, make as much as we can politically as we can and be as smart as we can. >> where is the next best target? >> i think there are a bunch out

there. i'd go after the most extreme amendments and doma has been around there. virginia's people think, for example, even invalidates wills between same sex couples. i think that's really extreme. there's a case in north carolina that brings it up in terms of recognizing people as parents, i think that's a great way to do it. you don't have to ascribe a bad motive to the entire populous of the state. it's easier -- you've seen most state legislatures, it's easier to do it there. i think there are a range of considerations out there that you take right out of the opinions. >> chris, legal civil rights, societal. >> i take a slightly more

optimistic view of the decisions legal effects than matt does. we had this amazing language -- by the way, windsor was an aclu case so we have something to thank for him tore that decision. it is the most sweeping affirmation we've ever seen from the supreme court. of the first time we've ever seen like justice kennedy's language talking about doma about a law that denigrates same sex couples and their children and sends this terrible message of inequality and their children and marks their relationships as second class marriages. all of the language and all of the reasoning behind it is going to be tremendously helpful as we go forward because a law from the state that says we're not

going to recognize your marriage if you move here from california is ever bit as denigrating and ever bit as much of a marker of second last status as doma was. i think we're going to find that windsor is a big driver of equality as we move forward legally and socially. >> okay. enrique. >> prop eight supporters have been making statements these supreme court decisions were not sweeping victories for the lbgt community and not create a right as it did for abortion and did not declare six sex marriage as civil right along the lines as it did for ethnicity and nation nationality. how would you respond? >> i think the perry case we defeated proposition eight and california is the largest state and 13th state that recognizes

marriage equality. 94 million americans, 30% of the population. i think as we look at the political aspects, i think that's huge. i think that a big part of your case was the pr, getting to know kristin, sandy, paul and jeff and getting to know your gay neighbors you're not afraid. you recognize they're just like everybody else and that allowing gay people to get married is not going to affect anybody's heterosexual's marriage. when we have a state like california allowing more same sex couples to get married and have families that pushes forward the discourse and marriage equality. >> matt? >> technically right and socially right. they're right that it doesn't establish a nationwide right for same sex marriage and right in the sense that's the legal

watershed that roe against wade is. if you go back to 2008 when proposition eight passed, right, we had two states that allowed same sex couples to marry. within a few weeks after proposition eight we picked up a few more, i think connecticut and iowa. since then, we've picked up enrique said the numbers got us to 13 with california and most of those states most recently through state legislatures and not through the court's doing and anybody who misses the significance of this becoming i think in america's sense, something that needs to happen, something that historically will happen but needs to happen soon, in that sense, it's just to underrate the scope of the victory by focusing on the technicalities. >> kristin, many will tell you achieving marriage equality in california is just the beginning of a much bigger challenge.

next up are issues like discrimination in employment for example like in 29 states and lgb employees are not protected by workplace discrimination and 33 states transgenders are not protected and protecting against bullying is an issue. there has an untake in violence in the lbgt community and no marriage equality in other states just to name a few. what do you see is the next most important issue on the path to equality for the lbgt community? now that we have the marriage thing. >> first we'll enjoy we have florida. one of the problems in california was this enormous problem of our government telling us we're not equal and the harm that was causing sandy and i and literally tens of thousands of other california

residents, and most importantly children. and i think when you look at any of the other laws that discriminate in employment sites or in schools where children are permitted or encouraged to be mean to other children, what that really all reflects is a very big problem with homophobia still in america. those policies are just formal sort of mandates of that homophobia. what was really important about the trial and i do believe that the decision is incredibly powerful and so is the record, is that it shows how insidious and painful homophobia is and even intern lieses homophobia we do things to ourselves as gay people and lesbian and gay people and transender and queer people, that people aren't even doing to us. if we're doing these things to ourselves and telling ourselves we don't deserve to have certain

jobs or live in certain places or be happy or be in love or parents and we're transmitting that to another generation and another generation of course there are policies and of course there are laws that formalizes this belief. i think the work may be to go out and undue a bunch of laws and go out and pass better laws that override those bad laws. my passion is more about humanity and human development and the capacity to be more loving and accepting versus be so separate and exclusive. and with that is a state of mind. i think you can make great policies. you can do great things and as a law maker and elected official you can do great things, as a teacher and employer, that someone has to get through to you that you are harming people in your workplace and in your school and in your home or your neighborhood. i really see that as the work

sandy and i still have to do. it's one thing we got to be married and if feels great and i really can tell you being equal feels better. [laughter] >> it does feel better. our children can tell us it already feels better. we're so sad they're already 18 and older and didn't have their parents married when they were growing up. they saw something historic a momentous happen. i hope all of you and young people across the country and the state will see this as an inspirational moment that helps them aspire to lead in their own lives. and that's what changes all of that other nonsense actually that's going on out there where people get away with putting these terrible laws on the books and then we live with them. >> it's just behaving badly.

so sandy, what do you think is the next most important issue on the path to lbgt equality? >> after this inspirational talk about humanity -- [laughter] >> i mean, wow! uhm, i think we have to have a country where you don't have to live in a certain state to get your rights. i mean, i think the fight is not over. i'm from iowa and i cannot tell you how ironic i found it to be -- [laughter] >> truly, with my mother -- my very conservative mother saying can you believe iowa has gay marriage and california does not? and i actually kind of couldn't believe it. but i feel like marriage equality, workplace discrimination laws and anti- bullying and transgender rights, they all matter but we cannot have a country where just because you were born in a certain state that means you just have to live a second class

existence your whole entire life. we have to have more balance in this country and we have to find a way to support our southern brother and sisters and families so we might have just more balance in our country. i feel like we have such a divide between urban and rural sometimes and coastal and non coastal and right now we certainly have a huge divide over how we are perceived in terms of the government and the fact that the federal government now recognizes us, which is a fantastic wonderful achievement makes it all the more painful i think for individuals living if in these other states to get past their own state laws to try to reach the same benefits and the same rights that people who may be live ten feet away have. you shouldn't have to move. you shouldn't have to leave. you should be able to grow up, raise your family in the place

that you want to be around your relatives and your home and have the same rights as anybody else in our country. so i think we have got to bridge that divide that we have geographically that we have and address it as a human issue as well. >> chris, what is your thing on that? >> well, i think we can kind of take a page out of history and learn from the history of the civil rights movement and really see that obtaining formal legal equality is not the end of the struggle, it's really just the beginning. we've seen obviously in cases this year how long that struggle has been in the civil rights movement and how even now there are defeats. and so, i wants to agree with what sandy said with how important it is that we not leave out the other half of america in terms of getting formal marriage equality and relationship recognition but there are a whole host of other

issues that are much longer term and much harder to solve and don't lends themselves to one big impact case and you're done. things like bullying at school and things like employment discrimination, all of these are things that require constant work in the legislatures through policy advocacy and on a case by case basis and they don't just get better with one case. that's what we'll be focused on i think. >> matt? >> i think chris, sandy and chris have put it very well really. you can't really make enduring change. the lesson of every moment for social change through the 20th century you can't make enduring change unless you change the rules and get the people to accept the change of the rules. the movements that have sputtered have largely been movements that some point or other focus too much on legal equality and not on the second part. i think it's essential to make any kind of change real.

the other thing i think we should keep in mind, while public attention for the last -- certainly for the last five or maybe closer to the last ten years has been largely focused on lbgt issues on marriage, it's not like there haven't been other things going on i can tell you that the aclu didn't stop doing schools and bullying cases and didn't stop working on gender equality and child cases when the marriage cases started, what we did was expand and took on a big program and those things haven't gone away and marriage in california and federal defensive marriage act isn't going to make them go away. they'll move forward and the key to all of them is i think that persuading people that humanly we're not really different. we have the same kind of relationship, the same kinds of emotional attachments, good and bad, that everybody else does.

when you see that range, that's the key to fighting on all of those front. marriage is a great way to illustrate it but not the only way. you got to keep pushing the whole thing forward. >> okay. so, kristin and sandy, other than the fact that you were the first to be married in city hall, congratulations by the way, how has the outcome of these two cases changed your life in the last month or so? >> well, i'm 48 years old and for 30 years since i turned 18, i just assumed i would never be married and no matter whether i fell in love or not i would never be married. for two weeks i've been married. so i wake up every morning and i don't believe it, actually, actually see sandy and then i smile and i remember that i really am married. i can tell you that everything

that our heterosexual lawyers and married lawyers told us was important about this institution is true. there is a sense of responsibility and commitment that deepened with that day for me. we've talked about it. i think we're both a little bit in awe about how it shifted us from this sense of temporariness and also worry that the outcome wouldn't be one that that would be one celebrate, that we would have taken a big risk and not been successful and so the worry of that was very big. having that lifted and then be replaced with this sense of great permanence and bright tpao future was wonderful. i want it to last a really long time. >> i had this interesting experience a couple of days ago. we were you in washington, d.c. and i was renting a car and chris wasn't with me.

