democracy is exceedingly dangerous. is aight wing bull's-eye range of socialist institutions, churches, community organizations, families, and kinship groups. a sustained everyday life and in power tons of millions. for sections of the ruling class they are right wing pied piper is, and the right wing media a robust quantity at war. this gang of democracy and equality busters, by temperament , outlook, practice, authoritarian, racist male supremacists and massages. they despise labor. group is could say this

and at the gates, but they are. they hope to be inside and in charge of the castle. no joke. what do we do now? what did the american people do? the obvious answer -- >> both have left a mark on the democratic and class struggle over the past 300 years. be no different. as much as racism and and the struggle against it are timeless , they express themselves differently over time as conditions change. i would argue that the best

social and demographic changes going back to the 1960's have been given rise in the opening years of this century to a new racist order and a new antiracist movement resisting that order. this dialectic makes the struggle against racism and equality more difficult and more promising. here is why. hand, notable victories led by people of color in the first place, have been registered over the past few decades. perhaps no more than the stunning election of president obama in 2000 eight and 2012. furthermore racial attitudes and sections of the white community have changed for the better. a particular significance of sections of labor and other social movements come engaged in organized anti-racist uncle and take steps to make their

leadership reflective of their membership. something they didn't do years ago. can anyone who grew up in the 1960's, and there are a bunch of meanye, imagine george stumping the country next to why workers to vote for an african-american presidential candidate? i don't think so. embraceople like to some of the old racists and stereotypes of older generations. this is one side of the dialectic around which conform even broader and deeper multi-reach unity and antiracist understandings. on the other side of the dialectic, political realities which if taken shape for the past 30 years are the given rise to a new racist order making racist exploitation, oppression,

discrimination much or durable. and legitimizing this new racist order isn't ideological structure that draws together old and new racists notions, including the notion that our nation is in a post-racial, post-civil rights colorblind era. dress that notion up as you will. it is nothing but hogwash. what do we do? it seems to me we expand in every way what we have been doing. adequate funding of schools, education, racial profiling, and the war on drugs. for or presentation, and not least for the defeat of the right in the coming elections. me have to you and make the case more persuasively

and vigorously that everyone who hopes that this country will move in a democratic direction, let alone a feature which people and nature trump corporate profits cannot afford to sit off the struggle. let's challenge this new racist order, control the country back two days long gone by, into a future we thought would never happen again. we have to argue that racism hurts. hopes, dreams, families. it tramples on dignity. it destroys lives. especially the young, sometimes in the street, sometimes in distant lands. sometimes in prison. the victims are people of color.

--ism a era making to people of color into long and powerful voices for progressive and radical change generally. [applause] i would add this. this is a crucial point. after the end of the day, white people are morally and materially scarred and diminished in one way or another. while racist ideology is incticed, people of color the first place, it corrodes real democracy for all, it makes

us a society free of class, racial, and gender divisions a pipe dream. can we overcome? which leads to my challenge. an end to violence in a war world of peace. we can barely turn in any direction without encountering violence of one kind or another. violence is a pervasive presence in the world. it kills innocent people and tears up the social fabric of our communities and societies. tonumbs our sense of outrage the point where we become excepting of this presence. is natural and internal. hate is an humankind's dna. war is a social construct. there are alternatives. dr. king was right when he appealed for a trans-evaluation

of values. him, neither were passive appeals to goodwill, the categories of struggle. they rested on contesting the structures of exploitation and oppression. the material grounds for violence. he appealed to anyone who would often that the elimination poverty, racism, and militarism was a gateway to a beloved community and of nonviolent world. were he alive today, i can't help but think that he would despair, but only for a moment. then my guess is he would tell us our mission can be nothing less than to join with millions of others here across our planet to insist on peace and in violence. but to be concrete, let me suggest what i think should be beyond our peace agenda.

we should exist our government a u-turn in foreign policy. --ond, [applause] second, we should insist on the dismantlement of alliance and multi-instant nationals the project violence. on a, we should insist not pivot to asia in the pacific but towards a common effort to resolve the resting issues of nuclear proliferation, poverty, inequality, and climate change. we should insist on a just settlement of the palestinian and israeli consulates that includes an independent, able alice on existing in peace with israel. on hands offist

venezuela. a normalization of relations with cuba and freedom for the cuban five, and an end --[applause] an end to the whole generalized sanctions regime. we should insist that big powers , existing and rising, respect the rights of small states. [applause] we should insist on into the war on terror and the surveillance state. terrorist actions against innocent people cannot be justified and should be stopped. but the war on terror isn't the way to do it. it becomes easily the rationale andoil, aggression abroad, cutting down on democratic rights and neglect of human

needs at home. the scourge of terrorist actions can only be counted by the collective effort of the world community. we should insist on a piece of budget. not a war budget. and a peace economy, not a militarized one. the judicial system should be overhauled, and justice should be not punitive but redemptive and restorative. we should insist on an end to capital punishment imposition of stricter gun control laws and the formation of empowered civilian or blue -- review boards in every city. we should insist on expansion of health care clinics and schools to provide humane and urgent trip it -- urgent treatment to young and old with mental and we should insist

on the reconstruction plan of massive scale on a massive scale for the purpose of restoring and sustaining communities and cities, rural communities, and reservations of native peoples. insist on ashould just and humane immigration system. [applause] , wee want to fight a war should once again declare a war on poverty. joblessness, underfunded schools, now nutrition, and the social ills that make life difficult for millions. nor should we show any tolerance toward racism, male supremacy, or homophobia. all which could turn into acts of violence. we know that too well. wrote, the cessation of violence, the cessation of pillaging and violence, such as our ideal.

[applause] i would modify that. is our of violence ideal. it must become our passion. we should not be a goal, but encoded into our emotional and political dna, into everything that we say and do, into the images and slogans that we create. if peace is to have a chance, we have to embrace and indoors same. to do the finally, building the communist party. i'm sure everyone would agree that taking care of the future troubles of the present include the building of the party in size, capacity, and influence. building a transformative party. what is to be done? what will it take? i am going to abbreviate my ,emarks in the interest of time

and not exhausting your patience. what stands out in my mind. if our party is going to build a transformative party, including a couple of things that generated some lively discussion in our preconvention. confidencel, take that the audience for our ideas and our party is growing under the impact of changing objectives and subjective conditions. that is reason to think this is the case. size, capacity, and influence, we are in a better place now than we were four years ago when we gathered. we are growing not by huge leaps and bounds but incrementally. incremental can add up. also, to build a transformative

party we may take systematic attention to building the party, it can be the work of one or two comrades. m has to be the work of the entire collective. build the transformative party, we have to deepen ways to further and extend a pool of younger comrades. we are too thin in terms of political depth at that level. we have to change that. you will take more active and for -- clubs, they ran the ground floor of a transformative party. just as union power depends on local unions, party power is grounded in a dense network of

clubs across the country. it should go without saying that the clubs will come in many different sizes and shapes and read some will be statewide. others citywide. hope, will be located in a naval fort or workplace. building a transformative party will also take a more robust utilization of social media, especially the people's world. we have made headway in this area, but not enough. we have a long ways to go. you will also take a special approach to building the party among trade unionists, people of color, and immigrants. we have taken a range of forms, including young communist league , to attract youth to our circles. we have to do more systematic fieldwork in places where the party is in its infancy. in addition, we will take a more full-blooded and modern educational program that is equipped to reach new members

and old members alike. this is a major response task. deeper requirement is a organizing culture. in the't steeped enough notion and practice of organizing and launching the thinking and actions of others. we are part of a makes, we take part in mass organizations. fight the good fight. but in too many cases we are only just depends. not movers and shakers. not organizers and change agents. we are not the people who make things happen is to change the way people think. building a transformative party will take more compelling vision of socialism.

