leaving california for various reasons. it might end up being the wealthiest state. so i think we've got an opportunity with people in different parts of the state -- way up in jefferson they have been trying to be their own time. for a long they feel that they have taxation without representation. ople feel that sacramento is making them fill out documents the whole time. and they wish it was more efficient in the cloud or whatever. there are so many things we could be doing that we're not.

ed would really love to encourage those businesses to stay in l.a. and also in san bernadino in that area would benefit from new manufacturing jobs. so each of these six states the way they've been drawn really does have its own personality. and i think by getting closer to those states we're all going to be better off. with that, i'm sure you have some questions and love to open it up. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> friends, feel free to sit down. we can relax. >> i rather face the music. >> all right. >> so thank you to tim draper, author of "the six california's initiative." >> you will be asking me questions. happy to sit down.

we do have the map that six californias has proposed. there are are the six states. and so let me just start with a question. i know we have many others. and i have some rooting questions. so are you serious or being provocative or do you really want this to happen? >> no, this is an opportunity. i'm looking at it as a very important opportunity. we have been -- we've been living off of our ancestors. our ancestors created a great government for us to be a part of. it's we, the people. we have not been the people. we have not been active in our -- in the creation or recreation or evolution of our government. we've been -- i mean, let's face it, we've been kind of lazy. california is -- is -- has been benefiting from the pioneers

that came here early and the way it was set up originally and how we have the best education system in the country. and now i think it's really time for us to get involved and take it back and think of a -- think of what your state could look like. i mean, do we really feel that it is very important for every california senator to have 50 staffers? do we really feel like the department of education has to have, what, 3,000 people? i mean, let's get all that energy focused to the local level. let's make this thing happen. we've had many politician who is have seen all of these problems but we keep getting worse. so there has to be something fundamental that changes. it has to be structural and fundamental. and this is an opportunity and this is a one-time opportunity

for all of us to grab a hold of r democracy and do something about it. by recreating the way a state is -- is run in this new world, in this new technologically savvy world, i think we're going to have some states that just walked. here we have 50 out of 50. i think we can have six of the top 10 states in the country. and even if we're average, even if these six states are average states we're all way better off. >> so what about the resources that are here statewide, the highway system, the electrical grid? how this work without a single entity? how would it work with six entities? >> well, all that's done by

state compact today. so i mean, we've get a lot of our weafl from colorado. we have state compacts with them. i think it's going to be quite an interesting negotiation between some of these states that have a lot of water and not much money and these states that have a lot of money and not much water. i think there will be a nice little negotiation there. we've set it up so that six senators, six assembly people and 12 county supervisors will -- will get together and negotiate that all out. and if they can't come to terms, then it will just be divided according to population. e education systems, i think -- i believe we all want those to be more local anyway. so i think we're all better off in the k-12 education arena.

in the higher education arena, it's always been grade in the u.s. we've always had a good competitive environment. i think it will continue to be great. the special deals that people have across -- from, you know, if you're in marin and you want to go to ucla you get a special deal. that may continue. it may not and then with the elect tri call grid, the electrical grid is ready for re-energizing. the electrical grid is really failing. and the infrastructure's not working and there are lots of new technologies. solar city they're a part of our electrical grid. lots of new technology is coming along. and there's no reason that if it is in both state's best

pg & st they can both use e. i think we're going to have a very positive, interesting negotiation amongst the sixth -- six states. 24 people is a manageable number of people to look out for the best interest of each of those states. >> how did we decide the boundaries in the six new states? they're around six county boundaries. >> we group certain counties together depending on what we knew. but there were many different issues and i had a lot of different experts working on this. . ese are the line today but there's always the ability for a county to move to another state and i do know that there are two counties already that

have come to me and said they would like to move to jefferson. >> but they have to be contiguous, right? they can't move from south california -- >> we're going to make it so that it has to be -- we have in the writing. it has to be contiguous. >> so who wants to move to jefferson. >> a few counties. >> but you're not going to disclose that. >> we're going to let them speak for themselves. this kind of works for us but maybe -- i have found that -- that, you know, the people i speak to and will be with california are quite excited because they feel like no one understands us. we're in the movie business and we have a lot of defense here and no one understands us. and sacramento doesn't, you know, doesn't do what it needs

to do. i have had discussions with some business leaders who say they're leaving california. i said why are you leaving california. they said they didn't even try to keep us, you know? 4,000, 10,000 jobs leaving the state. they didn't even try. it's beyond belief. meanwhile in texas they're going come to texas. we've -- we've got this. we've got this. we've got this. >> like toyota leaving southern california. > toyota left. the battery factory. the petroleum. sony and disney each moving ,500 jobs out. it's not good. you lose all those jobs and not only -- i mean, already,

california is one of the worst states for people who live below the poverty line. we're almost at 10% below the poverty line. these are people you don't see. but 20% of the population is below the poverty line. in states with good education that attract a lot of jobs and hose numbers are more like 8%. ure, leave the status quo. 20% will be 40%. end up with a very poor population here in california. i mean, i think we're making it a status quo that has not been working and it has not worked well for about 40 years. and we've let it slip. and now's the time make a difference. now's the time. grab your democracy. i'm going to help put this thing on the ballot. i'm going to help create

platforms from which all of these states can operate independently. and then it's up to you. >> so continuing to flesh out the proposal, how equal or unequal are the populations among these different states? >> you mean -- you mean -- >> yeah. yeah. well, no, i think it means numbers of population. >> oh, oh. yeah. jefferson's the small estate of this group. and the l.a. region will be the biggest state. but her state is -- our state is bigger than any other state. if you took california and flipped it over to the east coast, that's 15 states on the east coast. are these all getting represented in washington? i don't know. but it's -- it's -- that area

-- that population, that's 15 states on the east coast. population's a little different. that area on the east coast makes up about 55 million people. on the west coast it's 38 but still a ton of people to try to represent one centralized ivory tower. >> so this is an interesting one. how will the six start-up states be funded? who will be the b.c.? >> yeah, they're -- we're going to have to pay a little bit. for a short period of time it will be new. we'll have to sort of adjust. i don't think it's going to really affect us that much individually. we're still going to have good weather here, all the way up and down the state. good weather. we'll still have the ocean. we'll have pretty much what we have. but it will take some start-up

cost in shutting down the old state and creating six new ones. but, boy, i mean, that will pay for itself many, many times over. if we go through that short period of this orientation. >> let's talk about the state of jefferson for a second. i'm one of those people who pays that fire tax and i have a home up there. timber industry is pretty dead. mining is not happening. what would the economic basis of the economy be? >> well, they may make marijuana legal up there. >> there's a lot of that. a lot of marijuana growing. >> and i think that -- i think they may too -- it's not like the money from silicon valley makes it up there. you're not seeing any of it, are you? it some mow gets to sack men tee and so it gets to -- it

somehow gets to sacramento and so it gets to washington. i'm not sure how it gets to our poorer areas. i'm not seeing this money flow -- and so these people are thinking they've been trying to secede from the nation. >> it is true. >> they think -- why are we even paying any of these? -- we want to be in control of our own. >> any questions from the audience? please come to the mics. i know there are more written question but feel free to come to the mic and ask your question. >> a will the o problems that you were highlights since you put it kind of under the category of just growing economic inquality, i would argue to proposition 13 as

