i think this also gets to the standard of review. they go through great lengths to say, this may be overinclusive underinclusive, post hoc. it may not be coherent. doesn't have to be perfect but just something the legislator could review and so i think as long of states are pressing for a most deferential process of review, review, they can't come up with the flimsiest rationale for their review but i don't think that will happen. if you look at the kind of analysis the court did even if you put a label on it, the court has never applied the economic on a rational basis. we demand to know what the relationship is. >> align is being drawn and it's

hard to think of any other kind of law where you can discriminate in that type of rational way. it doesn't lend itself to the economic regulation. >> the proponents of the amendment in the perry case, the natural argument and the things that got the attorney justice appeased, and they made a joke about it. they weren't taking this argument particularly seriously.

>> there's been a lot of focus on the supreme court decisions but there's a real history that the court has had in addressing access to marriage that includes permitting people who don't pay child support to be able to marry, permitting individuals who are prison to be able to marry while they are in prison. there is this really huge issue that the supreme court has viewed marriage over 40 times over a couple hundred years. the court has consistently found that we have to give huge to individuals who are willing to marry. they're not interested in picking out who should and should not have access to the institution.

>> the other piece of this aside from the child welfare piece is the notion that children are better off with a mom and dad. a lot of people still believe that. it doesn't have support by the social sciences but the more fundamental problem with that argument is that kids are there any way. same-sex couples have the same right to reproduce regardless of marriage or not and are in fact doing that. even if you thought that they are not ideal parents, and there's no evidence of that, if you thought that married parents were better than unmarried parents, you still don't have an argument for why they shouldn't get married.

>> there are 400,000 children in foster care still waiting foster care and more waiting adoption. even if you think or believe the idea that the optimal situation might be a mother and father why would you not want to deny these children a mother and father. does a place in michigan where they have four or five special needs children that they have adopted. they're all living in the same household together and that is okay with the state but they still won't let them get married. what is the reason for that? it's a difficult road once you can no longer argue that same-sex is a bad thing and that people shouldn't be gay from a

moral sense. these arguments are just really torturous that they've been making for the past several years. >> assuming that the court agrees with you all, are they going to put a label on it this time? >> if it's a justice kennedy opened in, let's not forget that the court has not identified any new categories for heightened scrutiny for a long time. there's been a fair number of justice in academic commentators that said people disagree whether it's a good thing or bad thing but there is one equal protection cause clause. it may vary from case to case on how it's applied, but consciously or unconsciously that seems to be justice kennedy's attitude.

it looks like intermediate scrutiny and all the other gay right cases. i think were likely to see equal protection clauses and due process. the best read say they are together and this is something that law professors have written about. the equal protection and due process clause are complementary and they interact and i think the best way of thinking about that is that there is a fundamental right to marry. then we might have the right to say that the burden shifts to the state cannot deny this

fundamental right to this particular group of people. >> it would be desirable if the court would articulate. we had a long time to think

about things with the court adoption band and people involved in same-sex relationships and there seems to be a lot of scrutiny of these things. there will be cases going forward where it would be nice to know what the constitutional standard is. >> where the law was defended in the indiana case by some vigorous representative of the attorney general's office, even they can see that there was no other situation where the government was involved in this individual other than marriage or that discrimination was appropriate. >> can you think of any other way where the government is allowed to discriminate against people. >> they said they couldn't think of anything. >> if we go to a hand higher standard of review -- >> now we've reached the ultimate thing that everybody was worried about and there seems to be a lot of danger if you're going to strike down these laws.

>> are they going to strike down these laws? and if so by what vote? >> i think the most likely outcome is a five to four decision with justice kennedy. i've gone back and read what they said at windsor and i'm prepared to argue that he left himself brewing in that opinion to join a majority in this case. his opinion emphasized federalism and what the courts were not deciding in the windsor case but he said very little about what he thought the proper resolution of the state law issue was. i think there's a nontrivial chance that it could be six three where he gets on board with existing marriages without

getting on board with creation of new marriages. i think those are the two most likely outcomes. also a slight possibility, but not likely, a straight up majority opinion addressing yes on the marriage recognition question. >> i actually agree. i think there's a chance of this being a six three vote. coming out at a more practical level the chief justice, i have children who are roughly the same age and we know the justices are human and part of what they're looking at is their legacy. how are their children and grandchildren going to think about them in years to come and i think that significantly increases the likelihood that the justices will join in in some way or another. not necessarily a hundred% on point. i think one of the areas we may see more of a concurrence from him is on consumer currents.

he may concur that they should have access to marriage but it should've been determined on rational law. >> it may not be a bad thing a bad thing for clarity and rigor. as long as he doesn't write it into modest of a form. >> it's gonna be 524, come on guys. he said it was okay for the federal government to overrule state decisions on marriage.

he's got the states making their own decisions and it's a very difficult opinion. >> do you think there some possibility he was thinking this was a legacy and institutional issue and he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the issue? i said possible, but not likely. assuming all of you are correct that the vote will be 54 remember you only remember the ones you get right. indiana was in the news recently. the talk about is their position from the court, are we going to

see more of these or a backlash as there was an indiana, particularly in states without laws protecting -- i think what we are seeing our people have long opposed any rights for lgbt people. >> it's not new, this is occurred for decades, but what has changed is the american public opinion. in the wake of indiana's decision to pass a federal, not a federal, that would be fascinating if they could pass a federal law but the act that will allow a business owner to go into court and say that they

had the right to undermine existing, municipal nondiscrimination laws that prohibit the discrimination of sexual orientation in public areas, to purchase services and go and shop, and going claim that their religious beliefs allow them to take hold in that law for purposes of not serving lgbt people individually or same-sex couples. there was a huge reaction to indiana's law which passed and was later revised somewhat, in large part because american attitudes have changed. 50% of the american public responded to polling questions and there were multiples that

were held saying they felt that it was wrong to discriminate against same-sex couples in public accommodations even if it was wedding related. major corporations from apple to angie's list and walmart came out in opposition to these types of laws. on the other hand some laws. on the other hand some of the laws that we are seeing are much more targeted. they're much more narrow. michigan just recently passed, and needs one more vote to go to the governor's desk, a law that would allow adoption agencies to

discriminate based on religious beliefs. alabama one vote away from passing a nearly identical away. the state of louisiana is considering legislation that would allow government pastors to discriminate on the basis of marriage if they did not believe in that marriage. if that marriage violated their religious beliefs. so if you have a judge that doesn't think that a same-sex marriage is legitimate, then they can claim divorce. there's nothing the state could do to sanction that. that doesn't mean they won't be

in operation for a number of years or that they will pass. >> there is a case last fall out of new mexico. >> yes, the owner of a photography business was approached by a same-sex couple people and this was before they had marriage equality and they wanted to have a quick a commitment ceremony. they said they would like you to take pictures of the commitment ceremony and the owner said well i disapprove of your relationship. it doesn't align with my views on marriage and family even though they have very clear laws about discrimination on sexual orientation, i don't think i have to serve you. they found in favor of the same-sex couple.