a view of socialism that is modern, and shaped by a national experiences, realities, traditions, sensibilities, and challenges. a rearview mirror to construct socialism usa will not fill the bill. it will not meet the challenges of the new century, including the massive ecological challenge and the urine from the real and the yearning for real democracy. that will not do it. oress possessing vision, telling a story, that expands the boundaries of human freedom and equality, situates ordinary people in the sense of the transforming practice of creating a new society, accents of development of the individual

come and paints new arrangements ving orective lim were, nor should socialism be reduced to working class power. power in the application of power should be subordinated to vision and values. it has to be combined with justice and embedded in the countable, and checked by a democratic policy culture and institution. the property't be of any one party. fuse party.ould i not centralize it. the 20th century taught us anything, it should have taught us that. our vision of socialism should give the new figure, if not

recover, the democratic emancipatory humanistic peoples as sense of marxist socialism. building the transformative y, requires we understand that our leadership roles from self declarations on all will we did yesterday, rather given to the final announcement on how well we distinguish ourselves at the level of ideas, and practice in today and tomorrow struggles. better served if we situate ourselves as an equal and dynamic part of a larger progressive movement. on that ground, make a vital and contributionctical to a media and longer-range struggles.

building a transformative party will take the party that is guided by marxism. while we give great pride and place two marks, and lenin, we bodyce all the whole of marxist thinking. we need to take more seriously linens observation. enin's observation. on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid thefoundation stone of science with social medicine must develop if they wish to keep pace with life. [applause] i understand that to mean that

we have to accept the creative development of marxism. it is not a closed and completed system and, but one that needs constant attention and elaboration. our task is and to reduce politics to cut and dry schemes, too simplistic answers, formulas of just the opposite. our task is to breathe movement in complexity and even contingency into our politics. i sometimes think that when it comes to politics our job is to complicate our own and other people's understanding of class, class struggles, the rule democracy, the process of social change, racism, anti-racism, imperialism, and so one. our theoretical work strongly argues is not what it should be.

in fall short of what is necessary if we hope to evolve into a major political player of politics of our country. is anin the fight absolutely necessary condition if we are going to qualitatively change our wall -- change our role. but it is not enough. it never will be. , mature, 21stant totury communist party has establish itself the level of ideas and practice. both are crucial. for that matter, quality depends on the quality of the other. ending, finally -- [laughter] in norman's challenges are all

around us. -- enormous challenges are all around us. some could wallow in despair. you will not do that. communists here and around the world don't give up in the face of momentous challenges. it is not our style. it is not our heritage. it is not our dna. it is not in the style or the dna of the american people. that i willitions back up for a moment, but we never back down. it isn't our default position. fighting harder and smarter is. i don't doubt for a moment that we will do both in the years ahead. as this journey that began 95 years ago takes another step,

down freedom road, let us resolve in this hope. city,s day, in this great to step up the pace of our march. our legs may be tired, but our spirit is strong. our determination is unsinkable. our mission is just. a free people living in harmony with each other and nature is ever more urgent. say whencan't exactly socialism will arrive on this journey, we remain as we march deeper into this new century, confident that one day, it will. on that day, the bells will ring. the people will rejoice. a new burst of freedom will break, transforming our nation into a more perfect union. [applause]

on that day, we will remember paul, pete, and odetta. we will hear the echoes of dr. king's word on the washington mall in 1963. the memory of farmworkers marching from sacramento. we will shed a tear for the trail of tears, slavery, exploitation, and the other crimes of a now vanquished capitalism. kinship, al a new renewed kinship with all of the freedom fighters who have walked and rambled down freedom highway , whose footsteps we may forever match in the sands of time.

sing theate, we will prophetic words of my angelou. angelou. you may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted lies. you may trod me in the very dirt, but still, like dust, i'll rise. who will win? ?ho will overcome thank you. [applause]

a panel of fast food workers, labor journalist, and community organizers talk about the discussions about getting a living wage. this is 45 minutes. >[applause] >> tonight, we will interview

our panelists. they will -- there'll be no speeches. we will get their impressions as labor journalist, activist, and organizers of the movement for raising the minimum wage. what impact will the struggle have for dignity, and living wage on the future of the labor movement, and local sustainable economic development in our community? it will be a little bit jimmy fallon, a little bit when latifah.- queen it won't be like stephen colbert. question, will this be a great panel or the greatest panel? >> greatest. >> all right. i want introduce our panel.

they are going to join michael and rush in -- rasheen. howard clean, the secretary of the international labor communications association. and, the editor of minnesota working. [applause] elsie redman, of the south austin coalition, and a national board member of jobs with justice. [applause] so, this story is as old as

dirt. corporations making mega-profits and paying the workers barely a living wage. hasleft and labor press always covered the struggle for better life for working people. that you havetory written about concerning low-wage workers, the struggle of fast food workers, and what those stories show about the uniqueness of these struggles today. >> ok. of at the university minnesota education services. it was my idea or whenever. but anyway. ofhave been covering a lot -- working minnesota is the

first online newspaper in the united states. it was founded in 2001. we been covering labor news in minnesota. theave been covering organizing of the low-wage workers and minimum wage fight in minnesota as it has been going on for a number of years. i will tell you one story that just happened. privilege, i the do video and contribute half the videos to our site. we do a bunch of them every week. monday to govilege to a trailer park in a suburb of minneapolis and interview alicia florez, a building cleaner for the target corporation. she works for a firm that subcontracts with target. in her kitchen, and had

her tell me about the recent victory that they just had. she is a member of -- spanish] language challenge. anyways. workers center based in the twin cities of minnesota. has been operating for three years, organizing. they have been organizing building cleaners who work for various companies that are subcontractors with target, and club foods, and sears, and home depot. stuff like that. their biggest fight has been with target corporation. announced that they