being a fundamental resorgs of the public finances of the state which resulted into strass stras tofication of our communities. >> so in your unique state there's prop 13. in your state you don't have this big inequality i mean, you have an opportunity now. this is your own state. right now -- all these problems you're laying out -- that's the status quo. that's who we're stuck with now. this is your chance. >> sir? >> one thing that i'm concerned about is as a californian i'm really proud of the high tandards we have for the economy and stuff like that. we're going to have to compete

with the central valley and other parts of what is now california. is that going to force us to reduce or standards? >> actually -- once again, it's your state you can create your own environmental standards. in addition, you can work with the other states to make sure that those standards are high everywhere. >> i think it's -- yeah, i -- i love the environment too. i i'm a big environmental -- i don't know if i'm environmentalist. we didn't have to cut down trees an we didn't have to use gasoline. we still have incredible communication. and so i think you've got a big opportunity. this is your big opportunity too. >> all right. yes, sir? >> if i may follow up about the capital to the states. you will have some very rich

states with huge capital stock. so be very, very unequal. that's very unequal in the way they can actually generate hemistry, right? they have a different tax base from the money. so basically they're going to have something for money coming in. how could you talk about them being equal competition in that state? how are the people going to be able to fund themselves to make raised.estions be now it is 3%. those people who don't have the capital or the cash flow, how are they going to make that? f you make that picture of six venture states they're all going to start very, very unequally. at the end of the day, everybody gets the same chunk. >> so it's a great question.

i'm glad you posed it in that way. because if we set up the six states this way, you're thinking maybe central california is going to be unequal, right? well, right now they're unequal ith the status quo they're not equal. it isn't fair. but if they can create their own state, they can become equal. in fact they can be better than equal. inaudible] >> well, that's -- >> otherwise it doesn't go -- >> the current situation is that here in the valley things are pretty good. we're in good shape. and in the curn regime with this current regime they're

not. so -- so their starting point is we're low. their starting point is where it is now with the status quo. but if they create their own state and they can roll that state and they can attract business with that state, then we're all right. now, are they going to, in fact, arise at a faster rate than the silicon valley can ride. the silicon valley already has this great system. .hink bernadino they can do great things that they can't do now. scombr they're kept down under their current regime. >> if you really don't want that to happen, you need people to be able to krch themselves

nd make it great for them. >> this model is just confounding. i can't envision the feds ever wanting to recognize six states in the place of one much less giving them po portion nat representation and wooden state ratification we need to prevent. i'll just focus the question on, you know, pending .ecognition by the feds it appears to me that the practical realization could be seriously crimped in terms of deinvolving the responsibilities that currently belong with the state government to all of these six different entities because the federal funding we get for many different initiatives or areas is, you no, state autonomy, education, medication. just to even begin. >> you really brought up a great point and one in which

currently, the amount we in california give to the federal government is much higher than the amount that comes back to california. in six states we will get more of that. there's no question. and so that part i'm not worried about. we should show a lot more of that federal money back. each focused on a certain direction. each of those states will geter grants from various things. to california. that the big california doesn't get. so right now we're not in that osition. how we get there, first of all, it acts like a law. you can get it signed by the president or go through all 50 states if we get 2/3 of those done then we get to statehood.

but here's the great thing. first of all, when this passes. all right we're going to -- we are going to allow the county to much more control over their citizens. much more control over what happens. what the state does to their citizens. if the state says you have to do something, the state will have to provide the money to do that for the county. nd so that actually -- there's someone who is going to be a lot better. and and for a period of time. that amount of time will probably be a wild because the federal government won't always have it in their best interest to have them. you know in a tie where the federal government is dominated democrats and the

say it's in our best interest to have six california states or the republicans will be in all power and they'll say, right now it's in our best interest to have -- so everyone chullly those things will come up on the -- it will come up that way. and we will get our six carefulians. >> there's just an intervening level of california. and it give us more time to organize these issues. >> let me add toe that question. >> the other statements may have a problem with added members of the senate. is there also a possibility this ther sh can follow model? i actually think, you know, if

this happened then i believe that new york will want to be three states. and illinois will want to be two. texas might want to be five. so you might end up with 60 states. e're all going to be closer to our partner. the closest you are to your government. and that's proven numbers. they all believe that the states.government the small entity are closer to their people and they look better. >> for our regular te vision and radio internet stimmed us. he's proposed six californians as initiative.

i'm gloria duffy the moderator. >> yes, sir. >> you were positioned last week. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. titions.s fewer pe we'd love to hear you sign. but please you might want to hold up your hand or something. >> go ahead. >> an interesting conversation there that opens up this bout major actually passed. >> pew at the same time u.s. serve some of the recipes from california. but the music looks great. why don't you ever give an opinion and listen to them about the states.

clacically you're going to throw a huge hand grenade into the state. there. thrm will be largers and let's way to see how it all comes out. but that's my impression. you wanted a huge blown nation. program she'll cutting caught up in that. i read and think of all the tir rescue thanges can bay. hey, it's our combovet just make it work. and think it's going to work. there are always going to be problem with everything that happened. whenever make a chance. a bunch of excited. they didn't like tattoo to send it to me because they said you di tushed the car deals.

i mean, they're always going to be people that are disturbed i'm just sniing. hey, we're going to be better off. if we have a new system. . >> we're going to have better -- we're closer in our government. if you can describe it any way you want. i actually describe it as innovation. i mean, there is -- there is motivation. and this is a new opportunity. . at the beginning and then when it comes, i neen, i bet you carry a cell phone. ok. [laughter] but there are going to be -- there's great majority of uts that are going to benefit

from an innovative change. and there will be many. if you have six new governments in california, we will have amazing ennovation. governing. s of >> you have created new woes for those who run political office too. that's what you do with your stuff. >> possibility. well, i mean each new state will have some kind of governance. the initiative process now that we've been in it has really been crashy. t's got to be -- on paper. can you send the information to people and then allowed them to bring it out and science.

you can't do that because it has to be on a 14 by 17 sheet of paper that is folded in four and with a certain font that is only done by these three rinters. >> that's one offer the many relics that we should get rid of. >> change that. at least you can change that. >> some states may not want that process. great things that can happen here. >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm curious about the research that you sighted. specifically by what criteria? smaller is getter. . ere will be more

the top states are all the smaller states with one exception and that's texas. and i think it may be because they only meet as a government two months every two years and nay have to go back and live with the rules that i created and i think that might be the different and why life somehow checked this. he's quite a bit higher in gcation. he rest of the and that's just edge education. much higher. many more as a percentage? . infrastructure is presenting. so all of those things add up not igger -- bigger is

better -- >> but how can you be certain that that isn't a hi tor cal relish. they have a terrific education system. >> very few people have choigs. for if you don't like your government, you can move to new hampshire, invest. connecticut. you can move to so many different stays. you've seen d the jersey competing with new york. for all of those businesses. it happened. it's great. it makes it and somebody's not doing a job. people will leave and they'll have to improve

