states. we will talk with a guest from the washington journal. washington journal is next. that today's ruling from the supreme court cover firms what millions across the country already know what is true in our heart. i love is equal -- our love is equal. equal justice under law applies to us too. host: that was one of the lead plaintiffs in one of the cases that let the supreme court to rule yesterday that gay marriage is a right and must be recognized in all 50 states. the white house welcomed the decision yesterday with rainbow lights on the white house. opponents are concerned about

the future ability to express opposition to same-sex marriage. our program today, all three hours, devoted to the decision yesterday on same-sex marriage. if you want to give your opinion on what the justices decided yesterday, here is how you can do so. for those of you who support the decision, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 is the line "if you oppose the decision. you can make your thoughts known on twitter at @cspanwj. you can post on her facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. and if you want, you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. the front page of "the new york times" -- it features a story of what the state is doing in light of the decision.

governor bobby jindal administration says louisiana will not recognize gay marriage yet, but says that the agencies will have no decision but comply , even though we disagree with the and believe it was wrongly decided, and has nothing to do with the constitution. as of this morning's paper, the tyjindal administration says that they will not recognize gay marriage until a lower court rules on the topic. from "the washington post" -- in addition to louisiana mississippi said that they needed a lower court's permission to proceed.

again, that is some of the reaction on the state level. you saw earlier that the white house, last night, in response to the decision made by the supreme court featured rainbow lights on the front of the white house. it was earlier yesterday that president obama took time in the rose garden to comment on the decision by the supreme court. here is what he had to say. [video clip] president obama: this decision will and the patchwork system that we currently have. it will end the uncertainty that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples face not knowing if their marriage is legitimate, in the eyes of one

state, will remain if they visit or move to another. this ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples dignity across this great land. in my second inaugural address i said that if we are truly created equal, that the love we commit to each other must be as well. it is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision. host: that was president obama. "the new york times" featuring on their front page this morning, reaction to the decision, same-sex couples reacting to the decision yesterday by the supreme court. again, if you supported the decision yesterday, (202) 748-8000.

if you opposed it, (202) 748-8001. our first call this morning is from tennessee, who opposes the decision. go ahead. caller: yes, i am very opposed to this decision. we cannot pick and choose in the bible what we want to say. yes, obama says that we are all created equally, but also says in the bible that marriage is between a woman and a man, not a man and man or woman and woman. i highly opposed to this and hope it can be overturned. host: tennessee began issuing marriage licenses on friday. next up is weston from kentucky. go ahead. caller: hi.

host: we will go next to paul orlando, florida, who opposed the decision. caller: thanks for taking my call, thanks for c-span. if the petersons are watching this morning, i hope the morning finds them well, ditto for peter's mom. i think that same-sex couples should have all the rights privileges, and responsibilities that my mom and dad have. they have been married for more than 60 years. i think the word "marriage" should be reserved for and has been defined as a unity between a man and a woman. same-sex couples -- whatever they want to call that union

partnership, or whatever. marriage is between a man and a woman. i am not a hater. again, same-sex couples should have all the rights and privileges that my mom and dad who have been married for 60 years, have. i am afraid that the community that was victims have now become bullies. i get, i'm not a hater. i think the word marriage -- the gay, lesbian, and transgender community -- be tolerant of giving the word marriage to the heterosexual community. that is all i've got. host: before you go, when you say marriage is between a man and woman, what leads you to that conviction? caller: from a historical perspective.

listen, if we are going to redefine the word marriage, so marriage can be between a man and a woman, it can now be between a man and a man and a woman and a man, why can't we redefined it so i can have two wives? a look batchelor, so i cannot imagine why a man would want more than one woman, but let's play with it. we are redefining the word marriage, so why can it not apply to someone who wants more than one spouse? host: "tallahassee news" -- sandra from virginia, also opposing the decision yesterday. caller: good morning, thank you

for taking my call. i am a first-time caller. i have watched for many years. i was so disappointed with this decision, i strongly oppose what the supreme court has moved forward in sanctioning, i guess you can say. i agree with the previous caller from florida. yes, everyone deserves the same basic rights, but marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. in my opinion, it is for procreation. a man and a man cannot have children. if there were no children to a. for these people, they would never have children. it is not natural. host: i will ask you where iat i ask

what constitutes marriage for you? caller: i believe what the bible says. god created adam and eve and told them to populate the earth. that is how we were made. i disagree strongly with this determination. i believe it will be so destructive to younger people coming up, who will not get the proper instruction on how a family unit should look and how it should be conducted. isaac are you -- i think our youth will suffer, unless they have strongly convicted parents who believe in the traditional form of marriage that shows them how marriage should look. i is my main concern for the next generation. they are so open and accepting of so many new things to them

because they're not getting the instruction from all the parents, like we did, when we were younger. host: bilking off of twitter said, it was a tough week for republicans -- on the other hand, it is a great week for the country. karen buchanan says, the earth is still spinning on its axis, my marriage is still fine, life is good. bill is next, a supporter. go ahead please. caller: good morning. isaac is wonderful for the country and for everybody. i am a heterosexual male married, with three children and five grandchildren. in honor of my late uncle, my mother's brother -- my gaily

uncle put his life on hold to raise his three younger brothers. i am happy about this. i think it is wonderful. the bible is a limited document. it is a wonderful document, but limited. anyway, i think it is wonderful for all the people who have had to hide their loving relationships all these years now they can be open. host: yesterday, at the supreme court, there were microphones out there for various legal teams to talk about the decision yesterday. one of the groups that was opposed to the decision yesterday came before the cameras. here is a little bit of this statement. [video clip] >> today, five lawyers took away the voices of over 300 million americans to continue to debate

the most important social institution in the history of the world. that decision is truly unfortunate, and as roberts mentioned in his dissent choking up so much debate. we are concerned about the freedom of conscience of millions of americans who continue to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and both mothers and fathers are essential for child rearing. nobody has the right to say that a mom, a woman, a dad, or a man is irrelevant. many americans still believe that, and yet, the court today choked off that debate. we believe that americans will continue to proclaim truth today in our society and culture notwithstanding the courtt's

decision. host: if you go to the supreme court, you can read, if you want to, the decision, or at least the majority opinion of justice kennedy, one of the lead forces in the decision yesterday. some of what he said is that same-sex couples are denied the convolution -- constellation of benefits that the states have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite couples are not. randy is up next, he opposes the decision. though i had. -- go ahead. caller: all through history marriage is between a man and a woman. no time in our history of the world has god allowed gay people to be married. i do not see why they gave people -- the gay people need to