had reached an agreement with target corporation. the three pieces of the agreement, this is unprecedented for a workers center, it includes and protects and ensures workers rights to collectively bargain with their employers with noninterference. [applause] it ensures that workers have the right to form safety committees in the workplace made of at least 50% of workers designated, elected, by their coworkers. [applause] and this is the one she talked with the most. it ensures workers are not forced to work seven days a week. [applause] so, elce talked about how this felt. the time away from her family, and the people, and all the

doubts that she had had. finally, her kids, she had some thing to tell her kids about why she had been gone in the evenings after a long day. the thing that struck me as she said, before this happened we were going back and forth, and my heart was so tight and closed. now it has opened up and boston. -- and blossomed. wow. little tears. the power. they won something. she felt is just an enormous. worth it,aying i do when someone can tummy that stop. -- when someone can tell me that stuff. they work very closely with

service employers international union. i could tell you more. >> thank you. [applause] first of all, i want to say #awesome. i say that because my story is about the global strike. there was a protest here in front of mcdonald's, a lot of mcdonald's workers were there. including someone from rockford who came in and told her story about how she started working at mcdonald's when she was 16 years old. she made three dollars an hour. she is still working for mcdonald's as a crew chief, $8.25, minimum wage.

she still can't stay alive on a dollars $.25. -- eight dollars 25 cents. this woman had devoted her life to this mega-billion-dollar corporation. she has put her heart and soul into -- she talked about training people. mcdonald'sndards wants, and all of that. she was unbelievably thrilled like the other mcdonald's workers there. the other workers, like walmart workers, and some carwash struggling, are were thrilled about that. there was 150 cities.

people tweeting their pictures from around the world. brazil, and japan, etc.. people aren't alone. that was the may chin -- that was the message. anotherent to interview mcdonald's worker, i said what do you think about this? she said, we will win if we all stick together. that is what a union does. [applause] it, 30u think about years ago, when i was younger, we talked about empowering these young people working at fast food. we should be working -- we should be organizing. they said that would be impossible to do that. now, look at what has happened. , walmart workers

workers, organizing, doing this. earlier today we stood up when roberta asked who was in the union, and a lot of people stood up. i was impressed with the union members. then i realize, why didn't everybody stand up? the labor movement has opened its doors wide. join working america, joined fast food forward, the fight 15, join our walmart. everybody can be part of the labor movement, part of the union. have a't just have to card that says whatever, communication workers of america. you can be part of the labor movement. that is it. [applause] elce?

solutions of the crisis of joblessness and rising economic inequality are very complicated. polls show they continue to show that an overwhelming majority support a hike in minimum wage. withle is leading the way the recent decision to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. organizer and labor activist, what do you think is driving the growing support for raising the minimum wage? what is the opposition? how can it be countered? especially in the senate? >> good evening comrades. my name is elce redmann. i'm glad to be here. i want to answer that question

with a brief story. my grandfather was in the brotherhood of sleeping quarters union. [applause] he spent 12 years trying to organize a union there. i was the things, when young, he would tell stories about the massive dehumanization happening within that industry itself. three things they were fighting for. they were fighting for living wages. they were fighting for dignity. they were fighting for respect. during the early part of 20th century, you had the big moguls. you hadpullman, jpmorgan, you had the vanderbilt. you have the carnegie use, you had the rockefellers come a you had the kennedys. now we are seeing we don't have those individuals. we have these multinational corporations.

jpmorgan has been replaced by walmart. the carnegie's have been replaced by yum! brands. the rockefellers have been replaced by amazon. the kennedys have been replaced by disney. you have these multinational corporations doing the same thing that these robber barons did in the early part of the 20th century. they don't want to pay workers living wages. it only to give workers any dignity. they don't want to give workers any respect. they don't want to recognize a union. what we do now in the 21st century is what our brothers and sisters from the fight for 15, walmart isor our doing. mobilizing, not only on a local and national and international scale.

looking at the issues of inequality, and how the 1% are controlling 99% of our economy. with all of this going on people are rising up. workers from all over the world are rising against this massive inequality. noworganizing we're doing is making a difference. the it is affecting congress, and the senate. what we need to do is to mobilize even more to attack these issues. the issues of inequality, the issues of poverty, issues of racism. the issues of dehumanization that are happening within these were forces have all been exposed. now what we need to do is mobilize the workers, the community, labor, and faith ammunity to mobilize on

archer scale. unfortunately one of the worst issues is the massive unemployment that exist in our country itself, and how it affects african-americans and latinos and our society. we are fighting for wages, but we need to be fighting for jobs, and pushing for a national jobs program that put people back to work rebuilding. [applause] >> rasheen, michael, and terry. the struggle for the rights of fast food workers went global with the day of action. from the u.k. to brazil, to india, to germany, to japan, they took it to the streets. you have to love facebook. postingriends in tokyo

pictures of people going into the streets and protesting outside of mcdonald's. what is the significance of going global? what do you think will be the outcome of fast food workers connecting globally? what do you think is going to happen? >> let me just say, i had the opportunity to meet workers or mother countries. i don't know if you know, but atkers in denmark are making mcdonald's, guess how much? anybody guess? phone number out there. you know. facebook. the power of facebook.

are making $21 an hour at mcdonald's. they have a union. ah.t this -- ye [applause] by ask only global, it is showing that the workers in america are sick and tired of being sick and tired. the workers on the other side of the world wonder what is going on. how are you not working for this amount of money? and don't give them no type of benefits, don't give us nothing. the workers and the other side of the world are concerned. it is only right for them to stand up and help us win this victory. all of us are in this together.

corporations we are not giving up, we are going to get bigger and bigger. it is only been two years. we are already global. what is next? everybody will shut it down. pretty much, that is what is going to prove that we are not going to be stopped until we get what we deserve, and what we demand. [applause] >> basically, the struggle, this is a global movement. the labor movement. labor has to be international. capitalism is international. can move to one another, labor has to have solidarity from one country to another. [applause]

in unity, that is where our strength is. a united movement. if we don't want to challenge , goodstem individually luck with that. we have seen i on a global scale. the inevitable outcome is workers taking control of things. this is about workers demanding more rights. inevitably it has to lead to workers getting to a point where they can learn that not just that we have more rights, but they can't be taken back because they are nobody else's to be taken back. they are our rights. [applause] why the fight for 15 is

important. it has to be for a union. if we get this team, tomorrow they could take it away without a union. [applause] we can't have them taken away. >> united we stand, supper we fall. know thateresting to we are the super country, we are the country of one. but australia and denmark are paying their workers more money. this is america. where did that happen at? how does that work out? i think that people of these other countries are standing up with us because they know what it is to make a minimum wage. they know what it is to not have to worry or struggle. they know what it is to have a union. it is great we can have solidarity and stand with workers who don't have that.