. so the teams on the east coast feel that dompcoigs on the west coast -- it's not like you don't want to live with all that right there. you know, you're just try thog pull it up. the fact that we have the worse government in the country. and you can't believe anyone rson or matter party, or bureaucracy for them. it just happening. you know, if you really want one kid that will sur vise, they give you whatever it is. kind of where we're at. the show was feel to take me districting out of help ds, two try to

multidear process. they're trying to improve and stweek state government. scombr go ahead it's a little bit like the no nop apply who adds one treacher. . but there ice a few fundamental change that's needed. you can't just add one feature and expect the door to come by your door. we've been trying for a long ime. >> i'm sorry. excuse me not looking on the same tied of the road. >> septic about the state's different states. i feel prey confidented now exex empty economy like they

are. we can bush them. ow not fear the high clextologies and i mean i would if we can do something about it. things in tax which is most of ull and coorps i feel like in the state of washington or other states than would be fantastic. sbhr >> so we've got to move that. you can create lower taxes in your creas. by the way and on your way out can you sign a petition? . how many people are skeptic about this idea. how many people -- >> one of them is my father

here. [laughter] >> how many people have changed their mind since you came? ok. there's a few. we have over 10 minutes left. >> one last question. >> yes, sir. >> i do want everybody to be skeptic. i want everybody to be thinking about this, take it back have a dinner conversation with your family. make this something that you get involved with. something that you take care about. make sure that you are getting involved in your -- in your state government. try to figure out what your state could look like. tart thinking that way about and the talk with your family about what would our state look like. your do you -- what is

vision. excellent raiders out there. and also like in you want to learn about the enter prenour, i'll call you. but from stanford and all of that stuff for free. . record it. g to is it like a score. is is a cool i created for entrepreneurship. we have and a boarding school. and an online skl. we decided to -- to create something new which was away not for people to learn bout entrepreneurship. hey teach.

you like it. and they we they go through a survival training course. it's a very different thing from anything else you seen out there. so it was very windy. and we're quite excited about how welcome it's worked. i felt it was worth it to try to lead by example. and it's great. stanford is coming down an they're doing as much as we can create the same type of president. they're trying to -- imitate us too. and think that's great. nd yes, there is -- there is the accelerator which is a little bit a flow from the student to the incubator.

but they don't always go for that purpose. hey go to become heroes. >> if this goes to the other 49 states, is there something new or them. whether we end up with more .epublicans or democrats, at some point that same party will be in power and they will say, we want. . so we can have more centers. >> some value to the other california state. and i think it's -- for one thing i think what they were

probably doubt if they you stay. keys east tried a lot of things. and they have and they will spread it across the country and may might say why don't we do this? hy don't we see how this goes? it at 966. l face jerson republican, crystal democratic? >> but i think you're going to e a surprised. . t's leave, i mean how would you call the likely political protection. i hi ss doing go be a apartment. i'll give flay we are to the look awesome. i was republican and then i was a democratic.

now i'm afailure to declaur. ees east not a failure. > it's ok to fail. >> and it's -- i mean, there's another -- i only want to go after one problem at a time. think a duopoly and i that will surprise you. those states may go enterly different ways. you might have one american ipped independent one piece. and you might see different things happening. it is a -- if e, you are very partisan on one side or another.

this could change things. i i don't know whether a don't really know. >> and actually, i think it's kind of an opportunity there. you can kind of say, you and these pears really work for hem. one great showers. >> i think we do need options, i think. she evaluates risks. at to you think are the what is the number one rush to residents of. prefer not much if you were a

naanee we don't have nothing else for you. . i woont to make sure that we department get the opportunity that -- >> well, i think a deprate anal . repairing the red for certain people. the people impow yir today will have their both. . scary for someone to -- actively, people who are impowered in the current regime. and they how much it is. they're lobbying or part of the ard of the the city. ll brock see will because --

actually some of those people i mean, i was thinking that some union people will say, hey, there's an opportunity for me of this date or something. at i neen mean can reunite his opinion. status roll are going to leif adjustment. he's in a strong position with power. we will have to have a platch for his effort to overcome that. eople. >> they're big people. . they're doing what they can for heir jobs.

>> this will probably be our last question, yes, sir. >> thanks for your committee. how will you pay for the debt? do you think that's the same problem when jefferson is in currency? . one was going to go bankrupt and the other wasn't. do like e you going to a california one did? >> two things. first those two that i mentioned are going to talk deaths e death and as but what's grange about this is if you -- if you create six new states, i believe they will all better off, because all the

economies will be getter. getting an enormous death. our current status quo has put us into a very uncomfortable position. in fact, an awful position. 12.if you add the how a day were able to do that for us. and we are your family. and in big, big trouble. this is an interest, as a and i think ch we'll be able to pay those debts much more easily. that, you this, that's one of key value ts the

adds creating six more californias. >> thank you. we all thank you. your ideas are disruptive in that very positive sense, discrept itegnolingtses. it is clear ha the reform efforts have nongone nearly as far as they need to go. so we all appreciate you bring these ideas to the forefront. wish you ails. him a hand. [applause] we would also like to thank our audiences here on television and internet. visit facebook, twitter, etc. now this meeting of the common law club of california is adjourned. >> pang, bang, bang -- bang,

bang, bang. >> on "newsmakes" senate republican chair john thune of south dakota talks about the 2014, 2016 elections. "newsmackers" today at 10:00 and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> author daniel schulman on the coke brothers, their rise to political power and their two-decade battle. so coke is this massive lawsuit that played out for the coke brothers, charles and david on one side. bill and fredrick and other chair holders of the coke industries. his starts in a board room hold out. this would have ended up deposing charles as the chairman. they would have take an greater roll until the direction of the company. the end rule result is bill is tossed out of the company -- >> by his brothers. >> and there's a really dramatic moment in the book where, you know, the board has to sit down and decide bill's fate. >> sons of wichita author

daniel schulman tonight on c pan's q&a. >> on wednesday, denver struck down utah's ban on same marriage. the voter approved ban, they said, was unconstitutional. same sex couples are still not able to marry in utah. the decision is expected to be appealed to the supreme court. here's the oral argument from pril of this year. >> we're here this morning for 13-78 kitchen vs. herbert. council, you may proceed. > thank you, your honor sh i'm james schaerr. it's people and just for the court's information i'm going to try to reserve seven minuting for rebuttal. >> you are the master of your

own time. >> the issue before the court is obviously not how the emotional and difficult issue is of same sex marriage should be decided. the issue is one of authority. and that is under the federal constitution the state's definition of that over marriage, allows them not only to redefine marriage as the supreme court in winsor held that it does. but alsos to retain the traditional man-woman definition of marriage. and to do so through democratic means. so before i discuss the state sbrest that are sold by utah's man-woman definition and what works, the serious let me first address why this fundamental question is governed by this. ale all of this appellate court

decisions have addressed the federal government inand baker vs. nelson which -- which we think is still binding on the lower federal governmentth court. >> all those decisions have applied rational bases. and they've done that because rational bases is the standard that's differential to democracy. the district court and the pliffs have offered four acts. but none of those is sound. is arguing for this and above. it is foreclosed by this court's decision. and in fact, most of the playoff's other arguments would imply a right to such things as . poll lig mist marriages

one example is the players have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. the supreme court is never recognized. despite being urged by the united states in the winter chase. not in the that position. but they declined to do that in winsor. winsor really destroys that argument as the same thing marriage by noting that until recently most people considered a man, woman, union, "essential to the very definition of the term marriage." >> and that under the supreme court's decision. that means that the alleged ight to same six marriage. . you everything has to be required by ordered liberty.