think that we, as americans need to support an abnormal mentality and make it seem normal. why can't they stay within their society and live on, call the union something different. marriage is defined by a man and a woman. not to mention, like the previous caller said, what it will do to children as they grow up, because they do not have the influence of the other sex. it will really drastically change our society. no telling what it will do to children in the future. that is my comment. host: there are couple of pictures in "the wall street journal" that talks about how state laws have doubtless same-sex marriage, highlighting the 80 go back to --

highlighting that if you go back to 2011, five states were in favor. how do you feel about the sis? caller: all of a sudden libraries had books with gay people in the books. there has been a progression in society on this abnormal behavior. it is called abnormal by psychologist. they have been having a campaign trying to get us to accept this and make us think that it is normal behavior, whereas, i firmly believe that it is a choice on their part. it is not a genetic saying. it is a choice if they want to have a union with the same sex.

that is why it has progressed to this point, in my opinion. they start at the grade school level with books in the library make children read these books and make them think that this is ok. then, they come out of school thinking that. host: angela from ohio supported the decision. go ahead. caller: yes, i supported the decision because i do believe that everyone in the united states has the right to have their life as what they would like to have. i also believe that the preamble of the constitution to secure the blessings of security and establish this club decision for

the united states of america and that means all citizens of the united states of america. i do not believe that children are going to turn that way -- you either are or you are not. a man and a woman union -- there have been gays and lesbians from those unions. it is not anything that the parent state, it is just that the children are that way. two women or two men raising a child will not turn the child that way. for one thing, it will probably open up the child to a more tolerant life, and may be a more caring life, and to accept other people for who they are, and not what we want them to be. host: allen is up next from

virginia opposed the decision yesterday. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. a quick comment on the left collar, i do not agree with that. anyhow, let me say, if same-sex couples want to live together that is their business. to the point i would like to make this morning the supreme court made that decision, but the states have overwhelmingly voted against this time and time again. the constitution says that "we the people," not "we the courts." does is turn into a bully thing? if you disagree, you hate people? just because you disagree does not mean you hate people.

people disagree on issues all the time. the current set -- the concerned i have is how tolerant can you be? i believe in fairness and justice. don't misunderstand my point. of the other hand, there is another side. we need to take a close look at what is going on in this country, and look at what will be beneficial to all of us. host: do you think that yesterday's opinion will limit those who oppose same-sex marriage to speak out on a? caller: yes i do. you know when civil rights began in the late 1960's or early 1970's, gay rights had nothing to do with that decision. if you go back and look at the history of it. over the years, we progressed into that thinking. we have programmed people to think that light, and is a lie. the bible says "a man and a

woman," not "steve and billy." god made that law. one day god is going to take control. we will have to answer to him. i feel site for the people -- i feel sorry for the people who believe that way. god loves them as much as he loves us, and we love them too but the point is there are do's and don'ts. i think the supreme court made a bad decision. host: chief justice roberts writing the dissenting opinion yesterday. some of his language included this.

again, (202) 748-8000 if you support of supreme court decision yesterday. (202) 748-8001 if you opposed it. todd is up next from connecticut, a supporter of the decision. caller: hello. i think the colors that are opposing the ruling are really just operating under fear and m misunderstanding, and the idea that anyone who is slightly different from them is evil. when you look at the gay people who happen murdered and tortured, how many heterosexuals have been tortured by gays? now, the idea that homosexuals are bullies -- that is just turning the whole idea on its head.

people who are quoting the bible and god as making laws, man makes the laws. some of the laws need to be changed and adjusted. the idea is that man and women -- we operate more well when we operate out of love, rather than fear. that is all i have to say. host: what do you think about the last caller's opinion on those who oppose same-sex marriage being able to put opinions out there? caller: wendy opinion in -- wendy opinion leads to the slippery slope of people not having the same rights, i think that is still standing everything on its head. the spin that is used to try to turn things around to make gay people as evil is ridiculous. host: pennsylvania is up next

that is where shania is, and opposer. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i feel like a marriage -- gay marriage, i do not agree with it. you should have a man and a woman together, and not so much a man and a man or a woman and a woman. i do not think that is right. host: ok. what causes you to believe that? what leads you to believe that? caller: i am a christian, and i believe in the bible and what it says about a man and a woman and marriage. host: that is shania from pennsylvania.

frederick is up next from virginia, a supporter of the decision. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i am a man of faith, very strong faith by support the decision -- b ut i support the decision because an a in america, millions of marriages are secular. why is that? atheist can marry. for religious people to hang it on what the bible says forgetting that marriage, unless you wanted to be spiritual is secular. very very secular. an atheist can marry a believer. also, basing it on the bible god makes exceptions to his own rules. for example, the bible is a

bloody book, yet it says "thou shall not kill." god, when he institutes exceptions to his rules, has instituted wars and killings. also in america, there are exceptions to killing. that is why there is capital punishment. it is funny that so many evangelical right support capital punishment. they never say, the bible says "thou shall not kill," the ultimate sin if there are no exceptions. but then when you have an exception, they want to see someone haung or executed. god makes exceptions. and those who say that gay is a

choice, i do not believe it is. i have family members who are gay. if you say it is a choice, you are saying that you choose to be heterosexual. how many people out there choose to be heterosexual? it is just the way you are. host: as a person of faith do you think that yesterday's decision will put a chill on religious people to talk about this if they oppose a? caller: i think they will talk about it. i am religious. when they talk about it, i don't hear them saying anything of substance as far as what the constitution allows. there are two things separation of church and state. marriage is a state activity unless he wanted to be a church activity, and have your wedding in a church. host: we will take another call from bert in columbus, georgia, and opposer of the decision. let me push the button first, i

apologize. caller: thank you for taking my call. let's get out of religion and get down to practical things. everything in the construction world is made -- like say, i'll let electrical -- if you plug a male plug into a female plug you get light. if you plug a male plug into a male plug, you don't get light. if you have a plumbing problem you have to have a male these that goes into a female piece. everything works off the mail-female -- male-female situation. when you procreate, you have to have a male and a female. how are these people going to have kids? when they do have kids, how will the kids know -- are they

homosexual or heterosexual, or what? therefore, they adapt. that is what you doing construction. you have female and male adapters. that is what homosexuals are they are adapters, adapting to sexuality. when they will have a surrogate mother or father, or whatever. therefore, none of it is natural . the only thing that is natural is marilyn sable -- male and female. host: the decision yesterday prompted one news organization to change its policy when it comes to putting letters to editor -- letters to the editor.