it is kind of strange that these workers living in these other countries are making more money, and don't have the same privileges and resources, but they are standing at the same company telling them if you can do it over there, why are you doing in the usa? is strong. to have them have arbat, another ,ountry standing with america this is definitely something that is going to be in history books. kids are going to be reading on it. [applause] >> two things came to mind. one was, the power of social media. narrative,field the and when people over. and in incredible organizing tool.

people are posting photos to facebook and twitter, in real time. during this strike. get the issue on the large media in terms of network and all of that. but, then it expands people's horizons. is delegation,e and you find out about how workers are being treated in other countries. organizing and reaching out is happening in a lot of different sectors. the steelworkers, mexican fieldworkers. these international

solidarity campaigns going on. nissan workers in the south, in mississippi, getting support from the south african workers or their organizing campaigns. kind of thing is incredibly important. it expands minds. is at a point where we are going to be able to tip the balance of forces? no. and it is getting there. there's going to be a lot of things people have to confront, peace,eals of war, and and being number one. this idea of america being number one. a lot of things get involved into it. >> thank you.

in our country we have a long history of a lack of racial equity. a racial equity gap. tell us what you think the impact of the fight for 15, the support for walmart workers is , inening on racial unity the labor unit and in our community? >> these campaigns address both the issues of race and class, and gender. the is important now in 21st century. to really have campaigns that connect people on a global basis. if you look around the world, there are people of color making minimum wages. there are people of color working to dehumanize a situation. there are people of color standing up with others across

our communities, fighting together on these issues because the central issue is wages, dignity, respect. linesissues cross racial come and bring people together from all across the country, all across the world. if you look at the fight for 15 the domino amount of workers are workers of color. they are also women, heads of households trying to support their families. few whitesuite a also living in the same conditions. these campaigns have brought all of these groups together. it has unified them against one common enemy. the enemy is big capital,

,egardless of walmart, amazon or disney. it has brought people together. we understand one important thing. this is a global fight. we are fighting against global capital. african-americans, whites, -- we aremen, gays fighting this fight together. that is one unifying factor. you see it all over the world. you see our brothers and sisters in brazil standing up against global capital, destroying their communities for these games. this is going on around the world. as someone mentioned about social media and how it has brought us together. we can tell our stories. that is what is really important. as we look at the issues of race and class, and we fight these

issues together, against a common enemy, we need to know who our common enemy is. [applause] >> thank you. ok. last question. what is the response by the labor movement to the rising up low-wage workers? what significance does it have for the future of the labor movement? >> most people in the labor movement have been in it before. they've looked at the fast food workers like this is what is next in labor movement. this is what is going to get him a lot of the old people off their butts and moving. [applause] that people have been

trying to organize fast food for a while. for a finally to be happening and have changes coming, cities eventually getting 15, we still want that union. it is something the labor movement, is this a new style of organizing? is this the new group of people that we need to be tapping into? the outcome is that everyone can be organized. it is a matter who you are or who you work for. everyone can be organize. everyone should have a union. seeing fast food workers, a group of people that they say are just young and dumb, and don't have a degree, and many of us have degrees. to see them standing up against mcdonald's, we're are talking about mickey d's with all these ads on tv, these crazy things to get people to buy their food.

these are big brands. these are billion dollar companies. to stand up against them is like young people doing this. it is possible. this is the turning point in the labor force. [applause] >> i probably shouldn't say anything. that was what i was going to say. i was trying this out. i don't usually talk in this language. but it is done my thing less than reignite the moral authority of the labor movement in the united states, which was lost with the red scare. hunts,i-communist witch inauguration of business unionism. i'm going to be negative for a minute. those of you who know me, i've

been in the labor movement for a long time. our members are infected by an ideology, it is not easy. this provides an opportunity. we now opportunity to fight racism in every single union because they have to recognize this fight. this fight is expressing something very important. example, there's a union in minnesota. in his local, people are very militant. if they can do that, when we march on the boss? they discuss and militancy, they never had. it is making people think differently. finally, i think it is , 99% thing in a

concrete way that expresses class. people understand it. it is taking it out of an abstract >> i think it has put class on the agenda and it is fantastic. [applause] >> thank you, howard. my grandma always told me that you never get the last word. she was talking about family fighting, fighting with your spouse, but not at the people's world working for a living new challenge panel. they are all going to get a last word. we will start with you. tell us something we don't know about you. tell us something you want us to do when we leave here tonight. >> um, something you don't know about me. oh, maybe this might be good.

campaign, atd this first i was excited, but maybe a few weeks later i started being an organizer with phone calls. people might be thinking, oh well, i understand. when i was excited about what was going on, i went back to my family because i really didn't know what a union was. i always heard about it, i heard my friends who were in construction say you get benefits and more money and sick days. i thought that sounds good. i better find me a job with the union. know the whole background of what it actually means and how much power as union has. . went back to my grandmother you know, grandma, she raised me to a certain point.

stuff grandma about this in the workplace. i asked her what she thought about us having a union. my grandmother told me no, don't because you do it might lose your job or i don't think you should be doing this. my grandmother worked at the u.s. post office. i was like, wait, you are in a union. i don't get it. by this.fused whatever grandmother says, i'm going to do. i won't mess with the money. but then something told me, no, --s sounds too good to not to just easily walk away and not get more information. who works for

verizon. they have a union. she said union is the only way to go. you have to do it third you must fight. i believe you all do deserve a union. something clicked in me. somebody has to break the ice. i'm going to try it. i don't care. if i get fired, i'm going to get fired and at least i know that i tried. [applause] that i neededhing to tell you guys. i hope you like that story. one thing i would tell you to do when you leave here tonight is to support us and support all of us. it is not about low wage workers, it is about your city, your community, your state and your country.

whatever it is that is out there, just keep fighting, because without you guys, i don't think i would have kept fighting. just keep supporting everybody. [applause] >> i also have family members that are 100% -- that aren't 100% supportive of struggles i have tried to help out with. conservative, because i live in texas and that is the thing there. [laughter] the thing is, though, with my mom, in a weird way, even though she is very republican and --ches fox news all the time mom.