i said, now -- they said are you the only driver. they said do they have to be here. they said as long as you're married. and i said, oh, i'm married! and i wasn't used to. i thought cha-ching. it's my first little thing, you know, benefit. the guy said, i'll put your husbands's name down. and i said, no it's my a wife. he said i'm sorry. of course i'll put just that down. i'll put down spouse. i thought, yeah, put down spouse and change your forms and change your business practices. and don't ever ask anybody that again. but we are so used to -- i'm so used to using the word partner and having a feeling about that, like, oh, it feels sort of bad. it just feels -- it does feel second class and it is second

class. i'm not a lawyer and i never aspired to be a partner in my life. but the word wife is working out pretty well. i like that one. it really does change. the day we got married i got my fourth ring because we are gay people we need lots of rings to commemorate our marriages, the day i got married i felt calmer. i felt like like my heart rate and blood pressure went down a little bit. like, yeah, things will be okay. this is real. it's the real deal and our family's are going to understand it better and we can stop fighting for it and we can stop being in court over it. we both felt a lot calmer. i feel more legitimate in some bizarre way in this world. in our country and in our society marriage means something. and like one of the other plaintiffs said, it didn't matter so much we wouldn't be here. it does matter and that's why

somebody spent $84 million to try to keep us from having it. it matters to us and benefiting us and other people. i cannot under score enough. we heard stories about couples had they just been able to get married, one couple we heard about from our lawyers, couple of them in california, one of them passed away right before you could get legally married. and before doma came down and because of that, her partner of many, many years will suffer from the consequences of that and they're very severe for their families. their bread-winning spouse passed away and the stat at home mom was left. these are consequences. every day that you do not undo this wrong people suffer and it's true. they suffer. it's not just emotionally. it can be financial and there

are horrible consequences. for us it's wonderful being married and i feel less worried about our future but i feel like good. there are people out there that got their just reward today and that matters so much. it's just not even funny. we're so happy about that part. >> what have your children said that has changed for them since you've become married? >> well, our children are now adults. so we see them in this sort of random way that you see your adult children. they're all extremely happy and relieved as we are. i think that they've all had friends tell them how impressed and happy they are by this struggle we've been in and that we made it to the other side. so i think for them peer recognition and support has been a huge part of this. they in some ways feeled a hired, i think, for having been

involved in something that has affected lots of other families. also, i really believe they're so happy for sandy and i, that we're done with this part of our lives that was full of uncertainty and is now is so possible to map a future. they want that for us while they start their new lives we're starting our new lives. >> matt and chris, by disposing of the california case on narrow procedural grounds the supreme court perpetuated an irrational patchwork in which duly wedded couples cannot be considered married when they cross state borders. if a couple is married in a state who recognizes same sex marriage like california what

are implications for moving to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage and such as tax filings set set et /* /- -- set tra. >> couples that are married in a state of california that permits same sex cup totals marry and live in state that permits same sex couples to marry those couples are entitled to every right and benefit that any married couple has. that's very clear and a matter of time before the government implements all those things as they move quickly to do. that's absolutely clear. the only -- the complication arises when a couple married in california or another state moves to state like florida or texas that does not respect their marriage. until we succeed in getting rid of the remaining marriage bans

in these states it's clear those governments will not recognize the couple that is married and they will get some but probably not all of the federal benefits they would get if they were living in a state that respected their marriage. at administration has been coming out with guidance on various benefits since the decision came down so we have some answers at this point. it seems pretty clear for immigration purposes, the 70-thre federal government will respect the marriages that were married in any jurisdiction that allows it no matter where the couples live now. federal employees will be able to get spousal health insurance and other benefits if they're legally married in any state regardless where they currently live. same for military spouses. so we have some clarity on some of these issues. the two big ones that are sort

out of out standing and waiting for guidance from the administration on are social security and taxes and i expect we'll get some guidance in the near future. there are additional issues with those two because of some statutory language that exists and the administration is working through what benefits can be provided in those areas. so that's where we are as a practical matter in terms of federal benefits. >> one thing i want to say about taxes. if you're living in a state that recognizes the marriage of same sex couples this will is no question you'll be treated the same as for tax purposes. it's much tougher than it is in some other areas to do it because as chris said of the statutory framework. ultimately, people think that the federal constitution requires the state to recognize marriage even though the

marriage was entered into in another state. the truth is, states do that almost universely but not because anybody's ever interpreted the federal constitution to say they have to, they just do it. and any state can extend recognition to driver's licenses, corporation papers or marriages. the question that comes up what happens when a state doesn't. that was widespread in this country for much of the latter 19th and first 2/3 of the 20th century that states that wouldn't recognize interracial marriages, but none of those cases ever got very far through the federal court system. we don't know whether one state can refuse to recognize a marriage from another state. i will say this, the way i get the rule, it seems pretty clear to me if you're married in a state that recognizes your marriage, new york or california, and you're traveling

to another state and that state institution doesn't recognize you're marriage, i think they're gonna have to. we may have to bring a challenge to do it but i think they have to. if you're traveling and in an accident or a state hospital that refused to recognize the marriage, i think we can force them to do that and i think that would be a good case to bring. [laughter] >> i think a transfer case is harder, but the more the transfer looks like something involuntary the better i like the case. i think the case a person who hops the state line to get married and then hops back that's not a good case. >> this situation where we have many states not recognizing marriages means that even now, even for california couples who are married, it's very important to have things like health care proxies and powers of attorney for finances and to do adoptions for your children and have those papers with you because you never know what might happen

when you're traveling in another state and you really want to protect yourself as best you can. >> tell your clients. >> yeah. >> so if someone wanted to learn about this mish mash of benefits that we know people have and some are trying to figure out, where can they go to figure out for themselves? >> we have lots of information on both of the websites. for the federal benefits all of the major lbgt organizations have put together a series of fact sheets that are available on all of our websites that go through specific federal benefits and particularly dealing with this question about what happens if you move to a non recognition state. and on our website that's at nclrights.org/doma. >> we'll hrmove to part of the program i'll call round robin.

i'm going to throw out a statement and you are going to take about 15 seconds to give me a provocative thought or opinion on the statement. so, since the supreme court decision, how will these decisions in your mind impact spousal green card applicants. anybody? >> the federal government will recognize your marriage but still talk to an experienced immigration lawyer. because there are many other things that can affect you. >> he's right. [laughter] >> anybody? it doesn't have to be a legal opinion. any thought or idea you have on spousal green cards applicants after these decisions? >> i think a lot of people will be relieved. >> social security, pensions, 401 k and veterans benefits. >> we're all getting older. we to have pay attention

skpeutd's important to have equal access to kinds of economic safety nets that the rest of our -- the rest of your society has. >> the stuff is damn complicated if you're in a heterosexual relationship and it was so much worse. >> health care rights and partner decisions for the lbgt community? >> i don't think you can just assume because you're married you really know what to do in the case of your partner having a health crisis or having to make decisions for them that they can't make for themselves. it doesn't automatically make you know, so we'll have a conversation again even though we did 112 years ago, we're probable due for a check-up. i would say, this is a nice reminder that it's time to get those conversations going again because of state planning and health planning are important

and they are not addressed in your marriage. >> we see cases where people have the proper papers don't have their relationships respected and that can still happen. >> okay. having and/or adopted and raising children. >> is really, really hard. [laughter] >> speaking from the having. hopefully this will make it easier for people to form families but almost as importantly those children that they have can grow up more secure feeling like their family is more like family aeuz rounds them and that is remarkably around them for the social and psychological development of children. >> for young people growing up that haven't fallen in love yet and decided who they want to marry or if they want to or whether they want to have children, the idea that all that potential is there is such a beautiful thing. to live with the feeling right

there and thinking i don't get to believe what's above it is over for a number of people in this state with p we want it to be over for everybody. having kids is an incredibly wonderful thing and to feel protected statement is even better. >> we struggled across the country for years to get second parents recognized as legal parents and doesn't completely make the problem go away, but it makes an awful lot of it go away in the states that recognize marriages for same sex marriages. >> it was about their four boys and about the recognition and the state would give them and the the way they would feel. that was a major theme that came up and justice kennedy was concerned about the 40,000 children that live in families raised by same sex couples. i think it's a good deal. >> anything from a legal perspective? adoptions? >> i think matt covered. >> after these decisions, what

do you think about whether transgender rights are still a step behind lesbian, gay and bisexual rights. >> i think they are behind but in part because they're different so the things that are important are access, non discriminatory access to health care and things that don't face same sex couples necessarily. >> okay. after these two decisions, what do you think about political involvement in our personal lives? >> one of the great things about this case and the movement in general are the allies we've been able to make. being gay and lesbian is one aspect of our community, but we sit in many different communities. we're latino and african-american and able to build these coalitions. moving forward i think our

community will build on it and be able to help others in their fights so we can get that support back for our continued movement towards equality. >> i think one thing that made our case so successful was that it was not really -- it didn't move forward on political lines by having these bipartisan lawyers you. we approached it as a common cause. it matters to everybody. it's on a political fight and a civil rights fight. and i think that that helped us be successful and i think that that could be -- we could leverage that type approach as to many other causes as well. they don't need to be political when they're civil rights. they mater to everybody. >> at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we have 13 states so we have 37 to go on marriage and all the other issues we outlined and the one thing we know would be a mistake

would be start thinking about changing the legal rules and getting formal legal equality. if we do that we'll falter in a movement that has great wind behind it and will not succeed. the bottom line is get to work and that does mean political in your personal lives. >> that segway is nicely into my last statement. what are your thoughts on how the impact of this decision will have on the discussions around racism, classism and sexism in this country? >> well, fools rush in, i guess. i would hope that the lgbt community would recognize that the key to continuing to make progress is the key to the progress we've made so far which

is political engagement and engagement and recognize that both of the supreme court and elsewhere around the country we've systematically been limiting what was a limited democracy to begin with and making true self-tkpwoftment harder and harder. and recognize that our political progress and progress on race and gender are tied up into making this a self-functioning democracy again and recognizing that is critical politically. >> i would say that we need to recognize that issues of race, class, sexism are lbgt issues and we have an issue not only in cases like this one but in comprehensive immigration reform, in access to health care. all of these are lbgt issues because they look like the rest

of the country and we shouldn't get so into our silo we forget that. >> there's something about being a minority you and know you always will be a minority. as a lesbian woman very few women are, and the important and instructive thing in this case as a plaintiff was recognizing really how much struggle and how hard it is to be different all the time. but my empathy and my ability to understand and be compassionate was greatly increased by the struggle and i think we were standing on martin luther king's shoulder and rosa parks aseizur

chavez. if feels like if you could grab all these movements over many decades we're just a dot on this line. now lesbian-gay-queer-transgender got their day in court. they don't want to be treated differently either. >> okay. we are now going to open this up to a few moments of question and answer. if you have a question raise your hand and amy and rob, where are you? rob, in the back they have microphones. i had informed thought that would apply to the two named plaintiff couples.