on twitter jim adds that the president has accomplished his goal of fundamentally transforming america. rick says, feebleminded have determined that grant equal rights to all somehow hurts them. you can call in the lines are divided by those who support and oppose the decision. mark from california is next, supporter. caller: good morning.

i just want to say how glad i am. i have been listening to c-span for the last 10-15 years. can you hear me? host: yeah, you are on, go ahead. caller: for the past 10-15 years, you have had callers colin saying, what do you think of gay people? finally today, i think it does not matter what people think of gay people. for all the people who want to use their bible as reason for discrimination, i have my god. i do not need the bible to tell me what god tells me. all these people are calling saying, it is about procreation and one man and one woman. god didn't make every heterosexual couple fertile. i have never heard someone say, for tiles couple -- for

infertile couples should not marry. it is all about discrimination and stupidity. i would love to have you have a call on what do you think of stupid people getting married. i've got this can no longer be an issue. c-span should never no longer have callers on this. this is a blessed day. host: do you think yesterday's decision resolves everything? do you think this issue will be finalized because of the decision from the court? caller: it is a great start. it gives a lot of legitimacy to our existence. for all these people that say god created adam and eve -- go back and read your bible. in the beginning, god created adam, that was it. he was just a rib. if you want to use your bible for all of your bigotry, think

of -- let's get off this. god created gay people i love gay people -- and loves gay people. host: there are several stories today take a look at particularly how gop candidates responded to yesterday's decision. marco rubio sending out a tweet saying that the next president and all public office must protect the first amendment and rights of religious institutions. my copy -- my coike huckabee and rick perry also giving their opinions. not just gop candidates are expressing their thoughts

yesterday. hillary clinton saying, proud to celebrate his a historic victory for marriage equality. bernie sanders -- today the supreme court fulfilled the words engraved upon its bi building "equal under the law." martin o'malley was buried yesterday. if you watched c-span's coverage yesterday, you know that many people on both sides of this issue where there, take a look at the decision. if you want to see the coverage of not only what went on outside, some of the opinions yesterday, c-span.org is how you can do that. it is prominently featured there on our front page. gail from north carolina, go ahead. you oppose. caller: yes, absolutely oppose it.

first of all, i love everyone. i absolutely love gay people as well as straight people. there is no hidden agenda there. many people are talking about what the bible says and what god says. no ne of them actually read it. when god presented eve to adam he presented her as his wife. the institution of marriage was created out of god's mouth himself, and before rock came. it cannot be an issue about rights, it is an issue of morals . if god says something is wrong then it is wrong. it is wrong, called sin. anybody can see that god says it is an unnatural act for a man to

be with a man and a woman to be with a woman. if the courts -- well the courts to deci did decide to give the rights to gays and lesbians to marry, and that is their right to do so -- it will not change morals. yes, they have the right to do so, guess, i love them, but in the end, god will have to say so . if anyone goes in there to look at it and says something different, they are calling god a liar. god cannot lie. that is my opinion. host: we will hear from richard supporter of the decision. caller: yes sir. i know i am in the opposition -- my comment is based around the

no ground area of no god in the state. whether it be a state or the united states. they have no business interfering with any individuals ' sexual life, whether be heterosexual, or whatever. here is the situation. these folks, god bless them, are abnormal people. however, the abnormality of sexual orientation is the same or similar to another person

having an abnormality that you cannot control -- born with about bad heart, gets in an accident, lose there ises their leg. these people are now abnormal. you did not ask to lose your leg , or for the heart, the bad heart. do i like or dislike either one of these situations anymore or any less because of the abnormality? if you look at it from that point of view, the ball is not in the legal system to toss in nor is man's general view on the

issue. it is up to that individual to choose, is he abnormal, not abnormal? it is not abide business or your business, it should be left alone. if anything, let the state admonish and help and assist. host: john from florida supports the decision. hello. caller: good morning. i had to call in to refute some of these misunderstandings and frankly, some ignorance. i'm also a person of faith by have a brain. let me repeat, i have a brain. let me refuse three to four

specific things. number one to the caller who called in and talked about -- that many callers who called in -- the recent poll on this show that the majority of americans are in favor of gay marriage. that is number one. number two, to the caller who called in and said all psychologist know that this is abnormal. he doesn't know what he is talking about. every major psychiatric -- the american medical association every major american and worldwide medical association, for the last 20 years said that homosexuality is not abnormal. people are born this way, homosexual attraction is normal. i happen to be heterosexual, and i have known that since i was a very young man. you cannot make me be

homosexual. three. people quoting the bible. does anyone realize the irony of the confederate five clags coming down? says holocaust of slavery in the south was supported by the pulpits because they supported this passage -- "slaves of bigger mastobey your masters." the fourth thing i want to say is a 1971, loving versus virginia, which was the first major decision to repeal -- it was to make it legal and not a felony for a black man to marry a white woman or a white woman to marry a black man.

host: and about 20 minutes, we will be joined by the supreme court reporter for "the wall street journal," just brave and you can ask him about what happened there. "the washington post" not only talks about the decision yesterday, but give some world context. in 116 countries, homosexual acts are legal. in 19 countries, including the united states now have legalized same-sex marriage.