[applause] way, she really inspired me to get involved with this. for all my childhood, i only watched my mom come home from work and she would always be so beaten down about how tough it is working where she does. she is a secretary. she would always come home and would be venting about how her boss treats her like a machine and expects so much from her and she gets less and less money every year. the thing is, i hope everybody can understand from that that even though people disagree and have differences and even be the most backwards reactionary kind of people, at the end of the day, they are still going through the same struggle, the

working class, like everybody else. they may not realize it, but whenever they hear the idea that working people have power over their own lives and having control over the situation, even if they are still trapped in this backward mentality, it really has the power to bring out in them some support. whenever i talked to my mom if i put a communist label on it she is going to lash in general i talk terms about people having control over the workplace and being able to vote on policy in the workplace, she usually just tends to agree with it. she is a conservative, tea party kind of person otherwise, but when i talk about, don't you think people should be able to make some of these decisions and

not have somebody make it for them? always people, i really doubt my mom is different than any of these other people. these people will agree with this idea because it is not just a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the reality of the world we live in. we need a world where people have control over their own lives. [applause] it doesn't matter how backwards they are, anybody can understand that. >> these fights have put race, class and inequality as a part of the national/international narrative. i think that is very important area now, we need to do is have some real concrete victories so people can see that wherever they are, whether it is kfc or at aoes or jimmy john's or local warehouse, that they organize and come together and

win. 20 years ago, there was a decline in the power of unions. now, we see that our rising again in the 21st century through these fights. we need to continue that. [applause] >> i am from buffalo new york, not minnesota. anybody here from buffalo? no? >> buffalo, hey! >> oh, well. i am, anyway. a completely different direction. a pitch for a project i'm involved in. i can't top any of that stuff. i am a media person and as you i think broadly about media. i know you're talking about the people's world and what to do with it. i guess, it sounded like. involved in a project

called worksite network. it hasn't happened yet, but we are open to make it happen. imagine labour news on netflix, except not really, you know, right? available menu-driven universally on any device that can connect to the internet. there will be a menu of programming and probably the flagship thing will be worksite network news, a half-hour news thing. things will be broken up for social media for purposes into small segments. we intend to have it in a place where it will house labor documentaries, which there are still a lot being made, and so on. yet, but iappening am happy you said awesome. i'm just try to get this off the it out.nd and sounding

we're trying to get money out of unions. we had some pretty big meetings so far in washington dc about this and with other stuff. i hope someday you will see it. there you have it. [applause] >> something about me, i love to sing beyoncé. if there is karaoke around here, let me know. most people from st. louis in the back of the room would not know this, but this campaign has really changed me and made me into a real leader. this campaign has given me more power to stand up for myself. i don't think if the fight for 15 and never came around, i still would've been involved, but i don't know how strong i would say myself is.

if that makes any sense. it taught me things i did knew -- i did not know, including what it union is. a union can do for your family, what it can do for your community and your neighborhood. it is really not -- it has not only taught me, but it is taught a lot of other people, especially a lot of color people who can finally say they have stood up for something and themselves. they did not just get walked over and they know what a union is. i really do just appreciate this campaign because it is teaching us also, it is not just having us go out and stand up for ourselves, it is teaching us to teach the next person. that is something i definitely appreciate from it. [applause] >> well, something about myself is that i love to swim.

that is one thing. that, but i compete in swimming, so there you go. at this ripe old age. i just think that the power of stories and what we heard people.moves the format we try to s, tode in people's world create and have that space for people to tell their stories. to do it with i of winning more .eople over to the fight like my family, or like our neighbors may not be familiar with unions. it is a small percentage in our country that is organized. startthink once you

scratching that surface, which i think stories help to do, people start to move. that is what we try to do at people's world, win people over .o fighting for racial equality when people over to fighting for gender equality. try to do, what we tell the stories, but with an eye on broadening and reaching out and pulling more people into the good fight. [applause] >> thank you. unity, we ready for more more organizing, more justice? are we ready? you justice is just showing love in public. so you can show a little love and be a part of the fight to heen's job and make a

call tonight. when people start handing these out, we want you to call the manager at jimmy john's. what is the slogan for jimmy john's? >> freaky fast. >> freaky fast, make the call. i just want to say that we want the viewers who are watching this on the live stream to go to people's world.org, get on people's world.org, read about the struggles, share it with your friends and family. for the viewers of the live stream, we will return tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. we are sorry to say that you will not be joining us at a reception to honor our panel down at the inner circle on the

first floor. good night. [applause] >> max, enough -- a discussion ban same-sexs to

marriages. the keynote speech by chairman sam webb. on newsmakers, senate republican conference chair john thune of south dakota talks about the 2014 and 2016 elections, transportation, funding, the economy and iraq. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- and 6:00 pm eastern on c-span. it -- culminates in a boardroom showdown that charles ends up forwarding.

the company shareholders were trying to expand the size of the board. his would have ended up deposing charles is the chairman. they would've taken a greater role in the direction of the company. the end result is that bill is tossed of the company a few years later by his brothers. there is a really dramatic moment in the book where you know the board has to sit down and decide bills fate. >> sons of wichita author dan a. schulman. now, on the first anniversary of the supreme court decision on the defense of marriage act, a discussion on the status of same-sex marriage and whether there will be another challenge in the courts. from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. >> thursday marked one year

since supreme court called discrimination against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. what has been the most significant development on this issue since a year ago thursday? ways in whichany same-sex couples are finally being recognized throughout the united states, not just through states that allow apple to marry, but in states like missouri and mississippi that have gone to the places to get married. >> the most significant development since a year ago thursday? >> i think it is the total misapplication of the windsor decision by state judges, essentially having judges in the federal courts and state judges decide that their view of marriage is better than the voters.

the dissent of paul kelly noted in the 10th circuit that judges acting as quote philosopher as "philosopher kings" using their powers as judges to assert that over the states. do you think that 10th circuit court decision is the most significant of these? >> is important that it split. kelly's dissent was important. i think it was very good. i think it bodes well for us end,use if this does not and, we will see a circuit split.

all oftimately is where these arguments are going to end. it doesn't matter -- it is never good the judges get to decide that they get to use her own opinion of the law, but it doesn't matter if there were a number of worse decisions by federal courts. what matters is what happens in the end in the supreme court. >> republican appointed judges, democratic appointed judges, this is a nonpartisan issue. increasingly, americans of all politicals, of all and religious bullies are coming to embrace marriage for same-sex couples. i think we are just seeing where the future is headed. the supreme court will obviously

be taking it up much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. and every single decision that occurs at the lower court level just reaffirms that it is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. host: do you think the supreme court is going to wait for another circuit supreme court decision or do you think they'll take it up from this 10th circuit court decision you say sooner rather than later? guest: it's too early to tell. we're waiting a decision on the fourth circit wouldn't come down prior to the october term in which the supreme court would have an opportunity to taking the 10th circuit court decision. there are several other cases teed up in front of the sixth circuit and the seventh circuit. so the court may have quite a few to choose from. host: so brian brown, we were talking about public opinion on this topic. i want to show our viewers a graph of public opinion over time on same-sex marriage, this going back to 2003. the yellow line being those who oppose same-sex marriage. the red line being those who

support same-sex marriage. you can see that changing, flipping around 2009, 2010. is public opinion turning against those who oppose same-sex marriage? >> well, as supports are redefining marriage that somehow, the american people embrace same-sex marriage. if that was true, why are supporters avoiding at all costs another referendum? in ohio and in oregon, they refuse to submit signatures for a referendum. why? because if the courts are doing the work for you, why have the voters have their say? so, i think it's ironic that on one hand, there's this claim that somehow, the american public supports same-sex marriage and on the other, there's a refusal to allow the people of each state to decide. those two things don't make a lot of sense. we saw before proposition 8 only 35% of the public in