was there any questions about that and if so, how did the ninth circuit handle it and should i be surpriseed it happened so quickly after the supreme court decision? >> you're technically right that the only person who can benefit from the judgment in a federal court case are the plaintiffs and since the case wasn't a class action technically the four people are the only people who have the benefit of the judgment. except with the trial court issued a broader order. i'm not sure he had the power to do that, but and of course that never stood in his way before. whether he had the power to do it or not nobody objected until the time to file a notice of appeal ran his order is final. and the effect of the supreme

court decision of course was to say the case ended in district court, right? so if the case had been legitimately appealed you perhaps could have rejected to the scope of the order. since nobody had the power to appeal the order is in effect. i think it's entirely right. i think i was a little surprised by how fast the ninth circuit went but as i thought about it the governor and the attorney general said they didn't want to a stay back in district court so it made good sense once the supreme court said this case ended in district court and the parties bound by it said they didn't want to stay to lift it. so i think the court did the right thing. >> thanks for your fabulous, fabulous work. question, what do you think is

t california will go the way that most other states have gone when they allowed marriage which was to eliminate the domestic partnership and in a sense upgrade everyone to marriage? >> sure. so, starting with the second part first, right now in california we have both marriage and registered domestic partnership available to same sex couples to couples can choose to do either one. each of those has more or less the same legal consequences under state law; but may have different consequences under federal law for purposes of federal benefits. it's not yet been tested in very many contexts whether the federal government will be

providing registered domestic partners with any sort of federal benefits. most of the statutes talk in terms of spouses or married couples. but there is a provision in the social security act that says basically a couple will be recognized that they're married if they are married in the state in which they live or have the right succession. it could be language like that that there will be some federal recognition for domestic partners. >> another question? >> hi. i was wondering if there are any plans for ms. stier and perry to be moving to ohio or nebraska?

i go through 37 names. >> we don't plan to be plaintiff in any other legal cases ever. so probably i think i'm answering your question. we haven't going to fall into the scenarios that were described earlier, no. >> but be careful when you travel. >> believe me, i'm making notes because this is great legal advice stkpwhrfpl >> we prefer flying. >> i'd also like to suggest something that sandy touched on which is the educational experience of being able to tell other people that you're married. you mentioned it at the rental car counter, but we did try and get -- we did get married in the

window in 2008 and i have found that the difference in being able to say to someone that's my husband, we're married, their response and their understanding of who we are and how we behave and how they need to behave to us changes when we do that and they suddenly realize many times that they don't care, that there is no issue for them and that they say, oh, fine. >> right. et it's like being at the grown-ups table. who you marry is the single most decision one does make as an adult to be denied the ability to make that legal decision of course is a great disservice and it is a humiliating situation. for us to be able to make that important decision to be legally married is very validating and i think people who experience that

probably have somewhat of a similar feeling that it is remarkably and profound experience to be able to propose to somebody and have it be real and get married and have it be real. it is different and so far we're loving the difference. >> hi. thank you all so very much. we heard earlier about the current administration setting up some benefits for couples who are married in one state and move to state that doesn't recognize that marriage. if it's up to the administration to set up the benefits can the next one undue that? >> i'm going to give this to chris but it depends. like on immigration it's by statute, the state that performs the marriage, so i don't think the subsequent administration

can stop recognize couples who come in and get married in a state that recognizes it. and i also think as a practical matter, what you start doing when you unwind recognition may be -- it's precisely the kind of administrative nightmare that people at times suggested getting rid of doma would bring about. it's a real administrative nightmare. i think you'd have to be awfully hard ideologically set to do it. i think it would be a bad situation. >> yeah, i agree with that. in some cases in addition, these things are determined by administrative rules but have to go through a whole rule making process to reverse it and i just think it's pretty unlikely that a few future, even republican administration would have much of an appetite to try that. >> hello.

it's a little unclear to me how this problem with doma works. what happens if you're marriage and you have kids you and need food stamps or you're on the wi tkwic program, can they hold these benefits from you? >> if the federal statute says that the federal government recognizes your relationship if you were married in a state that married same sex couples, then no, i don't think the state can start treating you in any -- for federal purposes as if you're unmarried. but it's going to be program by program, i think. >> yeah, actually if you go to the faqs i'm sure you can find

that out. i'm sure they'll make sure couples are treated equally to the fullest extent the law will allow. >> another question over here. >> there is any concern among you four precedent regarding standing to challenge legislation that isn't necessarily savorry from these decisions that you're concerned about moving forward? >> you know, the aclu likes to take as broad of view as access to the courts as we can possibly take. the way i read the -- there's no standing decision in the windsor case. everybody agreed there was a legitimate case and controversy. the way i read the constitutional question in the perry case is if a state's -- all the state's elected officials refused to defend a

state law and the state doesn't appoint someone who has some responsibility back to the state to defend it for it then you can't go into federal court. no, that doesn't concern me terribly. >> is that it for the questions? yes. >> i will speak loudly. what impact, if any, do you think at obama coming out in favor of lbgt gay marriage during the pendency of the case had on the political impact of the decision and the ultimate legal impact of the decision? >> well, the president's decision, a, that he was going to support marriage and, b, he thought it was unconstitutional to deny federal recognition

resulted in a them deciding this way. i think it changed the calculus in all the federal courts where this was up. but i think that would be the least of it. it's no accident that at the same election where barack obama won a second term, the voters of minnesota came the first state in the country to reject the constitutional amendment and voters in maine, maryland and washington state all voted to have marriage for same sex couples. we went beyond state ladies and gentlemen latelyers into popular votes. i think the president was a major help in making that happen. i think the importance of it can't be overestimated. >> i think what he did, too, he talked personally about his --

how long it took him and how he got there to not being supportive and being supportive and referenced his own kids and they talked to him and they said you're not on the same page we're not, dad. you're going to have to be more like us. i thought that was instructive to the parents and people that this is what happens. do you change over time if you let yourself. and then on a macrolevel as a world leader can you see world leaders changing the way they're running their countries. it's happening since he did that. it happened today. it's happening because he is a world leader and he's also a dad. and those things are really powerful and profound. and i think we all look to him as -- our country's leader and a father and feel proud that i think other countries look at him and say, i'm not going to be behind barack obama. i'm going to be a leader too. he's a remarkable leader.

>> this is going to close our program this evening. i want to remind everyone there is a reception on the second floor so we can continue celebrate all of the great work that this panel has done and that some of you in the room have been a part of. you'll be taking the elevators down to the second floor and the staff will escort you down and so please be patient with the number of operational elevators with the room size filled with great folks like yourselves. please be patient with us. and please, please, please, join me in thanking this wonderful panel, kristin, sandy, matt and chris and enrique. [applause] thank you all for

coming.

are handling the phones a little differently tonight. call in based on if you support or oppose same-sex marriage. can also comment on facebook. and we are taking your calls and tweets. we will read some of those throughout the evening. we will get into a discussion more broadly on the issue of same-sex marriage, but also how this is affecting states, what states are doing, in particular, the tax features involved in same-sex marriage. we do these town halls because congress is in recess. they are back in their home districts. that gives us time to open up our phone lines and hear from you on policy issues and more.

announcementwas an block thettempt to merger of two very large americanin the u.s., and usa are. the justice department do today? what happened. pre-k's the justice department joint with -- >> the justice department joint ath two other states to file lawsuit alleging that the combination of the two companies would violate federal antitrust law. >> what is the big deal? why did the justice department say this would be a violation of

antitrust? what are they focusing on in particular? >> they are arguing that this is different than other recent airline mergers because these companies have too many similar routeures -- similar structures, which would increase pricing for passengers. >> how long has this been in the works? how long has the potential merger been talked about, and how long has the justice department been considering this? >> the merger was talked about beginning in february. the companies have been talking most of last year as well. initially, american airlines resisted merging, but as they went through bankruptcy, they decided it was the best way for them to emerge quickly and strong inning. >> what have we heard from the

ceos of the company? >> i spoke with the head of the consumer traveler alliance today. they have been opposed to every airline merger that has happened merger thatry major has happened since 2008. the head of the group told me he was overjoyed because potential losses for customers could be prevented. >> we are looking at the united ticket counter at reagan international airport. this,nging politics into has a headline about reagan national playing a starring role in the merger complaint. what does the airport have to do with the story? is one of two major airports regulated by the federal government. forairlines have to apply landing spots at reagan national. as part of their effort to clear u.s. airn by the doj,

said they would give up some of their spots at reagan. does this action by the justice department potentially delay a merger or a decision on a merger? >> the merger would not be able to go forward without being approved by the doj. there is no firm timeline on the buting for this lawsuit, this is one of the approvals necessary. they also need approval from the department of transportation, but they need to clear antitrust exemption. it appears that the doj is not going to issue that certification. the idea of the "substantial harm" that attorney general holder and others talked about today in their statement.

on ticket prices, what do they see as a potential hike in prices? >> a lot of the centers on the idea that if there are fewer airlines, there will be less competition, and thus prices will increase. americans says they only have 12 nonstop routes that overlap and only seven of them are in places where there is not another airline also flying between those two airports. the doj intends to or groups are focusing more so -- doj and consumer groups are focusing hub and spoke operations. if you are flying from seattle to austin, texas, and you are they'ren american, probably going to route you through dallas. . if you are flying on us airways, they're probably going to route you through phoenix.

the doj makes the point that you are probably more concerned about the price than where the layover is. thattry will tell you prices are historically low. customers may not feel that because since 2008 the amount of fees charged for things such as baggage and changing flights have definitely increased. aviation experts say that fares have never been this low. the problem for the industry before these mergers is that fares were artificially low. >> keith lang covers aviation and more for the hill. reporting athis thehill.com. the department of justice filing to block a deal to create the nation's largest airline. report. >>or your thank you for having me. >> we are going to switch our

focus back to the discussion we showed you just a bit ago about the same-sex marriage decision which came down from the supreme court earlier this year, the defense of marriage act decision and the proposition eight, the california decision, made by the supreme court in their final week. we will open up the phone lines. just a reminder, make sure that mute your television or your radio. we are also on facebook. we posed the question a bit earlier. some responses here.