they said to the photographer you are bound by non- description discrimination law and you are flat-out discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. the supreme court had the opportunity to take that case up and they declined to do so. i don't think you can read too much into that -- they did. i think there was a real interest in how courts are going to come out on these issues. to date there have not been that many supreme court to deal with the issue. we don't have federal laws protecting same-sex couples from discrimination in public accommodations. >> it was not a religious case at all, it was about her art and that she didn't want to create that art to make her wedding beautiful. the idea that you are complicit in someone else's marriage by selling them a product like a cake or flowers, i don't think religion is sufficient to justify exemption. i do think we will continue to see these issues asserted. like the ones in alabama who

made these claims, but the fact that the community feel so strongly against this suggests that religion for an anti- gay opposition is not as powerful as people thought it was. >> this has been the drumbeat among social conservatives. this is the argument against same-sex marriage that it interferes with religious beliefs. >> i also want to push back against the idea about small

businesses. a large number of small businesses believe that the same behavior is inappropriate and there's been many business owners who have come out and said as a catholic, as a protestant, as a jew, i may not believe that same-sex couples should be getting married but when i am opening my business up to the general public i understand my obligations are different in the public marketplace then my own personal views. >> one of those might be worth reading. there is a very prominent scholar on religion and litigation and he filed a brief

in favor of same-sex marriage and supported his petitioner's to discuss ways to live up to the discussions of same-sex marriage and civil liberties. i think some of them have gotten the majority to say something about this. he spoke respectfully of people who have traditional views about marriage and empathetically who wanted to get married. they're making a play for something in the opinion that might give a nod to the idea that there are issues down the road that may need to be resolved even if the court grants same-sex marriage. >> absolutely, look already all

of the major republican candidates for president have made this an issue in their campaign. he wrote an article, in the new york time in which he plays out this vision of opposition for marriage equality. it really suggests that individuals should be willing to oppose even if the supreme court rules and favor. they are all trying to attract a small subset of the american people. those primary voters who are extremely social conservative and they are going to have significant challenges if they continue on this path when they end up in the general election. if you look at americans under

the age of 40, 75% support marriage equality. even if you look at republicans, under the age of 30, 61% support marriage equality. they're setting themselves up for potential success amongst their core base but will have problems in the general election. >> they're using this in the primary elections but when you look to the general election they don't want to be talking about this. they want the supreme court to handle it and take it off the table so it's not up to the president to make this decision. they really don't want to have this issue be a lot alive issue. they can downplay discussing it later. mitt romney keeps getting asked this question.

>> we know americans have access to view it. it'll be one of those, what i like to have a beer with this person, kind of question. essentially it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage in this country but will be a character issue that people measure presidential candidates by. today by. today believe in fairness and respect and do they respect my gay son or my gay nephew. >> let's move onto the next set of questions. do support nondiscrimination

issues across the country because that issue is still out there. >> i think were going to have to continue to talk about marriage because of state legislature needs to introduce bills that are an attempt to limit the scope of marriage equality within the state and carve out for individuals who don't want to interact with same-sex couples who are marrying. i think there's going to be many opportunities for them to determine how they feel about same-sex relationships. >> i wonder whether or not transgender issues are going to come up. after marriages decided i think another set of issues waiting in the wings is chan trans gender inequality.

it'll be interesting to see whether or not those issues have enough momentum to get discussed. >> there are cases alleging that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is another set of sexual discrimination. they have determined for federal employment, jenner identity discrimination is discrimination. now they are trying to look at private employees. as these issues progress there's going to be opportunity to go on record about these issues. >> okay it is now time for your questions. i just want to throw out the possibility of a seven to decision. i know he's a very conservative justice but he's joining them minority of the court. is that some sort of evolution on this issue? >> it doesn't mean he voted for the decision to deny it. i think it's unclear what the actual vote was in alabama.

>> it was unclear. >> if you look at his opinion it's not ambiguous in any way. >> it still important to note when you are determining whether or not you vote, part of what they're determining is the likelihood success. he might make an assessment about where they think they are going to land but he may not agree with that decision. >> he's very strategic in his thinking in advance and i have to agree with that.

there was an article across my desk of someone saying the dissent in windsor could have been a dissent in the other case in virginia. there was no difference in the arguments he made about gay marriage.

>> what if you're not wrong and it's a five for decision the other way. what would happen? all of the states that obtain marriage equality through a state legislative process, a state supreme court decision or the ballot box, will retain the ability to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. it gets more complicated for states who have had a federal ruling, they have to go back to the district court and say we want to start enforcing our ban on same-sex couples being able to marry. then it begins to be a bit of a gamble.

i think we can presume that at least four of them will seek that right. there are significant -- if same-sex couples who were legally able to marry, can they remain married? >> the federal decision to block that is very questionable. they may stop marrying people, at least for a wild. that will send it back to the political scene for some amount of time.

it would be anxiety provoking to those thousands of gay couples who don't know if they will continue to have their constitutional rights. it can be a very painful experience for many people in the country. >> many conservatives seem to believe that if the supreme court allows gay marriage nationwide it could somehow league to polygamy and people being allowed to marry their

siblings. one could make a legal argument that that could happen. >> i think the slippery slope arguments are a dangerous trick but there the recourse of people who don't want to go through the difficult process of reasoning and distinguishing and everything that lawyers are trained to do. you begin with the principles that the court says there's a fundamental right to marry. here is a group that is claiming exclusion from that right. what are the harms, what are legitimate reasons and justify those reasons. it's a completely different set

of potential harms, rules, state interests involved in polygamist marriages and relationships and incestuous relationships. they will have two identify what their good reasons are for banning those marriages. there's consequences for children and women and i think you can come up with a whole range of reasons why it would be more permissible from the issue of social harm and legitimate social interests to allow same-sex marriage. the mac. >> that question will get asked. i don't think it's plausible to say you can't draw a constitutional line between the two. >> has windsor had any effect on the last two years? >> he certainly brought a

beautiful opinion for his colleagues to be able to say here you go. >> windsor means this but marriage equality has decided -- and whether or not it made it difference or they would've figured it out by reading the majority -- >> this has been a very interesting briefing. as someone who comes from this from the outside you can see that this is not going to the supreme court but perhaps it'll go to this justice or perhaps

his grandkids if he wants to leave a legacy. what would be the one or two arguments you would bring aiming first of all at kennedy and a few step back and look at this and you know the supreme court is a giant body, is this really a functional body that we have? >> that's a lot of questions. i think first and for now most if you are going in and talking to society and to some extent even roberts, he made it clear that he cares a lot about the children. this was a primary issue for him and he clearly wanted to grapple with why should the children of same-sex couples not have all of the same benefits and protection of the children of opposite

couples. why is it that in a state that a state that is not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and therefore ensuring that those couples have state and federal rights, why should those children be subjected to lesser protection than other children. in terms of the second question, could you repeat part of that again?