let's focus on loving if a second. >> sure. >> loving. you had a classification that the state arguments of lool application. the man and woman involved. but there is a classification. what barred them from getting married? was rice. is is there any racist. you have a man who wants to marry another man. i so why is that any different than loving when you're drawing a line that is based upon eight . otective glassfication . look, a couple of dancers to that. first of all, we did not mproduce about the state of --

mixed race couples was a regulatory constitution. when you look at the status chusses. they may clear that no was with designed as union between a man and a woman. just think, it's his number for a mixed raise couple to marry. i love how it's over for purposes in this marriage. essentially we're saying that this is another classification and consequently it is barred from a marriage. looving was -- loving was based on a classify case. i'm not sure that it should ave a high another class cation. why does it matter -- and why

does it not matter when i was going to turn on this protective classification. in this case it's gender. i think the answer to that, your honor, is because in ving the supreme court found the imagination statute is designed to deal -- it was designing to give twice. and a damage over hawke. even though the way the classification worked, it was racially discriminatory because u treated different races -- there was also two discrimination among other naces as well. was the is whether they're the money mental has spoke ling. . think of these cases. it always speaks as something

that i did for a fundamental right. they have a that fundamental right. >> you argue that the question has not gone out. ve to watch her. same sex marriage is a right. we ever in the court the termination sbfment and make hat kind of distinction. you'd never know. . . well, i think loving you is a great commample. the whole one of the things that the court should have done it was talking about the importance of the right to marriage. that it's fun mental and

maintaining the human waist. i haven't -- and that's true. and the other fundamental right o marry lock -- talked about people have a mental right to tell the children. . they're a good example where you ourt did not apoll don't want him to be a dead bet dad. by your -- oh opposing council. why does oilt matter who is claiming right. . i'm sorry we could participate in those per sedge tan. talk about in context other than pro creation. why does it matter? >> this raises the whole question about what marriage

is. sknt than., we the point that justin alexa just raised. he said that -- you have on the one and that. the traditional vision. and essentially i'm the god between us. he to proving new life even if it doesn't always do so. that's u.s.'s vision of hearing. you have what's come to called the recent or their religious you're f ha he said voting sco mon aleader. >> he was in a sex.

here is no disagreement. obody to disabout what marriage is. has the supreme court exclusively defined marriage to eflect this -- that was the -- it congress. and i think that was justin and no the end. the supreme court thumb that under winsor. it wouldn't be appropriate for the supreme court to resolve this fundamental clash of different visions of marriage. that was the whole point of winsor. that's a proper state function. he state has as court put it completely complete authority. . what causes me

>> let me tell you what causes me concern. >> ok. >> there is no question, i think justice scalia really highlighted it. when the court was speaking in windsor about marriage, that it very clearly indicated and gave a direction that it was going to be talking about federalism. but in fact, when it came down -- it essentially, not even essentially but directly, disallowed a decision that would be predicated on federalism and instead turned to equal protection and due process as the deciding element to that case. >> your view -- and you asserted in your brief but i was not fully persuaded, that your view prevails. that is to say that federalism is the only touchstone of that

case. >> i agree with you. federalism was not the only touchstone, but the federalism premise that the states have virtually complete authority to define marriage was the premise of the court's analysis of the individual rights involved. windsor was very much like a -- case, right? where it is state law that determines the scope of the relevant property right, and then you determine, under federal law where there has been a --. that was exactly the style of analysis that windsor undertook. >> didn't wind stir racket this concept of the state concept to

define marriage with the qualification subject to constitutional rights? and in one place in particular, cited loving for that? >> subject to not violating individual rights of those involved. right? >> that's right. also, it is significant that the court in windsor did not draw an analogy to loving. like the plaintiffs have done here. the courts simply cited loving for that i'm contestable supposition that the state is limited. if we're ask you, is there a fundamental right to marry that include same-sex couples, you have to first decide what marriage is.

in new york, windsor had decided that marriage was -- that they were going to adopt the more modern, adult relationship model of marriage, such that model of marriage could be a relationship between any two people who love each other. >> judge --'s is under review. he said the issue is not the definition of marriage, whether the federal court should impose a definition of marriage, but rather whether it is -- it's exercise of authority, the state of utah, may properly deny a same-sex marriage without violating the federal constitution for tables. that is really the issue. >> i agree. i agree you with the district court. it then it went on and did exactly what it said was i going to do. if you look at page 28 of the courts opinion, the court gives its own definition of marriage for purposes of the fundamental right. it defines marriage as "a public commitment to forming an

exclusive relationship and form a family with a partner with whom the partner shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. >> this is not really relevant to the ultimate determination, is it? >> you really cannot answer the question that there is a fundamental right without first deciding what marriage is. and that is a decision that is fundamentally left to the courts, subject to some constitutional limits. as an -- and loving, and some other cases. the states have virtually plenary authority to decide what vision of marriage, what model of marriage are we going to adopt. >> can i just shift your

attention to a mundane point at this time? when you got up, you said you were representing the governor and the attorney general of utah. -- she is not before us in appeal. >> she is a party i believe. i believe she is technically an appellee. but has not appeared. >> ok. she has not appeared. what is the authority of the governor and the attorney general of utah with respect to

enforcement of these particular provisions, the ban and the nonrecognition clause? well, beyond being general enforcement officers of utah, do the governor and the general attorney have? >> they have the authority to determine the policy of state government agency towards marriage. whether those agencies will recognize marriages or not. that has become a big issue in lieu of the absence of a -- in this. the fact that couples were married and it is under the governor and the attorney general's authority to determine how the state will treat those marriages. >> do they have the authority? the two allegations are, number one, the plaintiffs want to be married and are being denied the right to be married and 2, 1 marriage exists and they want it as a marriage. what direct role does the governor or the attorney general have in doing either one of those things? marriage licenses? recognizing foreign marriages that have been established?