some of the views of our viewers on facebook. let's go to elizabeth in montgomery, texas, opposing same-sex marriage. go ahead. >> i am opposed to same-sex beingges. and the reason is, you know, we have a man and a woman, and it is a family unit, and it is just the, just showing our children, and also having our children realize that our country is built on what god gave us, what the lord made us to be, and was not to be man with man and woman with woman. it was to be one woman with one man. >> what is the law in texas? >> there is not any gay

marriages in texas. >> are their efforts underway to change the law? >> not that i know of. i haven't heard anything like that. >> let's go to west virginia. thomas is in favor of gay marriage. >> yes sir, im. i believe that there is no good reason to oppose marriage for anybody, no matter what their sexual orientation. >> i will ask you the same question. do you know what the law is in west virginia? on it, not current up but as well as i am aware, it is illegal in west virginia for same-sex couples to marry. beckley, west virginia. thanks for your call. again, we will read some of your tweets and facebook comments as well. also taking a look at

what members are doing back in their districts as far as town halls. here is roll call, august down halls by the numbers. -- town halls by the numbers. mark wayne mullen of oklahoma is holding 26 events over the summer recess. todd young of indiana is holding 13. is holding a dozen. deb fisher is holding a levin. chuck grassley, 11, aaron schock , 10, mark meadows, 10. same with brett guthrie of kentucky and joe barton of texas. 10 event the top holders. from joe garcia,

democrat in florida, keeping an membersome of the tweets. next up, independent line, eric. you oppose gay marriage. >> i do. i have two daughters. one is 16. one is 19. they both favor marriage for homosexual couples. i feel that the way this was all having a lieutenant governor not step up and do what i believe is their constitutional duty and tried to defend the state, and then have , if weded on just that had done that, i really feel that sooner or later, times change, they would have had the vote to approve marriage. >> you mentioned at the beginning of your discussion that your daughters support

same-sex marriage. >> yes. >> that must make for interesting dinnertable conversation. >> yes, very much. i do believe that eventually marriage for gay couples will pass. would have passed in california. and that is fine with me. i mean, whatever the people decide. but to have it decided this way leaves a sour taste in my mouth. i don't like the government having a say on the issue. >> another california caller, this time from victorville. in support of same-sex marriage. go ahead. i think all people should have the right to marry whomever they choose, and it is nobody else's business. we all need to just live and let live. it, theyoes not like

do not have to be a part of their life. >> how did people in california feel after the decision was announced by the supreme court? >> i heard mixed emotions, really. >> what about your neighbors? were glad. some were against it. >> thank you for the call. back to texas we go. natalie is on the line. hi there. >> hi, how are you? >> doing fine, thank you. well, i do oppose same-sex marriage, and i am basing it on the historical as well as a biblical view. >> ok. >> historically, it is proven to show that it demoralizes our society.

from the ruins of sodom and gomorrah, if you will. there is evidence. that is evidence. it was destroyed by god. in ai am a firm believer supreme being. his name is god, yahweh. and he gave us laws to live by, and he has stated over and over and again that that is against his will. is really athis moral issue. this is not about who is born what way. this is a moral issue. i know this to be true because i myself fought as a young child those types of feelings, if you .ill they came over me at a young age, and i knew it was morally wrong and biblically wrong. >> natalie from texas, thanks for your call.

and another view from the american civil liberties union, the panel discussion we just showed you and what that ruling may mean for the laws in the states. here is what he had to say. >> they are technically right that it does not establish a nationwide right for homosexual couples to marry. but that is just people trying to deny what is going on in the country. if you go back to 2008 when we hadtion eight passed, two states that allowed same-sex couples to marry when prop eight passed. within a few weeks, we picked up two more. up,e then, we have picked quein re gay said -- enri said, california is the 13th.

this is becoming something that needs to happen, something that historically is going to happen, that needs to happen soon. oft to underwrite the scope the victory by focusing on the technicalities. that was the director of the american civil liberties union discussing the proposition eight case in california. looking at a map of the united states, the states in red are ones that allow same-sex marriage. there are states that have civil union laws as well. oregon, nevada, colorado, wisconsin, illinois and new jersey. an issue that has come up in pennsylvania though, where a at one of the county

courts is issuing same-sex marriage licenses. i just want to read you a little of this. a court barred the clerk from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, arguing that the acting illegally and defying the 1996 marriage law. suing the clerk issuing marriage licenses. hesparked a firestorm when began issuing marriage licenses on july 24, saying he was prompted to do so after the state's attorney general said she could not defend the state marriage law. we are discussing same-sex marriage, the future of

marriage, and the law in your state. , james is ini ocean springs, and he supports same-sex marriage. >> yes, and mississippi, of .ourse, does not recognize i am originally from louisiana, and it is not recognized. but just like all other civil progress, the south as far behind. it will take some time to reach it, but we will eventually get there. lived inng have you mississippi? >> just over a year. of the time i spent in louisiana and i lived in baileys, central america, for the last five years before e,ming to mississippi -- beliz central america, for the last five years before coming to mississippi. >> mark, go ahead with your comment. thismain point to all of

is, we live in a great country and everybody has the right to be wrong. everybody has the right to be right. what we have here is a battle over semantics, i think. can be think the union called marriage because marriage is a sacrament. it is sacred. it is holy. , a homosexual marriage, is sodomy. that is not holy. that is an unholy union. if you want to go ahead and have the government take care of all of your finances and everything after you die, then call it something else. civil union, maybe that is what you have to do. maybe that is what we were all word,ng over, a semantic like abortion. quick so it boils down to the

nature of the term -- >> so it boils down to the nature of the term for you. you are ok with defining it as a civil union and offering the same right. >> we live in a country where it doesn't matter what i think as a christian. we are going to have people do what they want. as a libertarian, we cannot legislate morality, just because people do not agree with me. the union itself is not holy, so you cannot use the word marriage. support@? i obviously do not, because i thesee in the creator and type of christian concepts. but i also think we live in a country where we have a right to be wrong and we have a right to be right. >> mark in ohio, thanks for your views in that does -- and

proposition eight. -- in that discussion on proposition eight. >> it is important to distinguish the constitutional question from the policy question. the constitution does not speak one way or the other to the question of so-called same-sex marriage. process to the states to define marriage and to congress in addressing what marriage means and the various provisions of federal law. it is constitutionally permissible to obtain laws tonal marriage include same-sex marriage. rightim a constitutional -- to claimn has

that a person has a constitutional right to marry someone of the same-sex is wholly implausible, regardless of how how it will be ruled on by the court. reason foral government recognition of marriage is encourage the generating of children in the optimal context of marriage and to discourage it in potentially harmful, nonmarital context. in particular, they were talking about the proposition eight case in california. our topic this evening on c-span town hall is the future of marriage. we are taking calls on whether support or oppose gay marriage and what the laws are in your state. track ofso keeping members of congress who are during theiralls

recess. here is a tweet from rhode island. back to calls. >> hi, here in missouri, it is not supported, but liberals cross the border to iowa to get married. main argument against same- sex marriage is because it is under god. we allow nontraditional buddhist weddings which are not under god. we allow nontraditional hindu weddings which are under many gods. we should allow gay marriage as well. >> you say people cross the border to iowa to get married there. >> yes. >> but when they come back to missouri, they are unable to get certain state benefits.

symbolicust want the wedding. >> misery is in between delaware -- new york -- missouri jersey is in between some states that support gay marriage, new york and delaware. case scheduled for this ,utumn will affect new jersey but is being watched closely for broader implications. we will be talking to bill duncan later on this hour. the hearing this thursday at the

superior court in trenton is based on a lawsuit from two years ago. from the associated press and from new jersey. chicago is next. tweety. you oppose same-sex marriage, correct? >> yes, i am. i think our country has become like spoiled children. anything that somebody thinks they are supposed to have, we wake up one morning and go, i want that, i want that, and they are supposed to have it. forget that it goes against nature. forget that it goes against the historical history of the human race on the face of this earth. forget that there is a religious part to it erie it is not

natural. everything -- part to it. it is not natural. everything in life has a natural order to it erie it just because andwake up one morning decide hey, this is something i you get tonot mean have that. marriage is not a human construct. it is a godly construct. who are we as human beings to oppose or change something we never created in the first place? we are prepared to throw out the history of human life because spoiled people want to have their way all of a sudden. that is i comment. in misery. you support same-sex marriage. >> yes, not all of us in

missouri oppose it. just the southern half. slippery slope when we start using the government to legislate morality. thech is supposed to separate from politics. the other point is, love is awfully hard to come by, and an enduring relationship that last decades, whether same-sex or not, is a precious and valuable tong that contributes society. it certainly does not cause any detriment. i have had the privilege of meeting quite a few gay couples and individuals in my life, and they have dispelled any biases or preconceptions i might have had about what being gay is all about. >> have you met any same-sex couples who had a long-term 20 or 30 years?