i think it's too simplistic to say that the courts come down to in this clear political way. we know there are many justices over the year who are put in place by a republican or a democrat with the expectation that they will vote on party lines : diagram, it traces back to the dignity conferred by the states that chose to marry the. for the chief, the emphasize that it is rational basis, the lowest requirement of justification. able petitioners, i don't know maybe you explain why this is not a threat to religious

liberty, something very concerning, civil marriage to a

relatively limited locations were culture and religious institutions. that would be one guess anyway. >> the flip side of the question. if you are representing ohio michigan, if you will, the most convincing arguments that you make to justice kennedy and others to say, week of states, should have have the right to ban same-sex marriage? >> as the was just saying, you talk about states. able to have their own policies, particularly in this area. and then perfectly popular vote,

something that is respective even more than legislative clause. >> the progressive recognition question. >> again, i think they we will advocate for it. it seems with justice kennedy, we won't have a heavy hand of the federal constitution imposing something that not all states are ready for licensing same-sex marriage, but we will say that a sensible, horizontal federalism, the only thing that can sensibly work in a country like ours, states that have chosen to marry gay couples, a lot of the logic from the decision on windsor. another sovereign cannot respect with one state has chosen and its people sovereignty to create. again, will if the price of saying yes on that question as to say no i think it would be very english.

have a sense that he is concerned about his role in history. and so a vision for what his lasting contribution will be >> the whole idea that you were shielding the states, you don't have to do the marriages, you just have to respect the that county clerks, the county clerks, justices of the piece, the have to do that. every other department of state justice. >> kennedy again used the marriage license as having significance and what is creating the marriage, the dignity, the equality of the

entitlements. he attaches a lot of significance in that particular state action even as a practical matter. >> the idea that there are two kinds of marriages and one had to go out of state and find the hotel and other people don't. >> very sensitive. >> but he is not overly concerned. thinking about the substantial burden on women and abortion. there he does not seem to have difficulty. >> part of the problem is he does not fully believe. what he does clearly believe , couples who have been married should have the recognition of marriage. >> trying to channel what might be going on in his life. >> the legal director. pretty sure have contractually obligated.

>> it is a declaration and recognition. >> very hard to write a decision. the arguments come down to the same state interest of the same constitutional provisions. i just don't see it. they broke down that way. they give a little extra time. will find out in general yes.

>> speaking of psychoanalyzing justice kennedy, talking about how he is reluctant. suggested that he discovered that there won't be something decided on a case-by-case basis. some area does not want intermediate scrutiny. >> i don't consider myself enough of an expert on the entire body of justice kennedy's jurisprudence to no whether he has a aversion to scrutiny. the way he has resolve these cases is not feel any aversion to comply with the conventions of tiered scrutiny.

there seems to be a drift on the court away from the idea that tiered scrutiny is necessary and applying a tailored form of scrutiny to the particular situation. some of the courts have done that to process liberty issues. the court has had cases, well, anyway, the general drift of the court has moved beyond tiered scrutiny. it seems that justice kennedy is very comfortable. >> interesting. first amendment jurisprudence, the strongest supporter of categorical thinking in those cases. different than commercial scrutiny and restrictions. cases were watered down. so it is a curiosity.

>> please join me in a round of applause. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal," we look ahead to the supreme court oral arguments in cases examining whether states can ban same-sex marriage, and whether states are required to recognize multiple same-sex marriages performed in other states. first, we hear from brian brown president of the national organization for marriage, and evan wofllfson. then our guest is david savage. he will discuss the cases and

what a ruling either way could mean. "washington journal" is live every morning at c-span, and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >>'s weekend, the c-span city's tour has partnered with cox communications to learn about the history and literary life of topeka, kansas. >> and it was signed in 1854, is very act of signing it, signing that piece of paper was viewed by missourians as an act of war. when northerners decided that if popular sovereignty will decide the fate of kansas, we are going to send people to settle. that was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who had just assumed this would be there's. -- theirs. it was almost immediate.

in may 1856, don brown and his sons and a couple followers, dragged five men from their cabins along the pottawatomie, and they were hacked to death. that effectively cleared that area of southern settlers. >> here and to be good, if you look at the schools you would be hard-pressed to determine whether white students are african-american students attended. the school board really did provide all the same materials that the white schools offered. even more interesting, they find that after graduating from elementary school, african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools. while they certainly were no supporters of segregation and obviously saw the injustice the african-american community also

was very proud of their schools, because these were excellent facilities. while there was support for the idea of integration, there was also some resistance, especially from the teachers and the local chapters of the naacp who fear the loss of these institutions and the loss of those jobs. >> watch all our events from topeka, saturday at noon eastern. >> next, vision america hosts a group of conservative religious leaders to discuss the upcoming supreme court cases dealing with same-sex marriage and their positions on the cases. from the national press club this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> i'm going to start right on

time. we are grateful for the full set c-span coming in and filming the discussion today. we want to be conscious of their presence and we appreciate the audience. my name is rick scarborough. myself along with several others who were here are the originators of the marriage pledge. these two lawyers actually wrote the pledge. there are copies available for everyone. they have to retrieve them if you would like to see one. the website, within marriage.org. you can read the pledge come to see the key signers. as of yesterday morning we have about 6000 signed the pledge. we've been adding several hundred a day and all about will be discussing the course the course of the presentation today. we had two esteemed members of the press conference who could not be here because of the one

case been out of the country. they both submitted a printed copy of our position. [inaudible] the high impact leadership coalition. another, rabbi spero -- [inaudible] let me say that again in the microphone for those that are watching. we are passing out to hand out spirit won by jackson in europe today who wanted to give you his perspective on this. his tremendous black american leader, pastor of a local church in the d.c. area and a champion for the cause of price and also a handout going around by rabbi spero, a rabbi out of new york city.

he is president of the american caucus and you will see his remarks as well. as i mentioned earlier, my name is rick scarborough. our first presenter will be dr. james dobson. he made a five minute video presentation and we will show that to frame the debate today and i'll be the first visible visitor. >> i am james dobson and i appreciate you attending the press conference. i am unable to be there myself today, but my colleagues have asked me to address you briefly by way of this video. collect really, we want to express some profound concerns and beliefs about the decision the supreme court will soon render regarding the definition

or redefinition of marriage. being detention of the family is one of the creators most marvelous and in during guest human kind. it has been honored in law and custom for more than 5000 years and every civilization in history has been built upon it. it has been the bedrock of culture in asia, africa, europe, north america, south america australia and antarctica. admittedly, there've been periods in history where homosexuality has flourished including the biblical cities of and gomorrah imaging reason during the roman empire. none of these civilizations survived. only in the last few years as what has been called gay marriage and given equal status with biblical male-female unions.

in fact, today only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. america appears to be on the verge now a dean number nine team. god help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history. to put it succinctly, the institution of marriage represent the very foundation of human social order. every enough value since i'm not a period in the two shins, governments, prosperity, religious liberty and the welfare of children all depend on stability. when it is weakened or undermined, the entire superset or can begin to wobble and that is exactly what has happened during the last 45 years. the american people didn't

demand the seachange that is occurring. in fact, the population in 31 states voted one at a time on the definition of marriage and every one of them a firm that being exclusively between one man and one woman. those proclamations were ensconced in their state constitutions. now however, many of those popular elections are being overridden by imperialist federal judges who are changing the course of history. in mid-2013, only 13 states have legalized same-sex marriage. now, two years later there are 37 and the supreme court seems poised to make it 50. whatever happened to abraham lincoln's pronouncement in the gettysburg address at hours that

the government of the people, by the people and for the people. we make the decisions for ourselves. it is rapidly being replaced now by a government of the courts, by the courts and for the courts. let me get to the bottom line. if the u.s. supreme court redefines marriage to an good same-sex marriage, we all know uni all know that this will not be the end of the matter. an avalanche of court cases will be filed unrelated issues that we can even imagine today. we believe or should i say i believe that religious liberty will be insolvent from every side. indeed, that authority happened. pastors may have to officiate same-sex marriages and they could he prohibited from