steve, pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am opposed to this. if you look at history the roman empire, and various empires, they have fallen, and one of the main reasons is their immorality. god said a man and a woman, not "steve and bill," or whatever. i have worked for many years and had some friends of mine, i have no problem working with them they should have all the rights that i have as a husband to a woman for almost 41 years, but i am opposed to marriage. you look at romans. i think what is happening is we

will lose our religious liberties, and liberties altogether as the government gets more and more involved in our lives. i cw wrote here, you will see eventually preachers and people of faith will go to prison because they will refuse to back off of what the scripture says. we should love everybody. god does love everybody. sin is sin. sin is doing something that god disapproves of. host: let me ask you, if i'm reading your opinion right, why is it wrong for the court to take a look at this issue strictly on a constitutional matter and on the matter of the quality? caller: this is not an issue -- the black community wanted their equal rights, and they should

have had their equal rights a long time ago. homosexuality is a choice. it should be up to each individual state what they want to do. we are losing a lot of our state rights over the years. it should be up to each individual state. let the people decide. what is happening, like in california with opp proposition eight, i thought this country was based on law, but also on the people. not by nine people on the court. host: russell moore writing he is the president of the ethics and religious liberty commission of the southern baptist

commission, and op-ed this morning. guy from dayton, ohio, supporter of the decision. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: as a gay man, i would just like to say that being gay is not a choice. i knew in the first grade that i was gay. i did not know what sex was. i had no idea of the reality

baidu at that time that society would not accept that. i knew not to bring that out into the light. i hid for many years. this is not a choice. the decision made yesterday is about the right of a loving couple to make decisions for each other. i lived through the epidemic that was aids and i saw many loving couples not able to make decisions for their partners. i saw people who had no love for that individual step in and make decisions. that life partner should have the right to make the decision for the person who they lived with. if that person should happen to die in a car accident, they should get the benefits that those two have gained.

this is not a choice, and number two, this is about legal rights the rights of two individuals to share their lives together both financially and in the decision in the and of their lives. that is the bottom line. host: at the supreme court yesterday, one of the plaintiffs in the ohio same-sex case came before cameras to talk about the result of the decision. this happened outside the supreme court. let's hear the reaction. [video clip] >> for as, this started out as a dream to add my name to my son 's birth certificate, and it became so much bigger than that. i do not think anyone dreams more about having their marriage recognized in their state as we do as a family. when you have kids, you do

anything that you can to protect them. what we did was we breath of all the way to the supreme court. that is how much we love our kids. we are so happy that when we return home today our marriage is recognized, just the same as our neighbors marriage is recognized. host: aderholt program -- our program dedicated to the decision made yesterday by the supreme court, giving recognition to marriages performed in other states. (202) 748-8000 if you support the decision. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. "the new york times" reported that things are in motion on capitol hill to make some changes. this is senator ron wyden of oregon, he moved quickly on friday to remove all gender

specific references from tax code. anthony, thanks for waiting from alabama, opposes the decision. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i am well. caller: i have been listening for a while. you were talking the constitutionality of it. why i oppose this is -- this will open up the door for polygamy, bc audi, all of the -- beastieality, all of

that. it is like opening up pandora's box. referring to the bible -- that is the way i look at it. bad things may come upon us from the judgment of god. host: what has been the reaction at the state level? caller: we oppose it pretty much in alabama. i do not know what was said, i

did not see the reaction yesterday within the state. the federal court ruled, so i guess they have to abide by a. host: the state of alabama is one of the 14 states that did not previously allow same-sex couples to marry. if you go to "the washington post" there are the 14 states listed that previously had bands on same-sex marriage. two states are still not currently issuing licenses. you can see that in many papers this morning, including "the washington post." on twitter, a person commenting on hillary clinton's opinion on same-sex marriage. also gary adding, my church will not perform gay marriages

if the government forces that to happen, that would be a travesty and go against the first amendment. kathy from oregon, a supporter of yesterday's decision. good morning. caller: good morning. i have never called in on a television show before. i think it is so important. i have listened to the callers and one of the things that is so frustrating to me -- i am a christian, and to hear people use the bible, and i have heard a lot of judgment today, but i have not heard about the love. there is such a tremendous love in the community. when i hear references to children and they need a mother and a father, i am a grandmother of a gay daughter, actually to

gay daughter's -- two gay daughters. my daughter adopted two children. those children came from the home of a man and womeaan, a very sad environment. i cannot tell you how many environments are like that where there are two fathers or two mothers providing a much healthier, a much-needed opportunity for these children to grow into the people that they can be and should be. that is about love, giving back. that is god's message in the end. i just had to call in and say do you know hav how many people are in a system.

it is not about men and women, it is about people and people being responsible and giving and sharing that love. that is all i have to say. host: tina from massachusetts you are up next. caller: i am calling in opposition to what was done by the supreme court. my issue is a lot of the propaganda that was put out for gay marriage was based on the idea that they were made that way. you will find writings among gay writers that say that sexuality is a construct, and the idea that they were made that way was used as a tool. i figure a lot of people's opinions, whatever they are, they can have them, but it should be based more on fact than propaganda. the other issue that i have is

when it comes to sexual education for the children, how will they reconcile biological functions and what our particular organs are designed to do, and what is required to have homosexual sex. host: do you think the court should have done this, or should it remain on the state level? caller: i think it should remain on the state level, and i also think that the challenges -- there will be a move to silence opposition. say for example row versus way there is pro-life and pro-choice opinions and political activism, and civil activism going on. i think it's this decision -- they will go forward in silence with

opposition legally and putting people out of business and jobs. things like that for being in disagreement. host: one of the groups that were at the head of getting couples -- same-sex couples recognized for equality was the group, "freedom to marry." evan wolfson has an op-ed in "the new york times."

jim of next from california, supporter of the decision. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, you are on. caller: first of all, i have about four to the point i would like to make. i agree with some of your callers, both pro and con, for the various reasons. i would like to point out that the supreme court is there to uphold the constitution and the amendments thereunto. thomas jefferson is not here to tell us what he intended. that is why we have the supreme court. that is why we have the three separate branches of government.

for more -- furthermore, god did not write the bible. he was not sitting there with a quill and ink. the only thing the bible said he wrote is the 10 commandments and no way that doesn't say anything about gay marriage. to carry a bit further, you see these gop politicians talking about they will continue the fight and end of stay they will do this, that, and the other. rick perry, i know he sounded off again. i do not think rick perry, who is probably waiting to go to jail in the state of texas, has anything to teach anyone else. furthermore -- host: you had said when you started your statement that you agreed with both pro and con.