california supported traditional marriage. when the actual vote came, it won by 53%. we've seen time and time again that poll being misrepresents where folks are at. and if you look at the vote, 31 states have voted to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. only three states have voted to dedefine it. one, north carolina, just voted a little over a year and a half ago to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. host: brian brown is with the national organization for marriage. for folks that don't know of your organization, tell us about it. guest: our organization is -- supports the faith communities that sustain marriage. host: and sarah warbelow, the human rights campaign. guest: the human rights campaign the nation's largest advocating for lesbian, gay, transgender americans. host: if you have a question or a comment for one of our

guests, our phone lines are open. we will start with charlotte. caller: good morning. my opinion is, it's your business what you want to be. but my thing is everybody wants to shove it down your throat. not everybody believes it that way and i think people should be allowed their opinion instead of everybody trying they're wrong with their opinion. thank you. host: charlotte, are you still with us? caller: yes. host: on the issue of same-sex marriage, would you support it in tennessee? caller: no.

because i believe in it. -- because i don't believe in it. again, that's my personal opinion. don't shove your opinion down my throat. i don't want to hear it. host: all right. caller: we all have opinions. host: i'll let sarah warbelow respond. guest: i appreciate that. i know there's a lot of changing opinions and many people are going to hold firm to the opinions that they have and that's ok. what is important is that people have the ability under the law to access the same rights as everyone else. and i know that this has been in the news a lot and it probably feels overwhelming for some individuals to have the constant discussion but i'm hopeful that once the supreme court decides this issue once and for all and all same-sex couple are going to marry, this will recede in the background. host: this week in indiana, here's the front page of the "indianapolis star"." -- and then out to utah for

another front page. the state to appeal for the marriage ruling. the court ok'ed same-sex marriage descent d.v.d.'s states rights out there. but we go to mississippi now. george, good morning. caller: yes, sir. how are you doing? host: good, george. go ahead. caller: my opinion is that for our first president, george washington, and that is all citizens should be treated equally. but there's a standard that we stand on and we're not standing on the standards because if you go to the biblical terms on it because all our money, -- on our money, we have in god we trust.

and that's what our law is. and on that standard that we got to base our standard in this earth realm just as god did in the heavenly realm, peace and joy, the fruit of the spirit and also, when you say that, do you say everybody have a right. yet everybody has the right in this earth's realm but there are laws and orders that we should be abounced by and that constitution is the thing that we stand on. host: all right, george. i'll let brian brown jump in. guest: the notion that somehow the supreme court is going to finally end this issue one way or another is fundamentally flawed as the justices themselves have noted with the roe v. wade decision, abortion it did not end. in fact, it polarized the

country for decades to come. on the issue of the broader issue of people feeling like they can't stand up and state where they believe on this issue, especially supporters of traditional marriage, we've seen brandon ike kicked out of his job for contributing to proposition 8. we've seen the "duck dynasty" fiasco. we've seen donors harassed, intimidated, death threats. this has gone on at the same time that proponents of same-sex marriage are saying if you redefine marriage, this is a live and let live proposition. nothing will happen to you. this is only about equality. it is not only about that. it's about two different ideas of marriage on the table. and the arguments being put forward in the courts are essentially those of us that believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman are beliefs of hatred and irrationality.

you cannot put that proposition into the law and say there will not be effect of a marriage that is between a man and a marriage. -- woman. one of the ideas of marriage is going to win out in a law. either there's a view that? is something unique and special about a husband and a wife or the revision in which husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, it's all irrelevant. it's only about personal fulfillment of the couple that's disconnected with child bearing and child rearing. these are two fundamentally different ideas. people of goodwill can disagree on those but if the law embraces on one, it won't affect the other. host: this is from the desiree news showing the state's courts that are ruled in favor of same-sex marriage since the supreme court decision in windsor last year. go ahead.

guest: marriage has changed significantly over time. the idea that we had about marriage once we would never accept now including women being inferior individuals within a relationship. we actually have laws based on those notions that was once part of our history. we have come to reject those. so marriage changes over time. and what's remained fundamental and a core critical piece is that two individuals come together because they love one another. they want to care for each other, support each other. many of them choose to form families. and they want an environment in which to raise their children. and same-sex couples are looking for the same types of things looking into a marriage that most other couples are looking for as well. there is not one monolith view of marriage. host: chesapeake, virginia, is next. bob is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. in my opinion, the whole problem, those that -- the definition -- you have the definition of a marriage as a wedlock and

intimate union of a husband and a wife, one man and one woman. there is no definition for a same-sex couple. i suggest that there be another definition, say like a homage. you say a marriage between a man and a woman, a homage between a same-sex couple. each union has its own defined definition and should be allowed to stand on its own merits both legally and morally under the law. marriage for thousands of years has been defined as a union of a man and a woman and should not be redefined as some other definition. host: bob, would the rights be the same under the two different

terms and definitions that you use? caller: that could be perfectly equal, but you're changing the definition of marriage. this should not be allowed. and then, whenever they have a homage in the newspaper or they send out marriage things or married in the church, then the person knows what they're going to expect. host: brian brown, you're shaking your head on the viewer's call? guest: well, the idea that somehow, peripheral changes to marriage over ons of history -- eons of history have any similarities to the reality that it was only 15 years ago that same-sex marriage was even conceived of in any state, and that the defining characteristic of marriage throughout human history has been the fact that it's based on the distinction between male and female. to somehow say that this change is just like other changes, i just think people won't -- i mean, it's obvious that is not true.

this is changing what marriage fundamentally is. and if you talk about the change in the way that was brought up earlier, well, this is about affirming people's rights. this is about affirming the dignity of their relationships, then you have to ask this simple question. why not three, four, or five people? why is this only about same-sex marriage? why do supporters of same-sex marriage now deny rights to those that want to practice polygamy? because once you change the fundamental truth that marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman, all the other characteristics of marriage are up for grabs. and so i ask -- why not? why not three, four, five? we already have lawsuits using the exact arguments put forward in the lawsuits in many of these states that are trying to claim that there is a right to polygamy in our constitution, which clearly is not there, just as a right to redefine

marriage is not in our constitution. host: sarah, do you want to respond? guest: yeah. the issue is a red herring. what we would have to do to accommodate polygamist families as radically different that what is necessary under the law to accommodate same-sex couples. as we've seen in a numerous state, we have 19 states that allows same-sex couples to marry. it is a simple matter of opening up our marriage codes because same-sex couples resemble opposite sex couples in so many ways, caring for their families, their children. you know, making lifetime fidelity commitments to one another. and in the response of polygamy or other types of multi-partner relationships just don't fit into the structure of marriage in the same way and it's much more complicated issue. guest: i don't think that's the answer to the question why you should not have three, four, or five people.