passages of scripture. those who refuse to comply will likely be threatened legally and as the years go by, some will be subjected to prison sentences. christians who operate as mrs. will be required to dance to the government's tune. we've all seen examples of photographers and bakeries and pizza parlors being required to serve that weddings whether they want to or not, whether they have convictions are not and they have to on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views the marriage and relationships. accrediting bodies will tell them, it is the law of the land or so say some judges. i am most concerns about the

course will require a parent and children. a few weeks ago, president obama asked the legislatures to prohibit parents from seeking professional therapy from state licensed counselors who help their children deal with identity crises. what business does this man have in telling parents how to help their confused and disoriented kids, especially those who may have been abused sexually. this is outrageous. in some states counselors have , already lost their life is for trying to help troubled children in this way. these and other concerns i could list. my time is gone are why we have

called this press conference. the u.s. constitution does not grant the judiciary authority to interfere with religious liberties with parental rights in with the additions of marriage and the family. here we stand and we will not go where the u.s. court seeks to take us. >> well, thank you dr. dobson. to the esteemed members of the press that are here in the we are grateful for you taking time to cover something vitally

important to us. we have already made you aware of the website, defend marriage.org and a handout with the pledge on it. i would like to make you aware that we have now had somewhere over -- over 6000 people signed the pledge. i have brought with me, just for the sake of argument are example that there is no small number of people, single spaced over 100 pages of signatures that we would like to draw your attention to. we believe in time they will grow into the hundreds of thousands if not perhaps a million or more people in this country who will take the position that we have taken. we understand that america is a land of free fault. in my remarks i want to address the religious aspect of the whole debate. i have made copies. for those who would like a copy, i will just pass this around. i want to read my remarks. either way, at the end of the formal presentation, we will open up a time of q&a.

i want to begin by saying i am not here to offend or hurt. the vast majority in this country are like the vast majority of the rest of us. they simply want to be left alone to live their life accountable to the choices they made. worst three decades there's been an effort to normalize same-sex marriage in america. driven by propaganda campaign and promoted by activists to the homosexual community, aided and abetted by judges who make rather than interpret the law a business that has in large measure been bullied by our financial lives, liberal academia, liberal members of the press and family members of the clergy in america who have exchanged biblical truth for heresy in a quest for cultural relevance.

now the supreme court of the united states is about to deliberate a matter that has been settled in heaven and effort in god's holy scripture in god's created order. in 26 states, federal judges have overturned the vote of citizens who said no to same-sex marriage and landslide victories. in a more states legislators pass laws allowing same-sex marriage would not allow a citizens to vote. in three states have the citizens of this state voted for same-sex marriage. we witnessed an attack on god and the veracity of his word unparalleled in american history. judges, legislators and citizens who vote for same-sex marriage have said god and his word are incorrect on marriage. perhaps unknowingly they've chosen to deny god's word and observable nature and have created an illusion that most americans approve about which god forbid. i am not surprised some recent polls have shown the majority of americans now say they approve of same-sex marriage. we have heard a steady drumbeat for the past decade of the one-sided national discussion on the subject.

but there is also a time when the majority of americans in this country approved of separate restrooms in separate classrooms for black american citizens. the majority often gets it wrong. and who wants to be labeled a bigot for declaring what their heart truly believes about and -- about sodomy and alternative lifestyles. marriage can no longer include same-sex couples that iraq can follow. the court could no more redefines harwich then it can redefine gravity. neither is in the courts legitimate jurisdiction. today i declare before heaven i will not deny god nor his word to curry an immense favor. with great caution should anyone indulge the notion that one can change what god has said. we must remember to deny the

creative order is to attack its very nature. his word is unequivocal. so god created human beings in his own image. in the image of god he created male, a man, female, a woman. he created them, therefore a man shall have his father a man, a mother of woman and become united and they shall be one flesh. those passages found in genesis one: 27 and two: 24. marriage will always remain the union of a man and a woman for three reasons. reason number one, a union between a man and a woman. haven't you read, jesus replied at the beginning the creator made them male and female and and said -- and said for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and so be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh said they are no longer two, but one. therefore, what god has joined

together let no man separate. number two, the created order verifies what god's word says. the male and female are designed to be joined together to partner with god in the creation of another human being. number three, the union of a man and woman reveals a spiritual lesson. jesus is presented in the new testament as the bridegroom patiently awaiting the marriage supper during which he will be joined for eternity with his bride the church. marriage is a picture of that promise. ephesians five5:31 and 32 says that this way. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. this mystery is very great but i speak concerning the relation of christ and his church. attends our rejection of god in the bible. the genius of america and

religious freedom is you don't have to accept or believe any of what i just said. you can choose to embrace that god designed -- that god designed men and women in the marriage illustrates truths or you can reject all of that and make your own alternative truth but you cannot change what god has spoken and verified. many have tried and history. documents are folly. in the past, stating such a position was known as practicing religious freedom and freedom of speech, both constitutionally protected rights, rights of necessity will be sacrificed if the court approves same-sex marriage. to the members of the supreme court, i say there are tens of thousands of people of faith, in fact hundreds of thousands if not millions whose faith and conscience will not risk that any decision that fundamentally rejects their god, his word in the national order.

if a majority redefined marriage, thousands of christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has any jurisdiction over their lives. in the spirit of dr. martin luther king, we view any attempt to enforce a willingness on just and our duty of the constitution or import really our duty to our god will force us to disrespect it. we will obey god rather than man. our presenters may stand legal authority in this country. matt stabler is the founder and chairman of liberty counsel. he is the former head of liberty law school in lynchburg, virginia. he's argued two cases before the supreme court and presented briefs in more than 35.

mr. staver: thank you, rick. just for those that will come after me, i will ask you to spell your name for the media that they will be able to get back. my name is mat. i am founder and chairman of liberty counsel, an international nonprofit litigation education and policy organization. offices in florida, washington d.c., virginia and california and hundreds of affiliates around the country and we also have a major presence in israel. we are here because of the impending supreme court decision. this week i released an article that i wrote and you can read it at stream.org. stream was recently founded by james robinson that has an international ministry and is the founder of the stream which is an online media publication and in that article i began

talking about 2009 manhattan declaration was signed instituted by an inspired by the late chuck colson and co-drafted by professor robbie and timothy george. in that particular manhattan declaration events at these words and i will quote. we will fully and aggression may render what is caesar's but under no circumstances will we render what is god's. five years later the future is here with the impending decision that the united states supreme court. as a result of what it's about to take place with the decision of the institute, keith fournier who will speak after me, a christian catholic, me, an evangelical christian began to co-draft this document called the marriage pledge and we have circulated that among different leaders in manhattan declaration has over half a million diners.