why the con? whywhat do you agree with? caller: people who are pushing gay marriage -- they do not really need to push it. it is the need to push it. it is their right. i am worried that those people who believe in religious freedom, the bible beaters, and people like that, are going to feel they are the ones being discriminated against, you know? i think it is really difficult to get a happy medium for a small business owner that goes to church every sunday and sings the praises of jesus and the lord, and all of this, to accept in his lifetime -- maybe in 20 30 40 years, maybe all people

will accept people for being people, but it is not there now. i have a date of sympathy -- did of sympathy for those people who call themselves religious god-fearing, that they are being infringed upon. i would like to remind them all there is nobody forcing them to marry the same sex. i am not gay. i have a wife. i have had her now for over 30 years and i have to tell you she makes my life miserable. that is the way it is. if i could marry a guy and be happy, i might go along with it -- i do not know. host: one hour down. we have two hours to go in this program and we are taking your calls on the supreme court decision yesterday. if you are just joining us, the

lines you can choose to make those calls and give your opinion host: the 5-4 decision yesterday giving same-sex couples the right to be married. that took place yesterday. complete video available at our website, c-span.org including president obama weighing in as well. you can see it there. the white house weighing in, literally. if you would go by 16 hundred ave, that is what you would see -- the rainbow colors in front of the white house. you could see it there including some couples celebrating. that is on "the washington post" front page this morning. dan, you are next. guest: i'm sorry, i am laughing

at your last caller. i am half and half on this issue. my sister is a lesbian and she wants to get married, which is cool. i am glad the supreme court made this decision. it is over. that is it. the question i have is -- is this going to make it -- a lot of religions catholics, are they going to be legally required to marry same-sex couples? that is my first question? -- my first question. host: the decisions from the supreme court and everything that i have read this morning does not suggest that but we will have expert on in a few minutes. stay put with that one. go ahead. guest: my second question --caller: my second question, obviously they are able to get married and divorced. how does this work out with

children -- there are a lot of issues involved, you have to think about mothers and fathers. everyone who is married can also divorce, children -- stuff like that, you know what i'm in? i am a guy, i do not have any kids, but 90% of the time the kid goes with the woman. that is how it goes. who does the kid go with whoever has the higher income? how does that work? what about the rest of your family. how do they feel --host: what about the rest of your family? how do they feel on the issue? caller: my mom is supportive of my sister. i love her. my girlfriend has a lot of gay friends. personally, i do not care. do what you want to do. i have a lot of friends and

people i know that are totally against it and that is their own opinion. everyone will have it. host: sam from indiana is one person who commented this morning. don from tennessee on our opposed line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am glad to be on here again. it is a miracle that i got through today. people say it is the law of the land now, and that is a chilling aspect. prohibition used to be the law of the land and it was repealed. i am also out for the religious aspect -- we could argue that until the second coming. i will stay away from the biological part because i do not think anybody calling in is a board-certified brain surgeon. as far as the legality of it, don't we have something called the bill of rights, a document

that is an by congress, not the supreme court? and what happens if congress comes up with a proposal, they toss it in front of the supreme court and, god forbid, but one of the supreme court members dies in a car accident on the way home from a gay wedding and you have someone new on their and it is not a right. it is enacted by congress, not nine individuals. host: barbara. you are the last call from texas. supporter of the decision. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that a lot of people talk about the bible what the bible says, but they do not go further to show that jesus died on the cross for all of our sins. if you believe in jesus, no demon in hell or on earth can

keep you from seeing god. they do not want to listen to that. they talk about marriage being against the bible, yet it is against the bible to be idolatrous, and most of our -- adulterers, and most of our officials in congress are adulterers. it is against the bible to lie, cheat, and steal, and they do that. this country goes to religion all of the time, one god had an issue with -- and when god had an issue with moses and aaron, erin did not like moses' wife because she was black. remember, a lot of men cap looks out of the bible. their choice. their chauvinism. we need to get this right as a country. i am glad that gay rights and equal marriage and all of that

is coming to the front be sold -- because before black people had to jump the broom to get married because they said we could not get married. it was against the law. i am just glad that the supreme court did it, and those that say the supreme court should not make these decisions, they say that when it is not what they want as a decision made. they bring it up, but when it is a decision they want made, it is all right -- voting rights, cut them out. don't let them vote. that is just my opinion. host: in our next hour we will take a look at the supreme court strictly and decisions that were made, the majority opinion, the dissenting opinion, the thoughts of the justices on this issue. bravin --jess bravin of the "wall street journal" will be our guest. the topic of this decision and

our "newsmakers" program. julian christ -- julian castro joining us, talking about his commentary housing from the supreme court and talks about how the seminary -- discriminatory housing rights require showing a pattern. more about that topic from julian castro. secretary castro: what it does do is it gives us certainty as we go forward with complaints that we could use this toll of disparate impact and we will use it. i believe in using it he will ensure that more people of different backgrounds have the kind of opportunities they ought to have in america. >> it is not about getting over discrimination -- -- over

discrimination, i will not show this house you because you are black, but subtle dissemination that exists in zoning laws formulas that decide affordable housing -- can you give us a sense of how her basis you think this type that pervasive this type -- how pervasive the this type of subtle dissemination is in the united states? secretary castro: all of us member those alive -- remember those of us alive at the time, or remember seeing it were reading about it. thankfully, that kind of overt discrimination does not happen, however there is a legacy of discrimination that exists decisions made, policies put in place, that have the same discriminatory effect. that is what this case was all about.

this case was about the way the state of texas allocated low-income housing tax credit, and essentially stacking more and more low-income housing in heavily minority areas and those residents were mostly minority. it may not have been intended as a way to aggregate minorities together in low-income neighborhoods, but that was the effect. this disparate impact tool gives us the opportunity to go to communities and say "look, this is the discriminatory effect your policy is having. is there a legitimate reason for why you are doing it this way?" >> "washington journal" continues. host: jess bravin of "wall street journal" joins us to talk about the decision on same-sex marriage. good morning. you gave me a copy of the

decisions by anthony kennedy and chief justice roberts. can you talk a little bit about anthony kennedy -- what are some of the arguments he has putting together this document -- legal framework, how he went about crafting the argument -- fill in the blanks. guest: sure. this opinion is based entirely on the 14th of the make of the constitution, which was ratified after the civil war in 1868 and it is a restraint on state power, a restraint initially inspired by the civil war and the end of slavery, but it does not use language specific to slavery. it uses very broad language when it talks about every person being entitled to equal protection of the law, no person entitled to liberty without due process of the law. these principles of equal protection and due process are what the supreme court has used at various times when addressing new assertions of rights and those are the principles that

justice kennedy and the four other justices that joined them require definitions of same-sex marriage. host: what else bolster the argument using the 14th amendment? guest: he talked about marriage is a fundamental right something the court has justified for generations, even though the constitution says nothing about marriage, it is evidently part of the human condition, the right to procreate, intimate decisions should be outside of state intrusion. he talked about some of the purposes of marriage, including the raising of children and the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples and the interest that not only the parents, but the children's -- the children have the dignity of marriage. he spoke about marriage role