you're saying the same thing that you're claiming supporters of traditional marriage are saying. you're saying it's based on a male and a female. why isn't is just that it's based on two? what is the binary structure that it's based on? the distinction of male and female. if you get rid of that, you have no logical reason to not say why not three, four or five? they're going to claim the same things about rights, privileges, and yaw really done -- and you really done have an answer to them. guest: but we do have a history of polygamy throughout the world. it's something that the united states has rejected but that actually is a part of the world, marriage history and marriage tradition. that doesn't means it's necessarily the right choice here in the united states and something that i assume will continue to be debated. host: back to the callers. eddie is waiting in north carolina on our line for republicans. eddie, good morning. you're on with brian brown and sarah warbelow. caller: when you guys said it is a constitutional right or

things like -- that's wrong. there is no constitutional right for straight marriage or gay marriage. but getting to the point where you're using equal rights clause in order to get the same-sex marriage to go through, wouldn't that be the same thing as challenging the progressive tax code? you're not treating people equally because they make more money than the person that doesn't make any money? so a person that's rich can challenge the court how the code -- saying i'm not being treated equally as someone who doesn't make as much money that i do? guest: well, the way that our jurisprudence has been written it up -- in order to attain the highest degree of scrutiny, the closest look that the court's going to take on a particular issue. one of the things that we ask is that your situation is something that can't change. and we know that people's economic status does shift and change over time. it can be hard to change economic status.

but it is different than an individual's sexual orientation, which is something that we're learning more and more about, but all of the evidence begins to suggest is something that you can't change about yourself. host: and brian brown, you mentioned the idea of a referendum earlier. here's a tweet from tattered rainbow. civil rights should never go to referendum. only the craziest votes normal people say home because it's not their concern. do you want to respond to that? guest: i think it shows the loathing for american democratic processes that we've seen time and time again. you're begging the question. if i believe there was a civil rights to same-sex marriage, i would support it. so it's begging the question to just make a claim that there's a civil right to same-sex marriage and there is not a civil rights to redefine marriage. many of the people that are calling in are starting from both

reason, religion, wherever it comes from. they're starting from a point where they recognize what should be clear and obvious is that there's a distinction between male and female. there is a distinction between motherhood and fatherhood. there is a difference. so then to claim that somehow, once you accept that difference, that there is a right to redefine it is simply wrong. there is no right to do that. so, again, the notion that the american people can't be trusted with certain questions and that our elites and philosophers can get to decide these issues for us is fundamentally flawed. and i don't think it's going tend to up winning out at this united states supreme court. host: you've got a special line in this segment of the "washington journal" for lbgt viewers. jerry is calling in from indiana. jerry, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment that people are confusing religion and our government and our laws. this is a separation of church and state. it's the way it should be looked at.

it is not a religious issue. it is a legal issue. and i think your panel actually defines that because you have a religious leader and you have someone from a legal group. and everybody's using religion and they use that as a basis to argue against it. and our constitution, you know, has the separation of church and state. it's part of our law. host: i'll let sarah warbelow go first. guest: the other piece is there's a plethora of religious views out there. there is a religious group in north carolina, a church, that has mounted a lawsuit against north carolina's law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying because the way the law is written, prohibits them from celebrating those marriages in their own churches. and so, i do think that this is something that's separate from religion. in a large part, because there isn't one single religious view on this issue. host: mr. brown?

guest: i'm not a pastor or a priest or anything like that. it is true that marriage stands on its own, apart from any particular religious tradition. through natural reason, marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman. what is marriage? by professor robert george and ryan anderson. i recommend it. it's the rational case for marriage but at the same time, because there's a clear rational case for understanding marriage as humanity as -- has understood it and during different cultures, times and places, different religious traditions, that doesn't mean that people of religious faith are somehow barred from entering this discussion merely because they're motivated by their religious faith. so it's a misunderstanding of the separation of church and state and that's why in this country up until 13 or 14 years ago, no one would even conceive of the idea.

clearly our founders didn't. in fact, for utah to become a state, it had to ban polygamy if they wanted to become a state. that's what they did. that's when the union of one man, one woman became clear state law in utah. again, what we're doing is using the courts to put living constitutionalism on steroids and have judges have the ability to fundamentally change the very nature of american law. >> on this issue of the definition of marriage, "marriage has been redefined many times throughout our history. caller: my question is for ms. warbelow as to why her organization put confidential organization about donors that was illegally leaked by the i.r.s. and illegally obtained. i don't think that is ethical

behavior. i was wondering why her organization felt it promoted their cause by putting such information on their web site. guest: mr. brown's organization has violated laws in maine and other states with regard to the disclosure of donors and we feel it is important that people be aware of that information, and if we are going to have civil discourse in this country that we know who is participating in that particular discourse. guest: that is a good question. as we've seen in the news, the i.r.s. did settle a lawsuit that we launched and we admitted that they disclosed our private list. the human rights campaign doesn't list all of its 501c doe

-- donors, neither do we. we have never put the list on our web site. i will say after our lawyers contacted the human rights campaign they did take it down because i think they realized it was not only unethical, it was criminal. however, once it's on the web, if it comes out, it is out. i will say, this is a point that all americans should agree on. we shouldn't be intimidating, attacking, and punishing people who stand up for their right to free speech, including donating. one of the reasons we pursued this lawsuit is to affirm that for everyone. plenty of our donars who are -- donors who are happy to be public. some say i don't care who knows, i want them to know. the fact is that people should not have an understanding from the government that they can make a contribution from either a human rights campaign and then

have the government take that list and give it to their political opponents. that sounds like something out of the soviet union, it is not something that we as americans do. host: brian brown is for nation for america. we have a special line for lbgt viewers. mike is waiting on that line in clearwater, florida. mike? caller: good morning. host: go ahead, mike. guest: i would like to let mr. brown to know that my partner and i have been living together for 28 years, and we have been paying taxes. marriage equality is important for the younger people, not so much for us. it is an important issue, and you should consider the younger people.

full federal benefits are going to be required for these people. again, not so much for us, but for these younger people. thank you. host: those who support same sex marriage by age according to polling this past year, 18-29-year-olds are the highest age group that support same sex marriage by age. guest: we have a lot of work to do. we have a lot of work to do in acadameia. this has been 30 years of groups being involved in schools, teaching the ideas that those of us that believe in marriage between the union of a man and a woman are somewhat bigoted. we have a ton of support online,

a ton of support from other people and young people who have heard the argsments and are starting to hear our arguments again. great book, what is marriage? second time i'll bring it up. don't believe the lie that there is only one side to this debate. proponents of same sex marriage have done a good job getting their arguments out there. increasingly there's a tendency to silence those of us that -- guest: we are also seeing support from older americans as well, and across the board. i think young people are more likely to know people who are gay or lesbian. they are more open than ever before. people have friends, siblings, cousins, neighbors.