-- half a million signers. this one here has just been posted online an everyday hundreds and hundreds more are signing this. we brought leaders together first and with leaders from a wide good of evangelicals, various protestant denominations orthodox christians, jewish, leaders all around the country from various perspectives they don't agree on theological issues that they are unified in this one area and that is marriage as the union of a man woman and on our watch we will not idly allow that to be deconstructed because whenever it happens we by experience and history have known the government uses the police power. it happens around the world and it is what will happen if we cross this line. the leaders as diverse as franklin graham and other orthodox pastors, and clergy,

and priests. jewish leaders have come together unified around one issue and the pledge that defends marriage. or do we also have a copy here to pass out? i want to touch on a couple things up in this pledge. one of the things we are unified in his reaffirm the marriage and the family has been inscribed by the divine architect into the natural order that marriage predates every civil government, wasn't created by a legislative act whereby a referendum of the people. it predates every civil government throughout millennia of history have affirmed what is obvious part of the order. marriage is the union of a man and woman. it wasn't confined to any religion and is not created by religion. it is not a religious belief. religion affirms that which is part of the natural creative order a civil government affirms that as much as it affirms gravity. you may not like gravity. you may prefer to fly to jump off a building or click.

-- or a cliff. gravity is what gravity is. you can resist it, but it's fair, part of the natural creative order. the factor is part of our natural order, humans have male and female coming together for not only unity that procreation and having the best initial cell, the unit on which the rest of society is built to raise children and to produce those as productive citizens is the central structure of our humanity that transcends time, generations and geography. not created by any civilization. it is part of our creative order. as such we come to a letter from dr. martin at the king junior when he wrote a letter from the birmingham jail. dr. king was asked a question. why do you expect some love and others who don't respect. about in that letter that there are two kinds of laws. there are just two hours and

just laws are in which the earthly lives and can harmony to a higher law prints both an unjust laws than those laws that collide with higher law. laws that are just have the obligation to obey those laws to obey those laws that are run just have the duty to disobey those because i agree with saint augustine and augustine and other millennia and the teachings of the judeo christian church and history of scriptures that unjust law is no law at all and it cannot be given respect as a law. certain small areas of life in which we encounter an unjust law. an unjust law is not what denominational doctrines are just wins the society, but something that collide with the natural creative order. when we find one law like that it is no law at all.

it is an collision with the higher law principle. neither the united states supreme court nor any civil government has the right or authority to change the natural creative order. -- created order. as we've seen in our united states supreme court a couple of different principles. number one, the court has candidly stated in the confidence of the people. in 1992, justice sandra day o'connor in the planned parenthood as one of the justifications for upholding the 1973 roe versus wade and that is the self-preservation of the authority of the supreme court. unlike the executive with a figurative power of the sword and unlike the legislature that has a figurative power to pass laws, the judiciary has almost no authority to enforce its own laws. it has to rely upon the other branches of government to do so. the authority of the court rests

not in the fact it has a power of the sword, but in the confidence of the people and if they lose confidence in the people, they lose their authority and therefore we took such a drastic shift in 1973. the people will wonder what are you doing? how can we trust it to make these major social shifts and if we can't trust you, we then do not accord your decisions the way that they ought to give a decision and as a means of self-preservation, even if it was wrong, we can't deviate because we will lose the trust of the people and thus lose their own authority. that is a candid assessment, but an accurate assessment. the only authority is the thought that people trust is doing its job consistent with the rule of law and adhering to

the document they are intending to interpret. not that they are ideological trying to push social engineering on society based upon their own personal beliefs. the supreme court is not always been right. in 230 cases it is overruled itself so the previous decisions were wrong. let me look at two of those decisions that no one will debate. in the 1800s, the supreme court a racist and bigoted judge collided over history and ask for rights as a citizen and as a black american. he was denied those rights and when the case went to this racist jurist, there is no justice for you at this high court because we believe blacks are inferior human beings. close quote. how bigoted, racist and wrong is that decision? it is not the rule of law now. it is repudiated in everyone's mind today.

it was not the rule of law at the moment it was panned as a decision. buck versus bal, under the commonwealth of virginia, a victim of the eugenics movement taking place around the country. three previous generations had low iqs so the commonwealth of virginia was taken into a facility and forcibly sterilized her. she sought justice before this high court and infinite justice, she got an opinion from the famous justice oliver wendell holmes who wrote the infamous decision. no justice for you at this high court because quote, three generations of imbeciles are enough, close quote. because she had low i.q. in her generation, it was ok for

the commonwealth of virginia to forcibly remove the undesirable. unfortunately it spread like wild fire in the eugenics laws to place all over the united states and was picked up by a man by the name of adolf hitler became a platform for the eugenics movement. during the nuremberg trials when the nazis were put on trial, which trial, what case did they say to justify what they were doing? you do the same thing in america. it is called buck versus bal. how shameful that is. no one today will justify that decision is consistent with the rule of law and if there was not the rule of law in everyone's minds, if you ask them, it wasn't the rule of law than. those decisions are examples of supreme court decisions that run contrary to the natural creative -- natural created order. there is no lot then and no one now and we are now facing one of those decisions for the united states supreme court. if the united states supreme court cannot get the issue right

whether there is a constitutional right in the united states constitution, if they cross this line and event to right a same-sex marriage in the united its constitution, i say in the leaders that assignment and many more around this country that we will consider entry such a decision by the united states supreme court in the same way that we in history have viewed dred scott and buck versus dell. i say this with all due respect to someone who argues before this court the decision will be an unjust law and we cannot and we will not give it the respect of the rule of law. that goes too far. that is a line that we cannot cross. not because we want controversy. the last thing we want is thing we wanted to fight over this issue. we know from history and experience once a government seeks to redefine the natural created order of marriage, the first collision is with religious freedom because it's a big year something. this is an issue in which

religious freedom is under attack. at the chick fil-a founder says i believe marriage as the union of a man and woman, you can't have chick-fil-a in my city or my district or they get kicked out of college campuses because the founder believes in marriage is union of a man and woman were for example, if a photographer says i don't discriminate against somebody because they are gay. i photograph all kinds of people but i can't autograph and event even more than people who are caucasian. but if they start burning crosses i can't autograph that event either. -- i cannot photograph that event either. she has been told no if you don't photograph the event, that you can't do photography and arlene's flowers or for a southwest come a 7-year-old lady

-- a 70-year-old lady has been friends with one of her clients for nine years. baked cupcakes and cookies. doesn't discriminate because he is gay. one day he says i want you to cater my wedding with another man and she said i'm sorry. that is contrary to my religious beliefs. but there's another florist down the street i can do a good job for you. you would think that would develop into respecting develop into respecting a person develop into respect and the person would say i understand her conviction. i will go down there. thank you very much and can do need to patronize the florist. a civil complaint was filed and they try to bankrupt or personally and financially with her business as well. this is a zero-sum game. the reason we cannot comply is because we know this will collide with religious freedom and there are certain things we cannot, therefore will not render to the state when they collide directly and unequivocally with what god requires of each and every one of us. we stand united together in this unity.