--marriage's in the social order, part of the liberty that democracy depends on and that when a couple gets married, not only do they pledged to support each other, but there is an implicit pledge of support from the entire community and society because marriage is an important building block of society and excluding same-sex couples from that status relegated them to a second-class existence and denied them the ability to fully participate. he also spoke about the harms that the state had asserted might flow by extending marriage to same-sex couples and said they were not plausible. one is it would diminish opposite couples getting married, we can the institution. it was one or two sentences diminishing the argument as not making any sense. the majority did not see why two

heterosexuals -- that the existence of marriage for same-sex couples would discourage them from making such a personal choice. he also said that through -- true marriage as an opposite sex institution had existed from the dawn of time, the earliest -- through the 21st century. while history is the starting point of the discussion, it is not the end, and we have to look at where we are today in assessing what rights people have. in effect, to try to go through all of this other stuff basically he said that the evolution of gay rights, the expansion of gay and lesbian people into society, into acceptance into living openly, has brought them into this broader circle and to deny them this right at this point just did not make any sense, given

all the other ways that have been accepted. to single them out for exclusion from this right would be contrary to the principles of due process and equal protection. host: was it surprising to have chief justice roberts writing the dissent? guest: it was not a surprise given he dissented two years ago in the precursor decision when justice kennedy struck down a federal law denying federal benefits to same-sex thousands. chief justice roberts dissented from that opinion and dissented from that as well. on paper, there would be no reason to expect him to change his opinion. some speculated the chief justice can read the opinion polls like everyone else, support for same-sex marriage has been increasing to medically. the last poll showed -- dramatically. the last poll showed support at

67%, highly correlated to age. younger demographics support same-sex marriage. in 10 years, how retrograde might it seemed to be on the losing side of the issue, how does that affect legitimacy, etc.? some people suspected for reasons like that he would join the crowd. he was not willing to do that. he wrote that while same-sex marriage might be a good thing and he encouraged the plaintiffs to rejoice at the outcome they wanted, he said this was the wrong way to get there. it should be through the democratic process. host: even at one point saying this was not about the constitution, as far as the decision was concerned. guest: that is right, when you have the broad terms like equal protection and due process what precisely they mean is not known. you have to draw from external sources, one's own judgment, and

to him this is not what we are talking about. he had a limited view and he brought up notorious decisions in the past where the justices had made similar arguments. he brought up two of the most notorious decisions in history which he said were based on a similar form a reasoning, and one is called dred scott versus stanford where the supreme court held that blacks could not be citizens of united states and slavery must expand into the new u.s. territories. that is one of the, i would say, reasons why the civil war later followed and he cited a case called lochner versus new york where the supreme court said limiting working hours of bakery employees violated the right of bakers to work longer hours, called the freedom of contract which is not expressly described in the constitution either. he basically said this is akin

to other decisions. justice kennedy's majority opinion -- typical for him -- he does not get into back and forth with dissenters. some justices take on each other in the footnotes -- you are wrong, i am right --he makes his point and moves on. host: jess bravin to talk about the supreme court process and the decision on same-sex marriage. faultlines lines will stay the same if you want to ask -- phone lines will remain the same if you want ask in question. let's start with harry in alabama. caller: good afternoon, sir. hey, listen, i supported because it is not my decision. i am a christian. that is god's decision, but the main thing i called in for is i would like to stand up -- i am a

61 disabled american marine corps veteran and i would like to salute south carolina especially charleston, the sod -- state of south carolina and the american people that went down there to support them. that is my comment. thank you. host: so, he started out by talking about religious aspects. did justice kennedy address the concerns of religious folks over this issue? guest: yes, but not in a way that i think many religious people have strong objections to -- that have strong objections would find comforting. he said they are free to believe whatever they want and are many reasons why they might sincerely believe this is a bad thing and that they should have the right to deny marriage to same-sex couples and they are free to discuss this, debate this, and so forth. fine and good, but when it comes

to enacting a legal prohibition forget it. your personal values are not enough to deny a fundamental right to other people. so, i would say there was not very much in the majority opinion to comfort religious conservatives who are so viscerally opposed to this. there was not anything that said explicitly that florists have to cater to same-sex ceremonies or that evangelical schools can't is committed against gay people -- can't this committee against gay people -- discriminate against gay people, that there was not a language saying -- of language saying "don't worry." host: this was brought up in the oral arguments -- talk about that aspect.

what is the concern about those organizations? guest: the specific concern is this -- in the early-19 70's the irs issued a regulation stripping tax-exempt status from white only schools, or schools that would not permit interracial relationships and the irs regulation at the time said that tax-exempt status is for charities and charitable purposes. a charity whose goal is contrary to the public policy of the united states that promotes things that overwhelm the -- undermine the overwhelming public policy of the united states is not necessarily charitable. if it is doing things in the -- that are opposite of the public good it is not entitled to a subsidy from all the other taxpayers in the united states including black people who cannot go to the school because the school believes they are inferior. so, the irs removed those

institutions from tax exemption. they sued. the supreme court upheld that decision. that was a case known as bob jones university. that is a precedent that is on people's minds. the situation, where it comes to same-sex couples and gay and lesbian rights is not exactly the same. in the 1970's there were all kinds of civil rights statutes on the books that prohibiting dissemination and declared loudly that the policy was to eradicate discrimination, segregation. a federal law does not treat gays and lesbians the same way. i do not think this is an immediate concern for these organizations, but it, policy and public opinion trends continue, if congress enacts statutes that is specifically protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, if more states start doing that, maybe down the road, where their view that was

once a majority view will be seen so contrary to public policy it can no longer be considered charitable. host: grand junction, colorado. i have talked to you before. you are gay right, pedro? you do not have to answer. you were looking from a crowd of people from above. you can tell who is black, you cannot tell who is gay. the other thing i was thinking about on the constitution, it says right there in the first paragraph, nature's god would not require them to be married. it's as if two live together they should be put to death. they know is one nation under god. the scales have turned the wrong way. we may be cursed now. guest: actually, pedro, the constitution does not mention