>> they set the policies for the agencies of the state government with respect to marriages that are undertaken outside of the state. people will go to the state agencies, the state taxing and revenue authority. that authority will have to determine, are we going to recognize this couple is married for tax burdens or not? the governor and the attorney general control those matters. >> while we're on that broad discussion, it seems to me that the governor or the attorney general would have blogged plenary authority with respect to the enforcement of amendment three. let me ask you this? because our time is running short, each older and of gay marriage couples whose marriages have been recognized in a another states such as iowa, how will the state treat the children of those couples, given a amendment three and its statutory scheme. and how can that treatment be square with your argument of a marriage institution being a child-centric institution? >> to answer the more technical question first, your honor. let me answer the second question first.

in fact, there is no question that the children of same-sex couples would likely be better off if their guardians or parents were allowed to marry, just as the children of some 40,000 polygamist people in utah would be better off. >> there will be plenty of time to talk about polygamy, but let's talk about gay marriage today. >> but the state has to worry about both of those same things at the same time, your honor. that is why mention of. as wilmer said, virtually all legislation classifies in some way with resulting disadvantages to some groups and individuals. >> in this case, children. >> and the question is, are the state's interest, are they legitimate home a first of all? and is what the status chosen, the policy the state has chosen, does that policy adequately advance those interests? on that point, your honor, if i could i would like to discuss -- >> could we return my first question first and then we'll get to that? >> how will the state of utah treat and recognize the status of children of couples -- of gay couples who have been married in the state in which the marriage was properly recognize?

but then they came to utah? >> i am sorry your honor, -- >> i think it is important, i would like to get an answer. >> the answer is very simple. under amendment three, the state is not allowed to recognizes marriages in any form. the federal government recognizes them, so those couples and their children are able to get federal benefits now. but the state under amendment three is not allowed to recognize them. >> doesn't that stigmatize those children? was not that precisely the concern that justice kennedy expressed in windsor and that some degree motivated his decision in that case? >> the stigma he was talking about specifically was the stigma of being in a second-class marriage. the couples and windsor were actually married pursuant to state law, but section three of doma told them even though you are legally married under state law, the federal government is

not going to recognize your marriage and that essentially made them participants in second-class marriages. the court held that demeaned them for that reason. there is no question that there are trade-offs. and policies like this. the real question is one of the state's interests, and are those interests sufficient to justify utah's decision to retain the traditional man-woman definition of marriage. again, under the rational basis standard, because it is deferential to democracy, that standard will invalidate classification only if it does not serve any legitimate interest. here, there are at least four state interests that i would like to discuss briefly the pertain to peer and ting and that are, indeed, some of the main reasons that the state of utah recognizes and gives benefits to married couples in

the first place. those interests also give rise to the risks that we have identified. >> in that respect, are there any animus in this case as it is before us today? >> i do not think so, your honor. i think all of the facts are legislative fact. >> you not think animus is an adjudicated facts? >> the state rejected the case for animus. obviously, we're not disputing that. the first interest i would like to discuss briefly as the state's interest in gender-diverse parenting. which reflects justice brennan's views expressed in the boeing case that the best situation for a child is to have both an involved mother, and an involved father. gender-diversity and parenting, we think, is as legitimate and a governmental interest as the interest in gender and racial

diversity in education, which the supreme court has held is a compelling interest. indeed, gender diversity is one of the reasons the new york court of appeals concluded that new york's man-woman marriage definition had a rational basis. you may ask how the man-woman marriage advances that interest? one reason is that it holds that a classification that includes one group and not another is rational if the included group is, in general, differently situated with respect to a legitimate governmental interest. >> i agree with you that the state of utah may indeed have legitimate points to make -- let me say parenthetically that i have found, and i believe mike

-- my colleague attested as well, the amicus breach in this case to be particularly helpful in a broad range of topics. they enlightened us on the point. to the point, your force point that utah has these policies, what i do not understand is how pursuing those policies somehow is contradictory to allowing a stable relationship between non-heterosexual couples. why is a heterosexual couple more likely to get married if gay couples are not allowed to get married? why is the relationship between a heterosexual couple and their children likely to be stronger merely because gay couples are not allowed to have such a relationship? >> i do not understand the causal connection between the two. >> talking about amicus briefs. there is an amicus brief by professor -- that addresses that question with regard to children of heterosexual couples.

let us take for a moment the state's interest in gender-diverse parenting to answer the question. we believe that redefining marriage in genderless terms and moving from the man-woman definition, and the man-woman definition inherently, although subtly conveys a message and justice kennedy has said that the law is a teacher. the man-woman marriage conveys the message that a mom and a data are important. when you redefine marriage in genderless terms, you dilute that message and you dilute that norm and the law. as professor hawkins and carol say, one of the messages of that to heterosexual men is, "we really do not need you to have a happy or productive marriage, and we really do not need you for your children, because we have set up this alternative arrangement where two women can get married and they can be an pregnant and artificially, and they can create their own family

without a man." that teaches, in justice kennedy's words, that gender is not that important and that dads are not that important. in that regard, i wanted to share with the court something that i found in one of the record materials that we submitted. i do not think we highlighted it in our brief, but it is on page 93 of the appendix, and this is an explanation from a commentator by the name of maggie gallagher about why fathers especially are important in the lives of their kids, why they play a unique and valuable and important role.

she says, "what a boy gets from experiencing the dependable love of a father is a deep, personal experience of masculinity that is post-social, pro-woman, and pro-child. without this personal experience of maleness, a boy, who like all human beings, released all boys, is deeply driven to seek some meaning for masculinity, is vulnerable to a number of peer- and market-driven definitions. those are grounded in -- and sexual proclivities. she stressed the importance of giving a father -- of a father giving a son a sense of his own masculinity. maybe one of the reasons is that a study that showed boys raced

outside of intact marriages were more likely to commit a crime. >> are you faulting divorce as the problem, or gay marriage as the problem? >> we are pointing to fatherlessness in general as the problem. one of the norms of the current man-woman definition of marriage, and the current conjugal vision of marriage is that moms and dads are important. they play independent, complementary but important roles. if you change the definition of marriage, you are, as the district of court's opinion illustrates, you're necessarily also changing the vision of marriage that is embodied in the law, and the lobbing a teacher, that has real-world effects on individuals. or at least, your honor, there is a significant risk that will happen. same-sex marriages to know, obviously, as justice alito pointed out in windsor, for there to be conclusive statistical information about its impact. >> on the ground, it seems to me, how do you pronounce his name, or fetzer --? >> yes. >> it seems just yesterday, you

are backpedaling from the idea you took in the brief in support of his very that same-sex marriage relationships were to have an inferior relationships and relation to child-raring, is that true? what is left of your support for his theory of anything? >> we submitted that letter because we wanted to make sure that the court understands where not trying to overstate what his studies show. the bottom line from all of that is that -- and the judge in detroit recognizes same fact -- the bottom line is that the science is inconclusive. >> if the science is inconclusive, and we are anything above rational basis, you lose on that point. right? >> i do not think so your honor. >> why? >> because the court can also rely on common sense. it can rely on the fact that this is still new. it can rely on the fact that the state is responding to the risk. governments are entitled to legislate and regulate on the basis of risk that they perceive to their populations, even when those risks have not been proven to be a problem.

>> that problem then, would have residence under intermediate or strict scrutiny, you're telling me? >> i think it would. their cases from the circus that say at a minimum that is a legitimate mode of inquiry under intermediate scrutiny. we cited those in our briefs. >> you have used up your time. >> yes. thank you your honor. thank you.