i want to read the last sentence of this place. we stand in defense of marriage. make no mistake about our result. while there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural created order and common good, this is the line we must raw. one we cannot and will not cross. i'm to bring up the can keep foreign yea. -- i want to bring up geek and keith foreign yetdeacon keith fournier. deacon fournier: founder of common good foundation and come to alliance. and a catholic clergyman. i'm also on the path towards phd in my own church. it's my honor to stand with all

of you ended in order to be part of this putsch piggybacked pastor rick, i don't drop it was intentional but it is certainly good optics because i'm standing with the thousands in fact standing with millions and i'm standing in a 2000 year history of the christian church reaching beyond that to mount sinai go all the way back to the beginning of creation itself. and defending marriage is what it is. between one man and one woman, intended for life, open to life, and formative of family. and family is the first society. it's the first school, the first church, the first government come the first economy, the first mediating association. the entire social order is built on the family. and i stand fully within the tradition of my church and the fact that classical christian tradition in saying it is not just a religious position i am espousing but written in a natural moral law so eloquently

pointed out, a law written on the human heart and to be known for the exercise of reason we all know it, cross culturally and across civilizations. yet we do stand at a point in our history where nine black robed justices may decide that the natural moral law no one has any standing in the jurisprudence of the united states. once again as matt pointed out that have been wrong before and it would be wrong now if they did. i would only add dred scott, the infamous decision of roe v. wade. cost is 60 million of our youngest neighbors now not with us. so i'm honored to be a part of this pledge come pakistan with other christians, other jews of people of faith in and people of goodwill in making it very clear we will stand for marriage. and we will do all we can to ensure that marriage continues as what it is.

i would only add one thing to what's been said so far. there is, in fact, a 2000 year christian history. so i not only stand for these names but on the shoulders of giants. and this is not the first time in its history that we've entered into a culture that has rejected a natural moral law. turned against god. what do we do as christians? we do what christians do. we try to infuse once again like leaven in a loaf that truth that elevates all humanity no matter what the religious belief. so should the court make the wrong decision, not only will it be an unjust law, and that is absolutely correct, it will be one which we cannot obey just as the early apostles could not stop preaching. what will that mean? i don't know this. i don't know but i do know this.

god will triumph. the truth will triumph. and, finally, in gratitude to my evangelical protestant friends my other catholic friends, and orthodox christian friends and jewish friends, for having the courage to stand together. there is a silver lining in this dark cloud. we are brought together. this is not about protecting ourselves but we love this nation. not only am i a member of the clergy, but next year i will have been married for 40 years. i have five grown children and i just had the privilege of baptizing my seventh grandchildren. i want the american experiment to continue. it was rooted by our founders and is very christian tradition of recognition that rights come from the creator, they are endowed and they cannot be taken away by a civil government, the

judiciary, legislative branch or even in the executive. thank you very much. ms. boynes: hello, everyone. my name is janet boynes. i have a ministry that assist in helping men and women lead the life of homosexual. -- leave the life of homosexuality. i'm based out of minneapolis and i live in texas. i also enjoy helping churches have a better understanding how we work with those that are in our churches that struggle. i believe in compassion without compromise. we will have passion but we will not compromise the gospel. i think far better than anyone who has lived the life of homosexuality has an understanding why the gay community do not want someone like myself around. because we have the opportunity to debunk everything they are saying. why don't you see me on cnn or today or msnbc or good morning america?

because they have all the gays and lesbians on their show. but if i come on that show i will tear down their belief system to advance my goal is to debunk everything that they are saying, to be true what i know it is a lie. we have tragically watched our nation caved in to homosexuality propaganda. more and more people are falling for the lie that homosexuals are born that way. well, we know that's a lie anyway. homosexuals have successfully made inroads into hollywood, television, our children's public schools, universities our government, the president of the united states, and now our churches. homosexual marriage is growing in america. reality which is currently being litigated in our nation's supreme court as a potential

federal civil right. but we know this is not a civil rights issue. become the color of my skin is an immutable unchangeable characteristic. i can't change from black to white, but i did live a homosexual life for 14 years , and i've been out 17 so we know that change is possible through the power of jesus christ. if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, no one can even imagine or predict the ramifications that this decision will have. i know from personal experience that homosexuality is a false identity that is rooted in sexual or emotional brokenness. same-sex marriage is a rejection, reality of god's design for how to raise our children. when we reject reality, we harm our children. see, i grew up in a family of seven kids with four different fathers. i understand what it's like not having a dad because of all

those who are fathers, none of them was around. every child deserves and wants a father and a mother. this is critically important to their sexual development. in the 14 years that i lived as a lesbian i saw firsthand that there is no substitution for the role of a father and mother that they play in a child's life. each parent offers a unique contribution to the health and well being of our children. i know this to be true because what i was in homosexual life with a woman who had two children, i tried to fulfill the role of a daddy. at the time i realized i wasn't equipped or capable of being a father to these girls. more and more children, family members and friends, those who were never predisposed to the homosexual before are now experimenting sexually, trying

out homosexuality and becoming hooked. those who seek help to leave the life of homosexuality and they soon discover that there is no longer any help out there. homosexual activists and their homosexual attorneys are pushing to ban any type of ministry such as janet boynes ministries. their goal is to indoctrinate our kids. their goal is to silence us. their greatest fear is men and women like myself who have walked away from that life. soon it may become illegal to even have this kind of ministry. who knows how much longer we will have to do what we are doing today? unless we act now. we must be bold and allow ourselves. we must be bold and not allow ourselves to be forced out. we cannot lay down our religious

freedom. i thought about what president obama said in his inaugural speech. he said you might not have voted for me but i will be your president. really, mr. president? you have allowed gays and lesbians into the white house. you sat down with them. you have had dinner with them. you heard their voices, but not once have you allowed those of us who walked out of the life of homosexuality to come into the oval office, to come into the white house and hear our stories. i challenge you today to allow us to come, and you listen to what we have to say. i pray that our courts will uphold traditional marriage so that god will continue to bless this great nation, the united states of america. thank you. mr. jackson: first of all i am honored to be here and thank you

for the opportunity to take a stand with you, dr. scarborough, and with all of you, a stand for marriage as we believe god ordained it. i stand here brokenhearted frankly, because i never thought i would see the day when in my beloved country the united states of america, merely holding to a biblical worldview would subject you to ridicule, to fines, to punishment, and yet that's where we have. and so we are here not only to reaffirm our commitment to marriage as a union between one man and one woman, we are also here to defend the religious liberty of christians and others all over this country who are simply trying to stand up for what we believe in. it's important to remember, christians didn't invent marriage as a response to the gay rights movement. this is what we've believed for the last 2000 years. i believe this long before there's any such thing i'd ever heard of any such thing as a

gay-rights movement. so the idea that this is something that is motivated by bigotry, by hatred, or who we -- who were we hating before we believed marriage being between one man and one woman long before there was any such thing as a gay-rights movement? so it breaks my heart that our country is going in the direction it's going. it also breaks my heart no matter how loving we try to be no matter how reasonable we try to be, no matter how much we expressed, as one woman did when a gay customer came in and demanded that she provide i think a floral arrangement for a gay wedding and she put her hands on his hands and said, i love you. you've been coming here for years, but i can't do that. she was still his friend. she still loved him, but he was asking her to break her commitment to our lord and savior jesus christ. people have to remember, christians have died for our faith in him.