>> several. -- 20 year relationships. >> thank you for your call. wanted to get some reaction from one of the plaintiffs in the proposition eight case, sandra stein, in that recent discussion. here is some of what she had to say. >> i had an interest in you experience a couple of days ago. we were in washington, d.c., and i was renting a car, and chris was not with us. and they said are you the only driver, and i said no, i want to add a second driver, do they have to be here? long as youd no, as are married. .nd i thought hey, i am married and it sort of occurred to me then. and the husband said, put down

the name of your husband, and i , it is not my husband, it is my wife. and he said, ok, i will put pute ballast. -- i will down spouse. we are so used to feeling that, feeling bad, feeling second- class. i never aspired to be a lawyer. i am not a partner. but the word wife is working out really well. the day we got married, i honestly felt calm her. i felt like my heart rate, my ,lood pressure just went down like things are going to be ok. this is real.

this is the real deal. our families are going to understand it better. we can stop fighting for it. we can stop being in court over it. i feel more legitimate in some bizarre way in this world country, in our society, marriage means something. >> sandra stier, one of the proponents in the supreme court proposition eight case. we are taking your calls at a c- span town hall on the future of same-sex marriage in the u.s. let's hear from lee in wichita, kansas. >> i think it is real sad that we live in a world that is just bad. i liked what the lady said earlier. children.s the it is disgusting, a man with a man and a woman with a woman.

forknow, god made marriage a man to be with a woman. like that lady said, this world is getting so disgusting. everybody wants to do what they want to do, and it is just disgusting, i mean, very disgusting to see a man want to be with a man. >> in the wake of the supreme court decision, it is having ramifications in terms of government agencies, in particular tax issues. this is a bloomberg story about the implications of the tax policies. they write that married same-sex couples with children may face higher bills from the irs as recent supreme court ruling start playing a part of the tax code. out could result in phasing exemptions from income taxes.

in cuba, new mexico, tonia, welcome to the conversation. you support same-sex marriage. >> i sure do. >> what is the law in new mexico? i am in nashville, tennessee. >> tell us why you support same- sex marriage. >> i support it, basically, because, if we are going to go at it from a biblical are going, and people at it from the angle that ,omosexuals cannot procreate and therefore we are ruining society.

but if god can take dirt and make a man or take dirt and make a woman, who are we to say what god can do? divorce runs rampant in this country. who is cheating to cause these families to separate if god only gives two reasons, either in fidelity or death? i don't see how these people can say that homosexuality is ruining families when divorce in this country is astronomically high. divorce the person, should you be in a civil union a second orarried third time? is your marriage honored in the eyes of god if you separated for reasons other than what he has publicly stated were the reasons? because that is what we are basically going off of, is the bible. god says divorce is also illegal

died orif you have not your spouse has cheated, that is the only reason. >> let's get another view from louisiana. mary, hi there. what i am calling about is in our holy bible under leviticus. yourke sure you meet television or radio. go ahead, mary. >> in our holy bible under leviticus, it is written. this is what it says. any man who lays down with another man in his bed or any woman who lays down with another is an abomination of god and they shall surely be put to death. >> what is the law in louisiana? that is for marriage between

one man and one woman. >> let's hear from pennsylvania. ricardo is on our support line. hello. listen, i support gay marriage. i am gay. i have been with my partner 49 years. i don't have a problem with it. god is the god of all. he made me homosexual just like he made others heterosexual. of course, in pennsylvania we are fighting it now. alleventually it will be over the country. happened there? your state attorney general said -- >> she said she would not fight it. >> your governor is a republican but your attorney general is a democrat. >> yes. >> what has been the fallout from that? >> she is getting a lot of support. have -- he works for

-- i forget what he works for, but he was giving licenses out in montgomery county to gay couples that want to get married. he is getting a lot of support, although the governor has him in court and is fighting it. when you talk about the bible, you know, in order to understand the bible, you have to understand the people at the time it was written. jesus never spoke on it. leave the bible out of it. we pay taxes just like anybody else. >> ricardo, thank you for that. let's go to tennessee. >> it does say in the bible that god does oppose same-sex couples, gays and lesbians. marriage was created between a man and one woman. i think the legislature ought to step back and let the governors legislate and do their part.

therefore, i am opposed greatly to the lesbians and gay marriages. thank you. >> this is c-span town hall. we are looking at the issue of the future of marriage in the u.s. we are also keeping our eye on members across the country as they return to their congressional districts and what they are up to. lynn westmoreland, republican from georgia, tweeting here -- town hall meeting with senator john mccain this evening. margaret is in phoenix, arizona. she supports same-sex marriage. >> i have a lot of friends who are gay. they are american citizens just like everyone else.

they have the right to marry. marriage is a civil union. if you want to get married in the church, that is up to you, according to your religion, but you still have to get married by the state -- get a marriage license from the state. i am an atheist myself. people have a right to be haveed and they also rights to visit their spouse in the hospital's. partners are not even allowed to see their partners when they are in a hospital. they have no rights. now that they can get married, they have the civil rights just like everyone else. >> james on the oppose line. go ahead. , iyou know, i disagree oppose same-sex marriage myself, personally, but the thing i think is the worst art of what is going on here is that a lot

of these cases are being taken to a jury, or judges or whatever, who are making a decision, who are really taking away the rights of the people. the majority should have the right to make .hose decisions won or-sex would have property would've lost, i would not have liked it, but i would have accepted it. but these judges are opposing the will of the people. the government will not even stand up for the will of the people, the majority of the people. you are a you do if same-sex couple and you are married in a state that yougnizes it, and then moves somewhere else and those rights do not transfer, say texas or elsewhere? how do you resolve that?

>> you have to make decisions on where you want to move and the things you want to do. it is like moving to a different country that opposes those issues. you just have to work with that. the thing i think is bad about what is happening here is that it is destroying our government. people don't even want to go out and vote anymore because they feel it doesn't count. they are taking rights away. that is when things like, you know, you get a lot of things that start coming up against the government when you have a majority of the government -- or a majority of the people not being able to be heard. >> that was james from fort worth, texas. in thethe discussions recent conversation on the implications of the same-sex marriage case, the proposition

eight case, was harry severino, clarenceclerk to thomas. took a discussion, she look at some of the potential implications. here is what she had to say. >> the bad news is sort of everything else. the legal implications are really troublesome, given these decisions, particularly given the logic he find them, starting with the doma decision. -- behind them, starting with the doma decision. there is danger to the ground rationalization for the federal government changing laws regarding marriage. we have seen this slope be even slip earlier -- slippery or than some had predicted. the state of michigan was already requiring that that

state fund benefits for same-sex couples. this is a state that does not have same-sex marriage and they are saying look, there is no rational basis to not fund these couples. this is truly frightening, and i think it unfortunately undermines chief justice roberts careful attempt to caveat this issue. there were two dissents. was chief justice saying, don't worry, this is a federal decision. the states can still do what they want. the other was justice deleo basically saying this is the end as we know it. basically scalia saying this is the end of the world as we know it. >> back to our callers. robbie in louisiana, hi. >> i appreciate being on your show. i guess what i am calling to say , should i start right out or do

you need to make a comment? i was in a. >> -- 430nship since i was six years. he died 10 years ago. 36 years. he died 10 years ago. we had a wonderful life. when he got sick, i was at the mercy of the hospital. it worked out five. after he died, i was at the mercy of his family. no rights whatsoever. the difference between our relationship and a heterosexual nottionship was we could have children. same as a heterosexual couple on birth control. they are not having children either. but i had no rights.

i was at the mercy of the courts. that and that alone is a reason for me to be supporting gay marriage. >> thanks for the call. back to our facebook page. thoughts on gay marriage. here is one from diane. just because the government -- just a reminder, if you are on twitter, the #we are using this spanchat.s #c- >> i don't understand why our government is involved in trying .o define something like this my concern is, this is not a natural act. desire between human beings. no other species performs this

sort of act. all of a sudden, we have the government getting into this matter to make it a law. what it doesn't make sense. >> next up, wabash, indiana, the support line. animalar as no other performs these acts, excuse me, maybe you need to open your eyes. the reason i called is because people keep talking about this being a biblical thing. our whole constitution, our whole law system, our whole united states is set up on the fact that separation of church and state. man.i am a gay i was born again man. i was also married for 11 years born aave a 20 -- was gay man. i was also married for 11 years and have a 21-year-old daughter. it is ridiculous that people who are religious are complaining.

when i got divorced, the whole county benefited from my money. if i were to supposedly get , anded in a gay marriage even, you know, hopefully that would work, but if it didn't and i got divorced, guess who is going to benefit? everybody is going to benefit from my money again, you know, including the churches. i mean, churches and religion have no complaints. say your daughter is grown now? >> yes, she is 21, almost 21. with that.fine she has always been fine with that, ever since i came out to her. as a matter of fact, the new generation is fine with most things. the new generation is open and cool with it.

>> after the supreme court decision, was she saying, when are you going to think about getting married, dad? or has that entered your -- >> you know, if the opportunity arose. it is all in the future. anything could happen. but that would be awesome. that way i could have the same benefits and, as far as that goes, same detriments as anybody else. i don't see it as anybody else's business. like i said, if something would happen and you ended up getting a divorce, everybody is going to benefit. everybody is going to benefit from the union also, because you're going to be buying a living together, being a productive person in society. i don't see where that hurts anybody. >> we appreciate you being part evening.scussion this

and another from edward on facebook. part of what edward wrote on facebook. here is franklin in tennessee. -- frank lin, tennessee, lucy. have a comment about this marriage. god plays a part in marriage. he does the marrying. man down. god didn't make us that he couldn't tell us apart from man and women. adam and eve, not adam and steve. >> go back to the point about

the contract, the state legal part. how do you reconcile what he has to say? >> god does the marrying. i believe what god said. i believe it. that sells it. thanks for joining us this evening. robert is in belfast, maine. >> hello. course, have recently voted for same-sex marriage in maine. i am 60 years of age. i have gone through an entire 180 degree conversion in my life from being a well-educated catholic to being -- to coming longtime partners in homosexual relationships that proved, in my opinion, to be .onderful parents

also, i would like to tackle this god thing head on. the definition of god as we are hearing tonight, repeatedly, is barely a few thousand years old, and we have been recording god for a lot longer than that. i think it is really presumptuous to accept an argument based on an interpretation of a few documents that have been put inether by a church that 1492, in spain, was killing people because they wouldn't convert from judaism or being inamic to catholicism, or , switched from catholicism to protestants, or killing people for being witches. i don't know what that is.