it is every, ordinary, gay americans who are part of our families coming out, being open about who they are, introducing their partners to parents, saying, you know, we want to get married. this is what marriage means to us. it is a value that we have. those are the things that are changing. guest: we have about 10 minutes -- host: we have about 10 minutes left in our roundtable. let's go to diana on our line for independentents from georgia. caller: i have a quick question to make. as a -- an independent voter, i am conservative. i have a problem with the term "marriage." it was in the bible. it is the symbol of the wedding band.

has there been a court ruling to determine that that is a christian term? i have no problem with "civil union." instead of saying, "you have benefits for marriage, you have benefits for civil union." that's all i have to say. it is all about terminology. guest: we have experienced with -- experimented with other terms. there were civil unions as early as 19999. 1999. virtually every state felt it fell short. as much as there was an attempt to create equality, it was never true equality. no one grows up and says, i want to be in a civil union. people grow up and say, i want to be married. there is a dignity and respect and understanding that comes along with the terminology. we understand what it means to

say that someone is married. a civil union or partnership is a different term. when you introduce someone as your domestic partner, people ask, are you talking about someone you live with or a business partner? it is for those reasons that these ultimate forms have fallyen -- fallen by the wayside. host: the dark purple states in this map are where same-sex marriage is allowed. the gray states is where same-sex marriage has been challenged. our next call is from florida. dennis, go ahead. caller: i think everyone with same-sex attraction should be treated with respect. however, science has not determined, in spite of what the

media tells us, science has not determined what gives same-sex attraction. given the choice, i don't think any heterosexual parent would choose homosexuality for their child. so if the courts could have an impact on our children wharks rights and obstacle gages does a parent have to protect children from this? i'll hang up and listen to your answer. guest: i think there have been a number of big lies told. one is that we somehow know the nature and how -- even gay rights activists have said, we don't have the proof of that. the reason why it is important for groups like human rights campaign to say this is true is it is the basis of a lot of legal challenges. they want to create an analogy

between race and sexual orientation in the law and say it is unchangeable, immovable. the fact is, many americans, orthodox jews, evangelicals, believe homosexual activity is wrong. that is just a reality of where we are as a country. same-sex marriage is something that's used -- that used to be a club to blugeon them to tell -- bludgeon them to tell them their beliefs are somehow harmful simply because they think it is wrong. one can easily hold the idea that we need to affirm the dignity of all human beings and treat everyone with respect and compassion while at the same time not supporting the redefinition of marriage. i actually think that's where

the 50 million americans that stood up to protect marriage that's where the overwhelming majority are. there are extremists in every group on any movement on the side of folks that would break into the family research council with a bunch of chik-fil-a bags that want to shoot people, but there are also those that want to redefine marriage, and there are some people that say hateful things on the side -- from the other side. i think what we need from both sides of the debate is to state that we will not accept hate threats and personal attacks. i think that includes the sort of claims that the human rights campaign is making about the fact that those of us that believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman are somewhat bigoted or the equivalent of racists. go ahead. guest: i think we completely

agree with you. this needs to be a civil discourse. neither of our organizations want to promote that type of behavior. we do not use terminology like bigotry. it is something we have intentionally disavowed. we think it is about changing minds and ideas. it is more about looking at friends and family and saying, you know, i want what's best for my child. i want what's best for my family members. i think if you look at the science the piece that i think is most useful to examine is what happens when there are efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation. when those youngsters are put into programs such as reparative therapy we have decades of research that shows it actually

leads to increased use of suicide ideation, increased use of drugs and alcohol. so the outcomes are really problematic. so regardless of how people end up with the sexual orientation that they have, we know there are sincerely held beliefs and feelings and changing them is incredibly problematic. there is a great deal of research that's been done about the best way parents can support lgbt and it is that support. just telling your child "i love you and accept you" reduces the risk of suicide by more than 60%. that's what every parent wants for their child. host: we will try to get to as many of your calls as we can. maddy is on our line for lbgt callers in florida. caller: just a couple quick comments.

one, as a transgender female, right now pre-op, my driver's license reads female by my birth certificate reads female until -- male until i have the operation. there are many transgender females that live full-time in a male role and they can't get married due to the fact that it says marriage between a man and a man. but those people do live full-time as a man. -- female. earlier they were talking about no proof of how gender-q -- there is evidence of a sac inside the head that contains the testosterone inside the brain that calcifies. if someone is living full-time as a woman, why can't they have the same rights, especially if it has been proven in transgender people?

>> i think we are -- the effort to redefine marriage is an effort to redefine what we are as human beings, to do away with the distinction between male and female. and i think the next step is we are whatever we define ourselves as. if i wake up and say i'm a man, i'm a man, if i wake up and say i'm a woman, i'm a woman. right now we are sometimes using surgery to alter people to fit wherever their definition is. i was heartened by the fact that paul mchugh had a piece about the fact that johns hopkins no longer does gender reassignment surgery for children, but that is the brave new world we are embarking on where parents are now buying into this notion that there is nothing substantive or real about being male or female, and actually deciding to

surgically change their children with very little -- no input from a child, this is fundamentally transforming what it means to be a human being. and we're forgetting about the rights of children in all of this. we're forgetting about what it means to all of us as far as what our children will be taught in the schools. that's why i think now is as important a time as ever for people to stand up, contact their congressmen, stand up for the truth that we know in our hearts that there is something many special about the union -- marriage union. caller: you guys kind of answered your own questions

especially when it comes to the children's part. if you want your rights, you have to give them to your children. when they are born, their rights is completely tablingen from -- taken from them. do not ask for your own rights if you're not going to give them to your children. that's what i have to say. guest: i think children need to be part of a family. we have children living with same-sex couples. some of those children are biologically related. some of those children are adopted. and allowing same-sex couples to marry is the absolute best way

to provide for protections for these families and to assure that all children grow up in safe, secure homes that have the full support of the american public and the law, and that those children then have the recourse to everything that they need to have the proteches that other -- the protections that other children are granted. host: sarah warbelow, human rights campaign, and brian brown, nation for marriage. thank you for coming on. >> a discussion the supreme edelsonling with chris olson talks about conditions in hunter wars and guatemala know why so many unaccompanied minors are crossing the border.

we will take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> annex, will bush in the 1987 a news briefing by chief of staff howard baker. -- and next, we will show you the 19 87 news briefing by chief of staff howard baker. >> book to the sector down with hillary clinton to discuss her newest book, hard choices. book tv sat down with hillary clinton to discuss her newest book, "hard choices." learn to beve to agile and ready for the unexpected.