we have died for our commitment for the word of god. so the idea that those of us who believe are simply going to roll over because their social pressure, when we know we follow a long line of heroes of the faith, who surrendered everything, including the 158 children who just died not too long ago in kenya. kids really who would not renounce their faith in jesus christ under threat of beheading, under threat of murder. we are so not going to back off because people are upset with us. but we are not upset with them. we love them. we pray for them. we will continue to fight the good fight. two with a quick points i want to make. one is i frankly, i am frustrated i this. this idea that homosexuality is likened at analogized to the black civil rights movement. look, first of all i can look around this room, some of you i know but i don't know other than those i know personally, i do note who in here is gay and

who's not. you know who is black in here. [laughter] and when somebody walks up to a hotel and says, i need an overnight stay, if you look at the person because of the color of their skin you say no. when somebody goes out to get a drink of water and says you can't drink the water fountain you are the wrong color, that is very different than a person sang the want to come in my store and do this is? come on in. i don't have the whether you're a homosexual or heterosexual you want to buy dinner, you want me to make up floral arrangement, you'll need to take a kid, you will need to take photographs at a graduation, the family reunion? no problem, but don't ask you to do something that violates my faith. that's very different than what black people faced during the era of slavery and segregation.

and this not likened unto interracial marriage. because there is no biblical basis for denying two people of the same race the right to marry or the right to be together. that was concocted to justify the subjugation of people on the basis of the color of the skin to try to kick them into place. but you won't find advocates pointed out to you a 2000 year history of prohibition against people of the same race getting the, different races getting married. but the analogy is specious and it's an insult to the illustrious history of the black civil rights movement to continue to use that analogy. but it's been very emotionally effective because people said i don't want to be like that, i don't want to be a discriminator. but these are two very different situations. the last thing i say is this. i think we are facing an undermining of the very foundation of this country because it's founded in truth. the founding fathers said we hold these truths to be self-evident. you know, when jesus thank

pontius pilate and pontius said well your kingdom jesus said i have come to bear witness to the truth, all who are of the truth hear my voice. pilot said, what is the truth? and i think that's the same question that has been asked now, what is the truth? so who says marriage is a union between one man and one woman? i think that we are sowing the seeds of moral destruction because if we are not a nation based upon truth, if there are no overriding moral truths and everything is up for grabs, the only thing that determines what's right individual is forced. but that's not the kind of nation we need to quickly we answer to a higher authority. we believed there were truths that nobody could change. we believe marriage is one of those truths that can't be change. people can talk about redefining it but i will always believe that this one definition of marriage and no matter what they label any other kind of union it will never be a marriage. made in the minds of those who

do it will be but it will never be a valid marriage because marriage was ordained by god and can only be one thing, a union between one man and one woman. truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne, yet that scaffold sways the future. can't stand within the shadows keep watch over us so do i do with what happened to us with a standard where taking but i think i can say for every one of us, we will give our lives standing for the truth. we will do it in love and do it in compassion, but we will be courageous about it and we will never back down. we are going to bring the people back up here that spoke, janet and rick and keith come if you come back up. if there's any questions. go ahead and -- >> bishop e. w. jackson.

mr. scarborough: my name for those watching his rick scarborough come on the front of vision america which we found vision america.org. mr. staver: if there's any questions, just two things i wanted to just point out because it's a question that comes up but the first thing is not as much pleasure that comes up but as a policy matter, as a policy matter, same-sex marriage says that the highest level of government sends a message that children don't need moms and dads, the two women and two men are the equivalent of a mom and a day. it forever deprives children of ever having the opportunity of a mother and a father. heather recently wrote and i think the article was in federalist.org, that she was raised in a home with two moms. she's now married to a man come has children, and she says her heart ached when she was in the home with her moms come and she loved her moms, not speaking evil against her moms, but she

said she was deprived of her father and she was never able to have that opportunity. and now that she is married and she sees her own husband interacting with the children she realizes exactly what she missed, and that's what janet was talking about. the second thing is what does this resistance look like? that's a common question. what does this line we will not cross mean? and i think it will be manifested in multiple giveaways just like the civil rights movement was. and maybe a rosa parks refused to get off a bus or so this is unaccounted that a segregated or drinks after water fountain that is a white only water from the it manifests itself in different ways but let me give you an example. in 2004, when same-sex marriage came to massachusetts to catholic charities that event and administered for many decades, they were told you can no longer do that coming up to put children in homes with same-sex couples. when they said that violates our christian beliefs and doctrines of the church, they were said, they're told you then need to

cease. to their credit they would not compromise. i say then and now that number one, they should continue to pursue their call which is to place children in homes with moms and dads. whether the adoption or the force or the photographer or whoever it might be. number two, they should not voluntarily cease but they need to stand their ground. if a state chooses to use the police power of the state to come after them, then the state chooses but we will not voluntarily cease and we will not voluntarily compromise our calling and our commitment. that's what it means. this is a line that cannot and will not cross. so if there's any questions. >> state your name, please. >> is it working? sarah jones. i have a bunch of questions. i will stick to one. name it, i keep hearing not just today that it's been

increasingly popular talking point that a same-sex marriage is indeed legalized in june, that pastors will be forced to officiate same-sex marriages that there will be forbidden from preaching certain topics and the intervention of the however, not a single civil rights organization has ever advocated this as a policy position. so where does this come from? what basis do you have for a? mr. staver: i can address the -- i think we of the same-sex marriage to a protected civil rights act, which accounted illegal with respect to race you were able to do legally with respect to same-sex unions. so let me extrapolate about. catholic churches that are catholics and baptist churches in our baptist but they can hire white only baptist or white only catholics. the church might have a restroom but it cannot say that this is a white only restaurant. i'm sorry, this is a white only drinking fountain. the one for people for colors

down the road. bob jones university had a policy failure of abandoned by the time it was a -- they no longer a democrat and abandoning a policy. that banned interracial dating or just a lot of banned interracial dating that college campuses could not have such a policy. this is the worst act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race. the irs came to bob jones university and so change a policy. no, it's based on a biblical beliefs. they went to the united states supreme court and the lost that case and, therefore, they lost their tax-exempt status. a facility in new jersey, a methodist association lost its property tax exemption over this. this will have a wide reaching ramifications. whether and when it will reach the point of what a pastor can say, i don't know. we do know, however, that the bellwether of marriage for all of the world is the netherlands, norway, denmark and sweden. what happens from and that is that his family welcome break from europe and into united states. same sex unions for the game

worldwide in the netherlands in 1988, 1989. first time in the world history. we do know that a pastor in the netherlands was jailed specifically for preaching on this issue. we know that pastors in europe have been fined and also targeted solely for preaching on the bible with respect to this issue. we know that, for example, in canada you can't broadcast certain things that are critical of homosexuality. we are not to that point, but it's not a wild hypothetical that this is, in fact, where we're going because where denmark was and norway and sweden, we now are. where europe was in terms of the issues of targeting people that are faith-based, we now are. it's just a matter of time.

dea. fournier: i would like to add to that, not only as a constitutional or but even more as a catholic clergyman. the hosana tabor case has protected somewhat some of the challenges we face of it in terms of hiring and firing in the catholic church. we sorted this commit against no one and would recognize that every single human person has fundamental human rights including those who are so professed as gay or lesbian. but there's going to be no changing what we have stood for 2000 years concerning marriage. right now we are do with struggles based on employing people who are in a purported marriage, men with men, women with women. and we cannot hire them because they are, in fact, violating the fundamental teaching of the catholic church. so far the precedence that come from that have given us some protection but there is no question that that is correct. the police power of the state

will follow any rulings that says that we must give them the treatment legally to homosexual couples, or to lesbian couples as we do to marriage. and if we do not do so we will suffer the punitive implications. now, that is not a scare tactic. we are already witnessing it. right now comfortable and encouragement so i would his weddings in the catholic church. i do so as a civil authority registered in virginia but also as a cleric. in australia and in some other states, nations, the church is beginning to look twice, will they be able to do that any longer? we may not be able to do that any longer. we face a genuine specter of the state invading the church and telling us what we can and cannot preach, and what our sacraments are about. that is a threat to the fundamental religious freedom.