god at all. the opening words are we, the people, of the united states. there is a reference to god in the declaration of independence from 1776 that essentially says we are entitled to rebel against the british crown because they have taken away certain rights. in fact, the united states got attention is a godless document. it has no reference to god. -- constitution is a godless document. it has no reference to god. it says it cannot prohibit religion, but that is it. host: here is josephine from wisconsin. good morning. you are on. go ahead. caller: i support the decision. if lesbians and gays want to marry, call it a union, a cohabitation, a rainbow union but according to the dictionary,

i do not know if anybody reads that lately, it has defined -- been defined as marriage between a man and a woman. i do not know how we can redo the dictionary. are we going to go through the dictionary, changing these things however we want? i think the justices should be following the decision. sure, let them marry, but it cannot be called a marriage in the sense that the dictionary cites it as. guest: sometimes did -- the justices do site dictionary definitions, but the dictionary is not a binding document. certainly, dissenters agree with the caller josephine that this is such a fundamental alteration of what marriage is that it

cannot be called marriage and if it is it has to be a legislature that makes that decision. the majority site very different. they said that all of the elements of marriage really apply to these couples. the interests of marriage apply to them, and therefore it makes no sense to exclude them from it. what is the purpose of marriage? yes, what justice kennedy said was that historically marriage was an opposite-sex institution and that is the beginning cut, but he says it has changed over the years. -- beginning of the discussion, but he says that has changed. he noted that marriage is where arrangements -- marriages were arrangements, but that people cannot compel children to marry against her will. for centuries marriage was

defined by a document of coverture where a woman's legal identity was merged into that of the man and was treated as a child under the law, had very few interests and was subordinate under the man. that was part of the language in the supreme court did away with coverture in the 1970's. that was a big change in the definition of marriage. he said as well the 17th century some states in the united states prohibited interracial marriage. in this country, the entire history of the country, and thomas and magician -- anti- civilization laws -- he said it has changed to reflect the way society has changed and some of the changes were imposed by courts. not all of them were adopted

democratically. host: how has the decision changed how they look at the constitution as a document? guest: for justice kennedy and the liberal judges that joined him, the constitution has some elements that evolve over time, they do not meet -- mean the same thing they did today -- they do today that they did in 1878. justice kennedy has said the nature of injustice is that sometimes we cannot see it in our own time. it only comes into focus as a human experience moves on. he said the framers of our constitution, they understood that. that is why they used these broad, sweeping terms of principles of interpretation that allowed subsequent

generations to apply these principles to new circumstances. so yes, those elements change. if it says you have to be 30 years old to run for senate, there is no ambiguity. what is equal protection of the laws mean -- who are we counting as equal that, it does not say for instance. that is how the majority sees it. dissenters sought differently -- they saw the constitution as a more limited grant of power that does not give judges the right to what they felt, would be essentially to shoehorn their own personal values into constitutional laws by despising them by the application of thomas pentacles. they felt -- the term -- timeless principles. the term justice scalia used was a german term for overthrow of government. from their point of view and some were explicit -- elitist

lawyers, not in touch with mainstream values of the country imposing their values and everyone else. host: florida. john, you are up next. caller: yes, pedro. give me some time. there was a caller yesterday from florida. my first question to mr. bravin the caller from florida, a black woman who was bigoted said the supreme court is full of evil, white southerners and to me, i do not think any of the conservative justices are from the south. that is the first question. guest: justice thomas, who is not white, but is from the south, is from georgia, and perhaps one of the more conservative judges. host: second question john. caller: but the other judges are

not from the south. the second question, the title supreme court rules same-sex marriage is a right. the founding fathers, it says they are endowed by their creator with certain on a label rights. they believe that writes come from god, not that rights come from the government. what i do not understand from yesterday, because this is not about marriage. this is about the homosexual community wanting to be considered normal. what i would have argued, and i watched last night on c-span 2 the arguments, and i was amazed that the attorneys did not mention anything about sodomy, and please, pedro, let me finish what i'm saying here -- everything i am to say has been set on network tv, but to me i would have argued there is nothing natural about a pianist being -- tenets being inserted

into an amos and excreting the seed of life. we're talking about sex here, not marriage. how people have sex here. i do not made -- i do not understand how that argument was made. guest: the argument has been made in the past, but the supreme court challenged in 1983. in 1986 there was a challenge to the sodomy law in georgia. that case upheld the criminal sodomy statute and essentially said what john the caller said, which is that this was a practice that has been disapproved for many many centuries, and, of course, states can criminalize it. essentially, that moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle is sufficient to make it a crime.

in 2003, a case called lawrence versus texas, the supreme court overruled bowers versus hardwick, an opinion by justice kennedy that relied heavily on the dissent from 1986 and it said that the bowers case was wrong when it was decided, is wrong today, and that moral disapproval is not enough of a justification to put someone in jail. like taking moral disapproval out of the legitimate state interests that can justify his commendation, essentially the die was cast for what happened on friday because what -- essentially, john's point, that is the real, core foundation of same-sex marriage -- moral disapproval of homosexuality often justified by biblical phrases and similar sources. once the supreme court has said that that is not enough, you

need to have some other reason some reason that is beyond a religious belief or your own morality, then it became very difficult for states to justify this type of discrimination because from justice kennedy the right was not something as base as the right to commit criminal acts of sodomy. the right was that of the individual to be who he or she actually is and this was a fundamental characteristic of a portion of the population and they are entitled to dignity like anyone else. that was the finding. what they are seeking through an institution such as marriage was not to undermine it, but the a part of it and exercise the same rights that are related to what the dissenters -- some of

them ridiculed, the highfalutin language that he used, but really about the opportunity for individual to realize his or her own identity and to live as he or she actually is without being disadvantaged for it, as long as it does not hurt anybody else. the question is, who is hurt by allowing same-sex couples to be married -- who is hurt by that -- and there was basically as judge poser in the seventh circuit considering the same issue earlier, said you have nothing. there is no person that can stand here and say i am hurt by this personally. host: four jess bravin, here is lance. caller: good morning. i think it rests on pieces of history that people have chosen to forgotten -- the declaration says we are endowed with certain unalienable rights and one of them is the pursuit of