>> counsel you may proceed. >> peggy tomsic. >> you want to pulled that microphone down? >> sorry, i'm not quite as tall. >> that's ok. >> good morning. i am peggy tomsic. i'm here on behalf of of the plaintiffs and applebees. as this court knows, the people of the united states, in 1869, amended our constitution to add the 14th amendment. amendments became part of our federalist system and remains so today. under the 14th amendment, the people of this nation wanted to

ensure that no state could treat citizens within its jurisdiction up on equally or deprive them of their fundamental rights and liberty interests. every state, including the state of utah, is bound by the guarantees and protections of the 14th amendment for every single citizen in its state. utah's marriage discrimination laws violate plaintiffs and others same-sex couples living in utah eight will protection rights and due process rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment. >> what is our standard of review in this case? >> i'm sorry? >> what is our standard of review in this case?

>> it is a legal issue, your honor. >> what level of scrutiny should we apply to this case? >> our position, your honor, is that with regards to the equal protection claims, this court should apply a heightened level of scrutiny, either based on the careful consideration, analytical framework, as established in the windsor decision which began in romer, or under a gender or sexual orientation suspect classification. >> what do we do about our price cornelison case? >> with all due respect, we disagree with the states and with judge shelby's interpretation of that incision. -- decision. in that decision, the plaintiff who had asserted below that strip, not intermediate scrutiny, applied in a case, did not present that issue on

appeal. therefore, the language of the court first was talking about strict scrutiny and it was -- in the sense that it had nothing to do with the issue before the court that was being decided at that time. >> if we disagree with you, does price cornelius speak to both the due process and the equal protection arguments? or does it speak only to due process and not equal protection, or vice versa? >> our reading of that case is that the case speaks to equal protection and not to due process, because in this particular case, we have made the claim and the district court found that there is a fundamental right to marriage protected by the due process clause and where you have a fundamental right that is intruded upon and disallowed, the court traditionally has applied strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of scrutiny as your honors know.

>> in the price case question, would you acknowledge there is a distinction between sexual orientation as a classification and sex gender? there are two distinct things. there could be basis for intermediate scrutiny for gender/sexual discrimination that does not exist for -- discrimination, right? >> that is exactly right. we have asked this court to apply heightened scrutiny based on either one of those classifications, and in fact i know you are not bound by judge shelby's findings, but he did find that amendment three and the related discrimination statutes violated the plaintiff's rights to cousin of gender discrimination. >> he was basing it on rational review, was he not? >> my understanding of his decision, your honor, is what he said was that while there was gender-based discrimination, which would require heightened

scrutiny, he did not mean to reach that issue because the laws failed under rational basis review. >> under rational basis review, just because you disagree, with the state's reason does not make it irrational, does it? >> no, your honor. i do not believe that is our argument. rational basis review is discord in the number of decisions, has acknowledged and certainly the supreme court, and a number of decisions has acknowledged that while it is a deferential standard to the legislature, it is not a toothless standard. it may not be based on flimsy, rationales that have no footing in reality. our point is that -- >> can we even get to an issue of fact that we need to have a

trial on this? >> i am -- >> one side presented one rationale, another side has presented another. can the court make that determination based on a bunch of sociological papers that were presented in windsor? >> i would like to answer that in three parts if i could, your honor. first of all, if you look at the state interests that have been asserted here, they are fundamentally, and in fact word for word instances, the same rationales that were asserted before the supreme court in windsor. windsor, without a trial, found that none of those justifications overcame the

-- to disadvantage and harm the children. >> did not windsor focus on the fact that the state had approved, had adopted a particular standard -- they had agreed that gay marriage, or same-sex is a better term i guess, would be permitted and under doma the federal government was interfering with that state's decision? and the fact that it may have also impacted children and people, that was there, certainly. >> your honor, our reading of windsor is broader than that. while the courts certainly talked about the state's power to govern in this area of defining marriage and regulating marriage, the courts went on to expressly hold that it was striking down doma because it violated basic due process and equal protection and the court, in fact, was looking out the

violations and equal protection interests protected by the fifth amendment when it struck down doma and the injury and harm it was looking to is exactly the type of injury and harm that occurs with regard of these marriage discrimination laws. in fact, the state of utah has conceded that the harm that the plaintiffs have alleged in effect, we have demonstrated, in fact exist as a result of those. let me come back to your question on the question of summary judgment. and the other thing i think it is important, your honor, is second, no party in this case believes there is any material issue of fact. if anything, the sociological studies present legislative facts. >> you are saying that the legislative facts, you can just ignore those? >> no. what i am saying is those legislative facts would not a subject to a trial, but even with regard to the social science, and i think you side when the state backed away from its reliance on the -- study,

is there is no study presented to this court that in fact measures the only issue that existed as one of the state's primary arguments, which was that same-sex parenting is not as good as what they call "the man-woman marriage." there is not the single -- a single sociological study they cited that is on weight, and every organization in this nation that is responsible for the mental and physical health of children and adolescents over 40 years of testing has -- >> we haven't had same-sex marriage but for 10 years. >> not marriage, your honor but same-sex couples have been

forming bonds, and long-term relationships and raising children for many, many years. >> some of the studies have been criticized for having small samples and not having the sort of analytical rigor that would allow us to come to conclusions. my question, it seems to me, is this is all going to turn on standard review. let me respond to this. it seems to me that we end up in a situation where the best the state can say, and right now it appears the best the state can say is that it is inconclusive, whether same-sex marriage will result in inferior results. there is a debate about that. if we are under any heightened level of scrutiny, to the question i asked opposing counsel, on that particular point they lose. do you agree? >> i absolutely agree. >> all right. this is what you may not agree with. it seems to me given that same question under rational basis review, i do not see anyone. because of it is inconclusive, and there's a risk, and they have a valid basis to address

it, why does that allowed -- you have a disagreement. why can't the state do what it wants to do? >> with all due respect, your honor, i disagree with you. i want to look at it from this point of view. it is, under the rational basis test, there are two requirements. one is that there be an independent and legitimate state interest. let us assume they meet that because there is this arguable disagreement. we do not agree with that, but let's just say that is the state of the record. the second part of the test requires that there be a nexis between that stayed interest and the classification at issue. in this case, the classification is the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, there is -- >> you have just taken the position that they're wrong on that.

if they were correct, if there was some type of a nexis, you cannot just say, "i disagree with your nexis." i mean, you have got a legislative in a democratic situation here, we have people who have voted. we have a legislator that has legislated. if they thought there was something there, could can we just say well you're wrong? if the group stands up and says out loud enough, we will just ignore what the people have decided and what the legislature has done, i.e. polygamy. why should we discriminate against people that want to have two wives or three wives versus people that want to marry same gender? it seems to me it all goes together. >> i think there are a number of questions in there, your honor. >> i would like to interpose one as well. >> ok. >> this pertains to all of these.