i think you see where i am going. now we cannot accept the science that says that homosexuals are born that way because god told us different. >> robert, i appreciate your contribution to the program. more of your calls coming up as well. we are joined by bill duncan, with the marriage law foundation, a nonprofit that provides legal resources to defend and protect marriage between a husband and a wife. bill duncan, thanks for joining us this evening. >> thanks for having me. >> i read a story earlier about new jersey and some of the challenges in new jersey. you said that every court case is going to be amplified until we have a national policy. since the supreme court's decision, which direction do you

see it going? >> it is early to tell. of course, a lawyer would say that. the answer is we are seeing a lot of lawsuits being brought now, and they cover a pretty wide range of the country. they seem to be avoiding some regions, of course, but most of the lawsuits seem to be brought in areas where they would have an effect through the federal court system on a couple of states around them. we could easily see a scenario where, if all of these lawsuits are successful, a vast part of the country would have the new definition of marriage imposed by the federal court system, even without any action by the u.s. supreme court, without the supreme court having to hear this case again. , none of these cases have resulted in official decisions yet, so we don't know

what is going to happen, but the tenor of complaints being brought makes me think that those who are bringing them thinks it is a slam dunk, that to clean up.me now this is roe v wade in slow motion. the court has ruled. the position is clear, and now it is up to the lower courts to take the states won by one and put them in line. lot frome heard a viewers tonight talking about the religious aspect of this. largely because they oppose it. your organization, the marriage law foundation, is set up to support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. what is the number one legal argument that your organization makes to defend these laws across the country? in this kind of complex sense. we think the decision not to be made through the legislative branch is because marriage

provides a social good that would be lost if we change its definition, and it is not up to the federal court system, we think, we argue, to second-guess the legislatures on this kind of a question. we think that if the definition of marriage is changed, we're going to see messages sent through the lot to people of the state that men and women are interchangeable. mothers and fathers are not important to children and that those who disagree with these these premises are essentially bigots. wrong.t is essentially we think that is the kind of message the courts need to take into consideration. they really have not had that chance to this point because of the strange technical posture the supremee at court had. >> what was your general reaction after the supreme court case? obviously, based on your organization supporting and -- proposing

traditional marriage, which of those cases, in your view, is more harmful to your cause? >> obviously, we had filed briefs in both cases supporting the position of congress and the doma case and the people of california in the proposition eight case. in one sense, the proposition eight case is not -- it doesn't seem to have a very broad -- it may affect other initiatives and ballot initiatives, and who can defend them. but in terms of marriage, it is somewhat limited. the defense of marriage act act case is much more significant. however, the court was limited in what you could say that would be limited -- would be applicable in states. obviously, everybody is going to

be searching the court's decision for some kind of nugget they can use to support their position either way. but in many ways, the question of whether states have to redefine marriage the way that congress was told it had to redefine marriage for national law purposes, that is still an open question in the federal .ourt the lower courts, as the dissent pointed out, are going to have to decide it, so it is an open question. to the degree that we have some clue as to where the court might want the states to go on this, the doma case is more important. >> are there other cases viewers should keep an eye on that might have an impact on the law overall it eventually? >> absolutely. there are really two classes of cases. a couple of cases like new jersey and new mexico are in the state court.

the more important cases are in the federal court. i am looking at a case in the u.s. court of appeals ninth circuit the challenges marriage laws in nevada and hawaii. at the highest level of any of the cases right now because it is at the appeals level. both laws were upheld at the trial court. now the ninth circuit has to decide if that is constitutional. that is one i would watch. we're also seeing movement on cases in michigan and ohio, challenges to those state marriage laws that i think could could move pretty quickly. these will be some of the first cases where we will get a sense s arew the trial court going to read the u.s. supreme court precedent. and of course, it will not be binding outside of those regions, but it will certainly be a clue to other judges who

are considering similar cases and how they might read the u.s. supreme court decision from june. >> bill duncan is the director of the marriage law foundation. i wonder if you could hang out for a couple of minutes and take some calls from c-span viewers. >> sure, of course. let's hear from ron from irving, texas. i have lived with my partner for teen years. obviously i support gay marriage. really addressing this as a rather we were born like this. i would say to them to go online and get educated. get educated about the 10 plus other countries in the world that have validated gay marriage.

and there are other manimal's that live on this earth with us that are reported -- there are other animals recorded as gay. we came here to show that we love each other. what about some of these long-term same-sex couples? what is the legal answer for those folks? things about know human loss or have to have to be somewhat narrow. i think the answer is there are all kinds of ways our laws can the number ofess arrangements that people have in terms of their family life.

this would change the eligibility for certain programs without changing the definition of marriage and that would he a result we can live with as a people. if we approach it that way rather than saying let's go through the federal courts and ask them what marriage ought to be understood as in the future. paul from abilene, texas, opposes same-sex marriage. caller: i'm a 59-year-old gay man and i have always been opposed to gay marriage. i think it is wrong and god intended for man and woman to be married even though most state end in divorce. ifis still my belief that two manan two women want to have a commitment ceremony, that's fine. womentwo men and two

want a ceremony, that's fine. does thet other issues marriage law foundation get into and get behind the? guest: divorce reform is a key and i'm one ofrk the few lawyers that has been involved in the effort to get a state to repeal the no-fault divorce law and go back to what fault a spouse may have been engaged in. ,e see now a development essentially using children as a commodity, buying and selling through third-party reproduction and that is one of the issues we somehave to address and in

ways it is linked to the question of same-sex marriage because when we change the definition of marriage, there are all sorts of way that the law uses marriage for a marker of determining who it arrant is. -- who a parent is. cohabitation is a quantitative matter is the most significant ofeats to our understanding marriage now. more people now engage in cohabitation and it undercuts the status of marriage as the preferred setting in which sexual relations take place. then, of course, the number for divorce is not nearly as high as the caller suggested, not eight in 10, but divorce is significantly higher than it ought to be. we of those issues are ones should be concerned about relating to marriage and family. our: bill duncan, if viewers and listeners want to find out more about you, what is your website?

guest: marriagelawfoundation.org. host: in the next hour, we continue with more of your calls on the issue of same-sex marriage and in particular, tax issues related to same-sex marriage and we will get back to looking at the decision today by the department of justice to attempt to block the proposed merger between u.s. air and american airlines and we will give you a chance to call in with airfares you were seeing this summer and how travel is by air this summer. we mentioned on town hall meetings across the country, one issue that is certainly coming up in the town hall but is still an active policy issue in the 2010 health care law. here is story in "the new york times" about a delay in the implementation. delayedn consumer costs

in healthcare law." the issue of healthcare law came up at a town hall meeting in north carolina. i'm 63 and without obamacare, we would have no health insurance. life, we have been

carrying health insurance. i have been in the construction industry and i have not been successful finding a job. [indiscernible] with that denial, i became eligible for health insurance. [indiscernible] why do you not want a federal ride and access to healthcare? thesee you going to save money over the next three years? [applause]

>> thank you for the question and -- [indiscernible] [applause] [indiscernible] that is more of a solution that i think obamacare will do. [crowd boos] to deal with existing conditions

first of all, it is absolutely right. when people ask him what things andree about, it ends begins with pre-existing conditions. i agree with that policy. functionis a different for people with chronic withtions and we can deal that as a society and it's important that we do that. the -- the plan that i , it makes sure that the uninsured can afford to get health insurance. [indiscernible] we have 15.7% of the american

people who do not have any health insurance. some of those would qualify for a government program already are signed up now not aware of it. maybe you are 19 years old and get hurt, they think. we need to make sure that they participate in the insurance pools because it helps lower the costs. what i do support for health care reform is this approach. [indiscernible] i have done all of those things but to simply say i would do that without giving an alternative is not simply enough. i think they should band

all of those associating with the health plan. [indiscernible] it gives people more options. health insurance is just going to keep going up where we could be doing better things as consumers. that is the better solution. you can get the same health care that i have access to. what's the problem with that? why can't you do that? law thatnge the obamacare does not fix -- make those changes, it gives better opportunities.

[indiscernible] representative patrick mchenry, republican and north carolina at a town hall answering questions from constituents and we will talk about that on the c-span townhall. the administration is delaying for the cap on out of pocket expenses for consumers and we will check in on other town halls across the and we look at an update on the rollout of healthcare exchanges that are set to take lace january first, 2014. that is on tomorrow night loss c-span townhall. focusing on the issue of same- sex marriage in the wake of the supreme court cases this summer and we will get back to her phone calls, facebook posts, and

tweets in just a second. as he saw from patrick mchenry, we are looking at town halls across the country. "the new york times" has an article today saying the number of town halls has dropped a bit from the high in 2009, the year before the healthcare law passed. they write pete sessions, the texas republican, is no stranger to townhall meetings.

of the we read you some members that are having the most town halls. the top 10 and let's try to find that article before we finish the evening. a couple of tweets before we get back to the issue. lgbt people and their families are minorities. they should protect minority rights. affects only those being married so why all the crazy uproar? what's the difference between a straight or gay marriage? get over it, america. marriage, why gay not polygamy? where does the redefinition and? >> again the tag is #cspanchat. of see this as a

game of semantics. christian, but as a christian, i don't expect someone not of my faith to follow my faith. they wante time, if to have a civil union, i don't see what the problem is. if they want all the same rights , by law, why not? the reason a lot of christians get offended over this is they see marriage as an act and acted by god outside of civil law. get over theust semantics and have civil unions and marriages, there would not be all of this offense. host: what is the law in missouri? caller: i really don't know. i believe that it is not for same-sex marriage. york, isfalo, new next, opposing same-sex marriage. caller: i am opposed to same-sex

marriage due to the simple fact is aour heavenly father man -- a man of truth, a man of righteousness. people tot expect his be confused and be misled. he wants equality for every person on this earth. person has to choose what site they want to be on. the right side or the left side. they do not want to understand the truth. just for the simple fact that they have to come to terms. do things that are right. by doing things right, you have a better understanding of what

is to come. we are supposed to live this life of good and in peace. when you do things not naturally, naturally, beastly, out-of-control, you set yourself up for disaster. host: on facebook, deb says marriage is a traditional positive in society when gen xers stopped meaning the vows they fudged and declared all children so resilient to mommy and daddy's many selfish choices. to pennsylvania on the support line. welcome to the c-span townhall this evening. ?aller: how are you doing i'm a young person. i'm 17 years old. it really grinds my gears that if you do your research, listen , it is acientists

genetic issue. african-americans are born the color they are. fact that we are restricting the rights of these anythingat did not do wrong. they are born into the way we are and the fact that we are restrict wingback, it just really grinds my gears. i'm catholic. i went to catholic school, but something about that does not feel -- host: you're 17? caller: yes. host: you're finished with high school? caller: i'm going to be a senior. part ofanks for being a the discussion. springfield, ohio, opposing same-sex marriage. same-sex marriage, and the bible it does say marriage is between one woman and one man. not a man and a man.