mr. staver: we are about to lose our c-span audience. i would encourage everyone who's watching this broadcast, first place to thank you c-span. but never number two, go to defendmarriage.org and let us know what you think about this pledge. mr. jackson: let me just come down to me avert some of the legal analysis. let me give some of the practical implications. when you make this a federal law, then the implications are profound. churches don't only preach. at bookstores, day care programs, they do a whole series of other things. now, if you start applying the law to these things that they do that you might not consider to be worship or strictly religious, then you intend on that churches ability to do what it does. and if the standard is, well you're a discriminator, then why wouldn't that be an implication? maybe you should stop preaching that. maybe should start out by these things that are discriminatory

that are upsetting people. and a moment there is some sort of court order, the court case in which an order is given, that certain kinds of even cannot engage in because it's discriminatory, when the past or decides on upholding a court order that requires me to do this or that because that's a violation of my religious liberty and my christian convictions, what happens when you violate a court order? contempt and ultimately imprisonment. so there's practical implications to this that don't require we go to a point where there's a lot of says a pastor may not preach this particular truth. >> other questions? this ma'am. >> i am jasmine with news service. what would your response be to support of gay marriage or rights do not mean you agree with homosexuality? it means you support equality.

what would your response be? mr. staver: the reality is that is not the agenda of this particular movement. the agenda is not just to make me silent and have my own particular viewpoint and disgust -- discuss it among people of my community. the agenda is to make me participate, affirm and promote it. for example, why was there such a big backlash against the founder of chick-fil-a. now what they want to do is force his business out. why was the ceo that founded this large software company, that was forced to resign as chairman of the board because he gave about a $1000 contribution or so to the proposition 8

campaign years before this. this agenda is a very intolerant agenda that is not content with the silence of those who object. this agenda is an agenda that wants you to participate in -- and a firm. this agenda doesn't say i understand the conviction that i've been a patron of yours for nine years and we are good friends then you have known that i am gay and i understand your heart. the agenda is that what you, not the florist down here who can do a better job because that is where the heart is, but i want you to participate in my ceremony. i want you to participate in my rally even though you don't discriminate against white people. they want you to participate in a public affirmation of it. that is the critical difference that crossing this line is

different than roe versus wade in the sense you can have roe versus wade as horrible as it is to have genocide about massive nature. until now you have a then forced to participate and be a part of it in affirm. this is not a decision where we stand on the sidelines and criticize, complain about it. once it crosses the line it fundamentally changes the landscape and the culture and there is a coercive component of the state that targets anyone who objects and in answer to the previous question, there was an ordinance passed in fayetteville, arkansas that went back and people gathered enough signatures at the end of 2014. is the first ordinance that had criminal penalties against churches that refused to affirm gender identity in same-sex, sexual orientation with people

as secular positions that if you didn't resolve that within 30 days, it went to criminal prosecution. shocking. this is not hypothetical. this is a forced participation in something we cannot affirm. dea. fournier: on the last point, that is the issue. by the way, there is a distinction between recognizing equal rights and human rights for gay persons and then he -- and then you moved on to gay marriage. that is the issue here to a classical issue, protestant, evangelical or catholic. that is an oxymoron. there is no such thing. there can be life-long choices between gay couples to live together, but marriage is what it is and it cannot be changed. i will add one last thing.

i am the guy up here with a collar on. i will say is a catholic areas of theology to a sacrament. for the sacrament of marriage, there needs to be a man and a woman who pledge their consent for life and are open to life. if in fact we are moving towards the redefinition of marriage and we put the police power of the state behind it, will there be compulsion for priests or deacons in the catholic church to preside over the services. our colleague from america united says there won't be. we know from the trends and history the police power follows the federal decisions. so, it is incredibly important that we recognize the implications and make a difference. in my church, we have a wonderful document from the 1990s on the pastoral care of

homosexuals. it is respectful. but we will not and cannot recognize any such thing as marriage between anyone besides a man and a woman. if the state tries to compel us to do so, we must and we will resist. mr. jackson: look. i don't think anyone at this podium wants to see people denied the right to work, the right to live, to have housing. we respect the dignity of every human being. we don't hate anybody. but we believe what is really at work here is something far worse than the coercion to do something, but to really bend your heart, come into line if you want to be acceptable. if you don't want to be a big

hit. if you don't want to be a hater. when you say gay rights, it sounds great, but my understanding is every american has rights. i am not sure what gay writes -- gay rights means. we don't want to see a late beat up, harass, her. he never fought and trained many calling a person i know to be gay and name. but we can't challenge our names about the nature of the behavior. that is what we are really being asked to do. the whole culture has been asked about today's and say this is right and good and appropriate and it's not. rights for human beings, absolutely we support them for all of us.

the concept of gay rights is pregnant with all kinds of political and social implications which we simply can't agree with. mr. scarborough: i want a tug on the hearts of you who disagree with us for a moment. i like to consider myself and i are both pastors. the vast majority of homosexuals want to live in answer to their choices and that is what i want to do. the step of the court is the first that these two lawyers have articulated how that works. we are here to defend the rights of unfettered truth. we are here to defend the rights of all biblical preachers to speak to the issue of sin, but more importantly offer the vehicle of salvation. it is a heart matter for us, driven by the fact they showed. you may reject god's word. it is quite all right. but don't deny me my first amendment right to propagate the gospel and don't force us to cut

off what we believe to be the answer that can change the young lady whose whole life has been tormented and offer them the solution we believe is jesus christ. that is the foundation that underpins why i'm here today and why i will die if i have to. for what i believe. ms. boynes: it is real funny that we stand here and talk about the gay community and marriage. as many support marriage, there are many that don't support gay marriage. i have many that e-mail me privately to tell me to continue to make a stand. they don't support it, but if they do voice their opinion, they will be blackballed. many in hollywood that do not believe in marriage. what is the guy's name? the designers. they shut that down. ellen came after them and

everybody came after them and said we are never going to buy your clothes. that is what we are facing. we are going to make a stand. we are not going back to slavery. that was many years ago. we have a voice today and we will uphold what we believe is what the lord has said that marriage is between a man and a woman. i received death threats from the gay community. i received nasty e-mails. you can google my name. you won't find one bad thing i've said about the gay community. why do they come after me? we can debunk their belief system. they know change is possible. they know they were not born gay, but i believe in the last days christ is going to return. i am not surprised by what is happening out here. as a matter of fact i'm excited because we will see jesus. we will continue our walk with

christ and continue to make a stand and i am blessed we have all of these folks behind me standing but that's because i am an example that people can change. i lived the lesbian life for 14 years. the day i get married i will shout from the mountaintops. i am so excited. for now the lord has a single. before i die, i will be married and i will show people you can have a nice marriage, successful marriage. change did not happen overnight. this has been a process. change is possible.