i think an overarching question that pertains to all of these is, the very arguments that were made in baker v nelson here, were made to the supreme court in the decisions that were considered by justice kennedy. the very argument about scrutiny and the level of scrutiny were presented to the supreme court as well. yet, the supreme court, in deciding windsor, did not choose a particular label to place on the scrutiny it chose to apply. but any reading of that has led every single federal court that has looked at the issue after windsor to conclude that even under the most relaxed of scrutinys, rational basis, that the law does not allow the type of discriminatory behavior that is at issue and these types of

cases. so my question is, does windsor trump all of judge kelly and all of judge holmes ' and all of judge lucero's questions on this point? >> our position is that in is, but i will get to why it does not matter even if you go under rational basis review. and i will get back to you, judge kelly, if i could start with judge lucero and run across -- >> [laughter] >> oh please your honor, don't. windsor, in fact, trumps any argument that the only level of review that these type of laws are subject to is rational-basis. the reason i say that, is while windsor never put a label on the scrutiny that it was applying,

what it did is it looked to the romer decision where the supreme court struck down a second amendment to the colorado constitution, and where romer said, where you have a law that categorizes a group of people based on a single trait, which in that case was being gay or lesbian, that is a rare law in our jurisprudence and where you have them being discriminated against and treated to similarly for the purpose of making them equal, the court applies careful consideration to make sure that the purpose and effect of those laws are not to harm the class.

in windsor, in looking at the analysis in romer, applied a careful consideration analysis that in reading it does not resemble rational basis. it says the beginning point is to look at the design, purpose, and practical effect of the law. if you find, even if you just look at the text of the law as you can certainly do under this court's vigil decision to determine if there is an intent to discriminate, and you find that the purpose and effect is to treat this class separately and make them an equal, and you have these kind of harms that the state concedes exist in this case probably to a higher extent than they existed under doma because it is every day of these utah citizens lives that they must face the stigma, the harm, the being treated as second-class citizens, the burden shifts to the state and the state must come forward with legitimate interests that

overcome the principal purpose and practical effect that damages these individuals who are the targets. >> as legitimate interest, said it would keep quiet, but isn't it legitimate interest really the language of heightened scrutiny? i think that is rational basis talk, isn't it? >> the word legitimate interest comes from rational basis, your honor. the analysis the court used in windsor is not a rational basis analysis. the legitimate interest that the supreme court in windsor found did not overcome the purpose and effect, are the same interests that are being asserted here by

the court, by the state. >> that is an animus argument, isn't it? judge shelby did not find animus, and i am struggling to find out how that is applicable here. is the hernandez case out of the new york case of appeals, where the court spoke about the notion that up until 2010 no one even thought of the notion of recognizing as a legal matter same-sex errors. what utah has done is validate what has been an historical practice forever. how could that be viewed on the same footing as romer, were they when in and attempted to essentially say that same-sex couples or anybody on sexual orientation grounds -- from legal relief? those are two different things, aren't they?

>> they are not, your honor. in romer, what the court was looking at is what does the target to the class do? that is, how are you differentiating between these classes of individuals and are you differentiating to treat them unequally. if that is the situation, that is a very rare type of law. you can talk about semantics, but there is no question, looking at the text of amendment three and the other marriage discrimination laws, is that the only saying those laws did was target same-sex couples and make them unequally. none of those laws established the right to marry, gave benefits, or gave incentives. their only purpose and effect was to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and marriage recognition. >> why couldn't it be viewed as saying the only purpose and effect was developed i would has

-- was to validate what has been in effect for eons. you want to be clear. his practice is the one that utah supports. period. >> your honor, when you have at least two statutes a constitutional amendment that is directed at excluding only one class of individuals from marriage, it is not to reaffirm, it is to exclude. if you follow the analysis in windsor, and even -- let me start with the text of amendment three. if you look at what they did in the first part what they did, was they said only men and women can marry. but they did not stop there. that is not just a validation, your honor.

>> if they had stopped there, would that be ok? >> no, it would not, because they are treating same-sex couples unequally. >> whenever you draw a line, do you not, and some cases you are overinclusive and in other cases you may be underinclusive. does that make it a rational because everybody is not in the same class, if you will? >> your honor, let me try to -- two answers to that question if i could. first of all, there is no question that under rational basis review there does not need to be a perfect fit. but the law is clear, and i think you can look at romer again, where they found the lob

-- law to be overinclusive and underinclusive. that is exactly what we have here. it is underinclusive because it does not inhibit people from getting married who do not want to procreate or can procreate, it is overinclusive because it keeps out same-sex couples who already have children or who want to procreate. if you look at this a blocky case, the court in that case, and striking down the state law that kept single people from getting contraceptives, they said that when you have a law that is so riddled with exceptions, the court cannot find a rational relationship or a nexus between whatever state purpose the court or state is trying to assert in accomplishing that purpose and i want to go back to the second part of amendment three, if i could. the state of utah just does not treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens, in part a, it goes on to punctuate the point by saying no legal relationship will ever the recognized that gives the same rights and benefits that opposite-sex couples get if they get married. if you are talking about animus, your honor, you're not talking about people being mean-spirited or having ill-will, or being bad people. animus is used by the supreme

court of the united states both in romer and was expressed in windsor, is talking about an improper purpose. >> we do not have animus at issue in this case, do we? >> judge shelby found there was no animus if that is your question. our argument is, yes there is animus. because animus is -- >> that is a fact-dependent issue. >> no it is not, your honor. >> yes it is, because you cannot take this intact legislation one way or the other. we have never done that in the past. >> what you can do, your honor, is look at the text of the document and if you simply look at the text of amendment three,

the intent to exclude same-sex couples and make them unequal is inherent on the face of the document -- >> well, it is. utah has taken the position that it is a violation of their public policy to permit same-gender marriage. they may be wrong, but does that express, from a legal standpoint, that they are being mean-spirited and bigoted? >> as we understand the term animus, it is a constitutional term that has nothing to do with good or bad your is a human -- >> sure does. if a legislative body does something deliberately to hurt somebody, that is one thing. if they do something that is for the good of a whole, in their opinion, not to hurt anybody, it is another thing. you cannot just ignore what the legislature has done. we don't like that, animus is bad. >> has that policy ever been allowed to overcome -- overrule constitutional rights in this country? >> no your honor. >> could we take a poll as to

whether the -- free speech applies to the state of colorado, for example? could we declare, as a matter of public always see, i think that's what windsor was speaking to when it said that it violates the fifth amendment and two the 14th amendment, speaking to the states, it is violated for of -- violative of public policy. the problem i have, with all of these arguments, is these arguments were made in windsor. the were considered in windsor. justice scalia, and justice alito who has spoken very eloquently about what the law is not. in their dissents. but we have to look at the majority opinion in windsor, with all due respect, it seems to me that to argue with public policy can detract a player and constitutional right, would be a

remarkable constitutional proposition. not just in utah or colorado, but anywhere in the united states. >> your honor, it would not only be remarkable it would be contrary to at least two, if not more supreme court decisions, that an individual's constitutional rights are not subject to public vote or legislative action. >> what we're trying to endeavor to determine is what is the constitutional right, and what wright has been violated. so i do not think that really answers the question. before you sit down, i need to raise the ugly head of article three jurisdiction.

i juxtapose this case to bishop. in bishop, and a nonfamily decision, we held that there was not article three jurisdiction because they only sued the attorney general and the governor and that in that situation, those two individuals could not affect causation for purposes of article three jurisdiction. why is that case any different than this one, in which -- the clerk of court below, the clerk of court is not on appeal, number one, and number two, it would seem to me that creates a fundamental basis of concern about where the jurisdiction lies in this case.