i was raised pentecostal that baptist and now i'm catholic. i've heard a lot of comments that people said that they are and theyway they are are born into being gay. it is bs on my part. god created everyone in his image. couldwas gay, then i understand it but god is not gay. gay marriage because of the simple fact of what the bible says. the world is going against the bible and it also says the nation that forgets god will crumble. -- youou were bought up were brought up pentecostal and catholic? you had different experiences you of the two faiths, did they have different views on this issue, on marriage? caller: they had the same views

on it as it should be between a man and a woman. ohio, as the law here in they won't even consider having people of the same sex being married. host: thank you for the call this evening, christopher. we are going to change the conversation a little bit and look at the practical implications of the tax issues involved with same-sex marriage. tax gal whos the writes a blog for forbes.com, an attorney in philadelphia. thanks for being with us on the c-span townhall this evening. guest: things for having me. host: we read a couple of articles earlier that waste on the rulings from the supreme court already, but there are already ramifications for the and same-sex couples. what is the one thing you are

advising same-sex couples about the potential tax changes ahead? guest: i'm telling them to wait. the irs quite frankly is not ready yet. if you go to the website, it says we are thinking about it. i think it is a little premature so it'sd do that return prudent right now to wait and see what the irs is going to do. recognize,13 states and the district, recognize same-sex marriage. what sort of challenge does that present to couples who may work in several states or have his misses in multiple states? guest: there will be a lot of challenges. the easy scenario is a couple that lives in a state that marriages same-sex

because as a general rule it relies on the state definition of marriage. if you are married in new york state,, then you are married for federal purposes. i live in pennsylvania and they don't recognize same-sex marriage, but you would in new york and perhaps you work here. that will be the challenge the irs has an quite frankly, i think it's why they have not released a state and even though the court case has been decided over one month. state, when the dome a case to lace, they said they will be refunding a state tax that was paid in the state of a veryk and i think it's clear-cut answer. you are married or you are not. it is determined by the legislature. for federal purposes, i'm not sure if they know how they will treat it yet. true, butow if it's

this particular piece of dome a is nowat considered unconstitutional actually touches on 10,000 statutes. if you'd think about the enormity of what it means, it is not just income tax. there are a lot of issues, estate taxes, so many concerns and the irs doesn't want to rush. they don't want to say, if you are married in new york, we consider you married everywhere, because that's an overreach. to some of the calls earlier, i actually think that thatis a ruling conservatives and liberals should get behind. it's a state issue. what the supreme court said, they did not say that same-sex marriage is ok. they said the federal government does not have the right to tell states what to do and that's

important and what the irs is struggling with. on the case ruling in new york, doesn't that open up problems in other parts of the court? it does not say specifically that it does not apply to some states but just new york. doesn't cause problems for other states? guest: sure it does. i cannot remember which justice addressed it -- probably scalia, but when of the justices actually did address this issue. what does this mean for each eight? .ew york is a recognition state it recognizes marriages from states,ates but not all even those who do recognize same-sex marriages inside their own borders recognize marriages from other states. that's going to be the challenge. if you drive across the border to connecticut or commute to pennsylvania or you get married

in new york and moved to pennsylvania, what does it mean? right now, most states are still taking the position that the whatition of marriage is abides inside each state. if you are married in new york and moved to pennsylvania, if you are a same-sex married couple, i don't think it will be recognized for tax purposes in pennsylvania. be the nextobably challenge we see at the supreme court level which is why i think the irs is sitting back taking a measured approach. to make a want decision to perhaps reset their boundaries by saying if you're married in new york, you are married everywhere. that was not the ruling in windsor. erb fromly phillips pennsylvania on skype and brian urlacher this focuses on family matters and tax businesses. she is on forbes.com as the tax gal.

a quick question about pennsylvania. your state's attorney general has decided not to enforce the law. why did she go that direction you g? i think the more interesting question is what pennsylvania will do. that goes to where the attorney general general is coming out. our attorney general is probably not in alignment with what the governor believes because they are philosophically very different. -- i recently have this discussion with a group of -- but i don't think we know what's going to happen. ,'m actually in chester county just outside of philadelphia, but montgomery nearby has taken

the position that he can married couples inside the county boundaries. concerns.ing real montgomery county is traditionally pretty conservative and philadelphia the neighboring counter he is not. chester county is. info graphic and i think the philadelphia inquirer did it where people outside of philadelphia coming in to montgomery to get married. is that going to be recognized? i don't think it's going to be. i actually think the attorney general is doing a wait and see frankly,because, quite an action is the same as waiting for the legislature to have actual action -- inaction is the same as waiting. erb. kelly phillips you will hang with us and take a couple of calls from viewers. the xenia, ohio,

brad who supports same-sex marriage. thanks for waiting. go ahead with your comment or question. caller: i was just wondering about the ages. 18-30, they are saying about 60%, 55% of kids growing up in support it.ion grew up here in ohio and i was raised absolutely to hate and despise the people. springs, ohio,w and all of my customers are gay. it changed my life. can i ask what kind of work do you do. you said all of your customers are gay. we may have lost brad in ohio. the kelly, any thoughts? agree thatsolutely

how you are raised depends where you come down on this decision but i would go back -- i will wasace that by saying i raised in rural north carolina and i came up to philadelphia for graduate school and much to my mother's chagrin, never moved back home. parents are very conservative and i would say that we were always raised for tolerance. how you are raised does expectorate -- it does affect your stance on the issue but from a legal standpoint, it is something that conservatives and liberals should get behind because the supreme court is not necessarily reaffirming the lifestyle choice but saying states should have the rights to make the decision, not the federal government. conservatives who tended to be wary of same-sex marriage, they should embrace the notion, as many of the justices did, that the federal government should not be in a position to

tell you what decision you can make in your life. that is something transgressing what brad said about growing up in ohio. they should be allowed as a state to get it high and those decisions. ogden, utah, opposing same-sex marriage. go ahead. i am very much opposed. the reason is that i don't think it ensures the future of america. oldave survived on the ways, basically. , the0 commandments constitution, everything. fathersour founding would be very ashamed in the way that things are going. --y don't ensure the future look at it this way.

two people of the same sex cannot reproduce. that is an argument that has been very wide in this whole argument of same-sex marriage, but the thing is, why grant somebody the rights and those rights that come with marriage to someone who cannot reproduce? in aave two people traditional marriage. if they cannot have kids, this two people are still teaching the children that this is the right way to go. they can still ensure america by populating. if everybody was gay, the human race would be extinct. act.nk this is a political see thery disgusting to

use of the laws that we see now and the abuses of government. host: i think we get your point, joseph. any thoughts, kelly? of how you come down on support or not, that's an individual choice. in terms of the rights, it's interesting. there was an article this morning about the fact that traditional couples or women in general are opting to have fewer children. a whole other issue about what you say in terms of reproductive rights, population, and that issue. what they said is that it is not federal governments place to step in and tell you if it's it's right or not which is why i think with this court, which is

pretty conservative, to make this kind of statement is really important for our country. host: in terms of the policy fallout, what are you looking for from the federal government, social security, and in pennsylvania on how they are going to deal with issues like annual taxes and things? what are you keeping your eye out for? there are individual state stakeholders and as you raise the question of this and what this happens, you're moving very freely between borders. where thetheast andes tend to be smaller where i grew up. carolina, it was also very large. it is not unusual for someone to

to new york, new jersey, delaware. all leaning to recognize same-sex marriage but not partnerships and i believe that it will kind of be the next .ssue what kind of rights to give to someone who has a same-sex partnership as opposed to same- sex marriage. that was a very easy answer. in a state where that was not an option, new jersey passed laws to kind of grant pseudo-marriage status to same-sex couples because they do not have the option. now that it is an option, what does that mean? they get married in new york and new jersey will recognize it? i'm not sure what's going to

state and a lot of the and tax planners, they are all kind of waiting to see what's next and what it means. writingelly phillips erb the tax gal blog on forbes.com. thank you for being with us this evening on the c-span town hall. we will a couple more of your , but let'se issue hear from one of the plaintiffs in the proposition 8 case before the supreme court. recall, thell strategy they relied upon to casttical campaign lesbian and gay couples as different and even deviant, not worthy as something as special as and certainly not good enough to be parents. for sandy and i with four children who we love dearly and all of the other children in california we want to help, that

was just too much to tolerate. we talked to the judge about how we were not worthy and their children were there and they heard that as well. it was a really difficult experience and i hope some day the video is unsealed and some of you can see and heard what we saw. even though they wanted to convince the judge that they were right, they had no evidence and they could not back up any of their claims and i think it's why we won. the 17 witnesses we had compared were using data and evidence to explain how meaningful and helpful marriage is. happier in many cases and that their lives are enriched by marriage and certainly knowing you have the option to be married, whether you choose to or not tom a is helpful. that was the great part about the trial, good news that came out of our side in the heart art

was the news that came from their side. host: let's check twitter and facebook. here is one from israel. your godnderstand what has to do with our american freedoms. says, it's akirk matter of time before civil rights are extended. facebook.com/cspan. i'm worried about men. most i know don't want to get married. for men, there's not much in marriage and the loss of men will have bad effects. and the response, get government out of it. autumn is in santa maria, california, opposing same-sex marriage. are you there? i think we lost her. hal in lincoln, nebraska, supporting same-sex marriage. caller: thank you to c-span.

i love this place. say, really, the whole thing is about freedom. it's good for me, it's good for everybody. divorces are going to double. i know my lawyer made a lot of honey on my divorce. says that we are not going to reproduce anymore, there are 7 billion right now, more that there has ever been in the whole history of humanity. as far as the tax thing, i just wonder what tax advantage any marriage has. it's a big sham. marriage is all a sham. to pay for these peoples churches and they do not pay property tax but i do. i pay their property tax through

mine. maybe they should take the first -- host: let's get one more word on the issue. gail, opposing same-sex marriage. caller: i oppose because i feel marriage should be between a man and a woman. the bible says it should be. another reason i oppose it is they could play around with another type of law. they don't want to be partners because of tax purposes? went to become married, it changes your view on everything because then what about the children? thinks everything is ok to do whatever you want to do. host: thanks for the

participating. we are going to look at airline fares this summer. based on the news today that the justice department was filing suit against the proposed merger between us airways and american airlines. republican,e democrat, and opposed and we will give you those in just a minute. the question we are asking is about summer airfare. how are you finding them as you travel the summer you go? will beosal merger blocked by the department of justice we spoke to a capitol hill reporter to get the details. key for joining us this evening on skype. what did the justice department do with the states today? what happened? with sixey joined other states including the attorney general of arizona where u.s. air is and taxes where american is head order to

file a lawsuit alleging the potential combination of the two would violate federal antitrust laws. host: what's the big deal? why did they say this and be a violation of antitrust? they're focusing on the amount of routes they have that overlap. this is different because they have too many similar route structures which would increase competition -- a decrease competition, excuse me, and increase prices. host: how long has this been in the works? the discussion of the proposed merger between u.s. and american ? how long has the justice department been considering this? the merger was first announced in february but they have been negotiating most of last year as well. american airlines originally resisted the attempts but as they went through bankruptcy

proceedings they decided the best way for them to merge was quickly and strongly. host: the headline, consumer cheer on the doj intervention. who did you hear from? what did the ceo's say? guest: i spoke with the head of group and they said that they were overjoyed at the doj intervention because they said it was the only way that this potential loss competition could be prevented. host: our viewers are seeing some video from the united ticket counter and reagan national airport. politico has a headline on one of their stories, reagan national plays starring line in doj complaint. what does that airport have to do with the story? is one ofgan national just a handful, i believe two

major, are regulated by the federal government they have to apply for what are called landing slots at reagan national. as part of the effort to clear the inspection of the review, u.s. and american said they would give up some of the landing slots at reagan because they would have had more of a majority of the flights out of reagan national if they combined. this actionng does by the doj delay the merger or itision on a merger? guest: will not be able to be approved the approval of the doj. there is no timeline. this is one of the approvals necessary. he neededapprovals from the federal aviation administration but they also have to be cleared of antitrust exemptions. following the doj is by filing the lawsuit, they will

not issue the certification. give us an idea of the substantial harm to consumers they talked about today and .heir statement what do they see as the potential hike? guest: if there are fewer airlines, there will be less competition, therefore prices will increase. they argue the route structures are complementary and they only have 12 nonstop that overlap and only seven of them aren't laces where there is not another airline flying between those two that do-- seven of them not. some of them require one or two dev connections because they are hubs. airlines

if you fly from seattle to boston, they will route you through dallas. if you fly on u.s. airways, they will route you through phoenix. they argue as a passenger, you are going to be interested more in price versus where your layover is. host: what are prices like this summer in general? industrye aviation will tell you that prices are historically low. customers may not feel that. the amount of fees that are charged for things such as baggage, changing flights, window seats, sitting together have definitely increased. aviation experts say that fares have never been this low. it was a problem before the mergers that fares were artificially low. laing covers aviation for the hill. the story, department of justice

files to block deal between nations largest airlines. keith, thanks for your report. this evening on c-span's town reaction for your how youosed merger and will fly this summer. for republicans -- for democrats -- independent and others -- what is your experience with airfare, baggage fees this summer?you can also use #cspanchat. meanwhile, an update on the new jersey primary race. the polls closed about 45 minutes ago but there is already a declared winner. this is thenyyc saying cory

primary giving the vote tally. i want to give you a look at politico and their vote tally. vote, counted, 56% of the for cory booker, the mayor of newark. here at 81%,away the former pagoda mayor. this is the special election that was called in new jersey after the passing of frank lautenberg, the former senator. a couple of other stories. women talking about town halls across halls across the country and this is from roll call. they looked at the potential town halls listed by members before they went on their august

recess. the top 10 according to roll mullin withwayne 26. what is your experience with airfare is? what do you think about the department of justice blocking the proposed merger of u.s. air and american airlines? to virginia beach, bill, republican line. it seems that fares have climbed down if you want to take

a redeye overnight or at the most inconvenient time. fly ort popular times to where it makes the most sense, it seems to be as high as ever. host: what routes do you typically fly? caller: i fly for work and often .oast-to-coast it's either overnight for less money or leaving at a reasonable time in the morning and getting there at a reasonable time in the early afternoon for a much higher cost. at somethingu look like this proposed us airways- american airlines merger, what do you think it means for a travel alike you? you?traveler like caller: this is the same song and dance with the united and continental merger.

frequent flyers like myself, the worst practices are either airlines are the ones that are. did in a merger. bashar the ones that are adopted. to see an increase in competition to ensure better service? whatever. a marketing line. host: do you have an airline that you favor? caller: absolutely. if you fly often, it just makes sense to do then. not that you get much in the way of benefits, waived baggage fees ,nd occasionally a seat upgrade maybe boarding before the majority of people. the airlines have been nibbling away at those benefits at the last couple of years. from thank you, bill,

virginia beach. we are asking you about summer baggage fees, as well. the numbers are on your screen. we are also using #cspanchat. the businessday in section of "the new york times" looked at an interesting problem with check-in at atlanta hartsfield. guns at the airport."

we covered in airline hearing earlier this year in the merger between us airways and american

and the ceo's testified on behalf of the merger and why they thought it was good for both companies and good for competition. [video clip] --we will be completing competing in a global marketplace. we also compete with the likes of lufthansa, emirates, singapore, around the world. we think this is about creating a more competitive industry. has been2000, there only one new carrier, virgin america. you mentioned these other carriers and the concern is there really has not been a new carrier that has been viable since 2000. don't you think there are many barriers to entry to make it hard for new airlines to come in and compete? many years,last there have been new entrants. jetblue is a great example of a that sprang up in the

early part of the last decade. it has grown nationwide. there are ample opportunities and capital available for new airlines to enter the market. >> by putting the two together we create a third competitor, actually a fourth, 23 airlines larger than ours, united, delta, southwest, and it allows more competition not less and even 12 out of 900.ap also note that in the $1 billion of synergy i noted, that is not one cent of fare increase. it is not built around a fare increase but rather what i said, putting two networks together to allow us to attract customers in a more efficient way.

justice department and several states filing a suit to block the proposed merger and americanrways airlines. taking your calls on summer airfares. jason is in tucson, arizona. good evening and welcome to the program. i think this is a bad question originally. i thought this was a bad question and how it was laid out. i think it can go in different directions, but asking the caller to disclose what they are paying kind of breaks confidentiality. it's a catch-22 almost in that and seeing this merger a texas entityt

and an arizona entity were trying to create a union in the courts said you want to not do that. the question ought to be geared for the collars -- the callers to say where they money should go. with the courts. i like the airlines and i'm attracted. you could have worded it a different way. the motiongree with to block the merger? caller: arizona is a nonunion state. to have a company in arizona unionizing with any place in or outside of arizona is the

statute that was created to honor the principle of being nonunion. this is only making a union with another state. to me, that is creating a game. on the issue of unions and of the reason the merger is being blocked according to the justice department was the concern over fares in particular coming out gate access to places like reagan national in washington. caller: i understand that. something out get of the system by joining together. it's illegal and i hope to enter

new to disallow these types of that may be coming for us. thank you for focusing on that and thanks for your input. let's get one more review here. robert, good evening on the democratic line. go ahead. good evening. , i amwer your question paying about $130 per ticket. host: is it going up the summary? same as it was? caller: i guess it went up $20,

$30 something like that. host: how often do you fly? caller: two or three times per year. host: thank you for all of your calls this evening for the c- span townhall. tuesday, eastern wednesday, thursday evenings as congress is in recess to open up our phone lines were your thoughts on politics and policy issues. we hope you can join us again tomorrow. "washingtonning on journal," 7:00 a.m. eastern and we hope you'll join us. drones andsing on privacy issue. a conference hosted by the association for unmanned vehicle systems and at 740 5 a.m., we talk to the president of the association on the types of domestic drones and also alan and thedeputy sheriff assistant professor of aviation at the university of north

dakota. and a senior policy analyst for the tomorrow night here on c-span town hall will look at the implementation of the 2010 health care law, the affordable care act including today's news that the administration will delay implementation of the section of the law covering limits to out of -- costs for consumers and we'll check in with congressional town halls and the questions that they're getting on the health care law and your calls and tweets and facebook posts beginning tomorrow at 7:00 eastern on c-span town hall. season two of first ladies' influence and image begins monday, september 9 with a look at the life of edith roosevelt. all this month we're showing encore presentations of season one. each week night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span programs on every first lady from martha washington to ida mckinley. tonight, sarah polk, mark rhett taylor and abigail fillmore.