>> your honor, let me answer this a little broader than mr. -- answered that. it is not just the general power of the governor and the attorney general with regard to these matters. >> that is all that is in your complaint. >> it is what is in our complaint, your honor. but let me just say one other thing. what is also in this record, is because it was in the motion to stay that was before this court, is that the state has taken the position that it can, in fact, and it does direct with the county clerks do. prohibiting them from granting marriage licenses and allowing them to grant marriage licenses. so it is not simply a question of what general authority do these individuals have, it is the fact that in carrying out those general authorities, they do in fact exercise that authority within the very realm of the issues which are before

your court, which is, does it violate the equal protection clause and doesn't violate due process? if, in fact, it does and the attorney general and governor, as they did in this case, basically allowed the county clerks not to issue a marriage license and take the position they were waiting for the 10th circuit, and it is not just simply a general authority. >> that is a reasonable response. what i want to understand on that front is, would it your position, and i am going to dig into this later, would it be your position then that utah law would authorize the governor and the attorney general to essentially control the actions of the county clerks, such that this situation would not be, in

some ways, like bishop where in some ways they had general authority and that was it? >> that is exactly our position, which gives the court jurisdiction under article three. i want to and, if i could, your honors and ask that you of firm the district court's opinion striking down these discriminatory laws that have no thesis under any level of scrutiny for these laws are not the type of laws that our constitution will permit, because as the court has said before, the constitution does not allow classes amongst -- its citizens. i thank you for your time. >> and she have a little bit of time left? >> extra two minutes. >> two minutes. >> we will give you an extra two minutes. >> thank you your honor. >> very briefly i have identified a couple questions for members of the panel. first of all, judge holmes i realize i have not answered my question to you on the question about sex discrimination. the problem and loving was that there was an intention on the part of the legislature to disadvantage one class of people, one race of people versus white people.

similarly, in the sex discrimination, and certainly there is no discrimination here on the basis of sex, you have to establish determination to advantage one sex in favor another. there is no -- that this is designed to advantage males over females or vice versa. judge lucero, to your question about windsor, and this could be a much lower conversation, but in fact the plaintiff's interpretation of windsor, which has been picked up by all of the federal district courts to address these court since windsor come i agree with john that, but they are not reading the opinion. their reading of the opinion does not account for number one, the fact that at the end of the opinion it says "this opinion, as well as the conclusion, are limited to those couples that have been legally married under

state law." the state expressly limited its opinion to those. secondly, it says in several places that -- >> and i hate to take your time, but on that point, there is a case, there are plaintiffs here from iowa who are not validly married in iowa, but they come to utah and the door has been locked, the key has been thrown away, and the door has been destroyed by whoever finds it. that sounds to me like dred scott, where a citizen, even if they obtain citizenship and the wisconsin territory is a river, then dred scott comes back and says now i am entitled to the cloak of the protection of the united states constitution and missouri says no, because under the missouri policy, you will never be allowed. it sounds to me identical to the situation. >> here is why it is different your honor.

congress directly dealt with that in section two of doma where it does -- governs the marriage of one state and another and congress exercising its authority said that that marriage and oklahoma does not have to be recognized in utah. that provision of doma was not challenged in this case. if that provision had been challenged, then this could be a different case as to the people who were married in oklahoma, but it was not challenged. but to go back to windsor, there are so many other aspects of windsor that are simply left on the cutting room floor in the opinions that have been written by these various district courts. the court in windsor, as we have discussed before, repeatedly said that marriage, and especially the definition of marriage, and the court drew a distinction between regulatory and definition. they said the definition is exclusively the province of the state, and then at the end of the windsor opinion, the court

talks about again the importance of the states as mechanisms for developing community consensus about important social issues. if that is true, then essentially what the other side says is that, yes, the federal government, the court in windsor was telling the federal government, you need to but out of interfering with the states definitional authority over marriage. they assume that at the same time, with a wink and a nod, the court was telling federal courts that they should interfere with and intrude into the states definitional authority over marriage. that makes no sense at all. >> thank you, counsel. >> take you. >> you are excused, and we will excused with subject to call.

>> we believe that all men are created equal. we believe that all men have certain unalienable rights. yet many americans do not enjoy those rights. we believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. yet, millions are being deprived of those blessings. not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skin. are deeply embedded in history and tradition, and the nature of man. understand, without rancor or hatred, how this all happened. but it cannot continue. , the foundation of our republic, the principles

of our freedom forbid it. morality forbids it. the law i will sign tonight forbids it. weekend, the 50th anniversary of the 1964 civil rights act with president johnson's address to the nation and the signing ceremony. later, hear from reporters who covered the debate in congress. 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> book tv sat down with hillary clinton in little rock to discuss her newest book, "hard choices." the learned it to expect unexpected. nobody expected the so-called arab spring until it was upon us. to be agile and

ready for the dead while we try whilefor the unexpected, we try to build the world, especially my future grandchildren, we have got to be aware that all of these billions of people are making hard choices every single day. we have to be ready for that, because i am absolutely convinced that we have to continue to lead the world into the kind of future that we want. we can't sit on the sidelines. we cannot retreat. we are going to have setbacks. time, our story has become the dominant story. it represents the hopes and aspirations of people everywhere. americans toi want understand, and the main reason i wrote this book, i know there is a egg debate going on about -- i know there is a big debate going on about our role in the world and we have big

consequences to deal with about priority decisions. we cannot abdicate our responsibility. -- how we deal with it will be the stuff -- the world matters to america for our prosperity and our security and our democracy. >> hillary clinton spoke with us about her decision-making process, the perceptions of the united states round the globe, and some of the decision she had to make as secretary of state. "bookll interview airs on on saturday, july 5, at 7 p.m.. members of the house subcommittee examined the potential committee of a potential merger on consumers. the heard consumers of

american cable association express concerns about the potential -- about the potential merger. this is two hours. our hearing will come to order. chair isbjection, the authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. i recompense myself. we're here today to examined the proposed merger between at&t and direct tv. as i reminded our witnesses timeg a recent comcast -- warner merger hearing, today's hearing will not determine whether the merger will be approved. rather, this provides an open forum to discuss implications of the merger and allow publicly elected representatives an opportunity to propose questions to the leaders of the respective

companies and hear a variety of viewpoints on the proposed transaction. the record created by today's ouring will provide -- nation's antitrust laws. of at&t and merger directv comes at a time when the structure of the telecommunications industry could be -- or rather, is undergoing a rapid transformation in a relatively short. . the proposed merger between comcast and time warner has already been announced. of othere been reports potential mergers and acquisitions. the business of telecommunications increasingly requires significant investment to update infrastructure and provide innovative products and services to consumers. merged companies may be able to achieve economies of scale and have better accessibility