happiness, and as far as i am concerned, choosing your life partner and the decisions that affect you for your life and even after, if that is not part of the pursuit of happiness, if that is not part of the goal of people to achieve happiness i do not know what is. the other one is brown versus board of education the idea but separate but equal is a misnomer. the people against this want to make it separate but equal and just have not learned the lesson that separate but equal is always discriminatory. no one is hurt by this. i mean, i just do not understand, especially the religious people who call in and say that it says in leviticus that if a man lies with a man it is an abomination. it also says out all three is a -- adultery is a sin and adulterers are taken to the edge of town and stone them. if they are willing to do that

maybe i will listen to them when they talk about the harm. the talk about the power of god. if god was so annoyed about this, you think he would stop it. this is basic human rights -- someone you have cared about four years lying in bed dying and you watch the people that did not care about him come in and control his life, when the person who cares the most about him is not allowed to do that. host: a lot out there. we will let the guests respond. guest: it is true for justice kennedy that the individual stories of the 16th -- 16 plaintiffs, the 14 couples and two men whose partners had died was an illustration of what he believed was at stake. he cited several of those individual stories in his opinion. for instance, jim obergefell the lead plaintiff, he was someone who's lead partner -- partner of many years was

terminally ill. they could not get married in the state of ohio. they flew to maryland which by voter referendum had approved same-sex marriage. they got married, came back to ohio. his partner died, and then ohio would not let the survivor put his name on the death certificate. that was the injury. that is not really about a form of sexual intercourse. that is what justice kennedy would consider to be a divinatory -- dignitary harm, that ohio in death erased this message. the other was the case of a u.s. army soldier who had been deployed abroad, was married in new york, transferred to an installation in tennessee which did not recognize his marriage. how can a state take someone willing to die for his country and erase his marriage for some abstract policy reason? these personal stories were very

important to justice kennedy and the majority in figuring out what, in their view, the stakes were that triggered these constitutional possibles of equal protection and due process. host: kevin from kentucky. go ahead, please. caller: thank you for taking my call. in april 2011, i was the victim of a hate crime. i was taken on a mountain, a state park in a state of kentucky, and beaten almost to death. i only escaped when i jumped off of the mountain after i had woke up from being knocked unconscious. i was the first person in the united states to have gone through a trial through the federal system for the hate

crime under the matthew shepard hate crime law and i just wanted to say that i am proud of what our supreme court did. all of the religious arguments that they put forward, just like the caller before said about the stoning it was not just cheating on someone. if you worked on sunday, you're supposed to be stoned to death. if you planted pot's side-by-side -- all kinds of things. it is so interesting to me how people can say you have to believe this, what is written in the bible, and you have to follow it letter to letter yet they come all the time, choose

not to follow it. when they do not like it or when they do not understand it, and when they make of it an excuse saying well, this was just in bible days. host: ok, kevin. thanks for telling your story. mr. bravin. guest: the dissenters that not cite the bible for their reason for dissenting. they went the other way. they cited what they felt was a democratic principle, that the question of whether same-sex marriage should be approved should belong to voters and legislators in the different states, as opposed to making an appeal toward god or the bible, or anything like that. maybe voters themselves will be motivated by religious views but the dissent did not rely on it at all, other than to worry that religious objectors to same-sex marriage might be

vilified or persecuted for refusing to go along. host: justice scalia even said they -- justice alito even said -- guest: that is a shift. initially laws were enacted and the assertion was this was the majority view, the prevailing value and morality we have always had and we are enforcing it against a deviant minority. now it is reversed. now it is we are a minority of religious objectors trying to avoid forced compliance with majority views in the country. host: chief justice roberts talk about why the justices should be making the decision and not the state. what was anthony kennedy's view

and how does that conflict with the decision yesterday? guest: justice kennedy's opinion regarding the federal defense of marriage act had two strands. on one hand it spoke about the damage inflicted on same-sex couples by denying federal benefits in that children cannot qualify for certain benefits health issues, and so on, and the insults that they faced that their marriage was not recognized by the national government. he said traditionally states have made these kinds of decisions and the federal government had put forth no justification for the first time ever almost, not excepting a state's own definition of marriage. one of the strands in the opinion was respect for states rights to define family domestic law, which they traditionally have done.

there were two competing strands. if it is about states defining family law, states can define families not including same-sex couples. so, he made clear which was the dominant strand in friday's decision. sure, states have the role in regulating family law relations, and so forth, and they have four centuries, but they cannot do it if it infringes on fundamental laws. just as the supreme court did in 1967 in the case of loving against virginia, the interracial marriage case virginia had prohibited interracial marriage since the 17th century and nevertheless that was not enough for the law to stand up when the supreme court finally chose to address it. host: jess bravin from the "wall street journal" is our guest. he covers the supreme court.

david. hello. caller: gentlemen, i want to make this clear, what homosexuals do in their own private life, i do not care about. when they use this case and the government uses this case, which they have, to silence the religious community and to punish them for not going along with what the government and the homosexual community wants -- this is what the whole case is about. it was not about respect for marriage, love, or any of that. that was made very clear during the arguments when the person representing the plaintiffs was asked will you be using your tax powers to strip any churches that do not accept or promote gay marriage -- their tax

status, and the answer was yes -- that was the intent. so basically, this is all about stripping us of religious freedoms and rights. to speak out against what we believe is wrong. it will not stop with this. they will take it to opposing abortion were any government action that we do not -- or any government action that we do not approve of -- we can be punished and persecuted for. that was the whole point. also, i believe, this opens up the door to many more obscene things like pedophilia. i am afraid pedophilia will become the next people that are being this committed against. host: thanks, david. guest: well, what david is talking about was a question

from justice alito during the argument to the solicitor general about the federal government and religious-affiliated schools not churches. we should distinguish those. charges are, i think, you know jeopardy of losing tax status, but the question is if it is an institution that is not purely religious but have other functions like a school. those schools provide a service and they are seeking tax exemption and they have various rules according to their view of morality and he was thinking specifically about this president involving white supremacist schools from the early-19 70's that lost their tax status. the solicitor general and well that is a question. he has left open a door and it is unlikely we will see action on that. we're talking about an irs regulation. i think it is unlikely we will see that anytime soon. as far as pedophilia goes, that

is a different category because by definition involves children and children have a status -- children -- it is a status that affects them. they cannot enter into a voluntary arrangement for illegal sexual relationships. so, i would say that david should rest easy on that concern. more as a legal question, a more curious question might involve plural marriage or polygamy, something that the chief justice brought up in his descent. he noted -- dissent. he noted that polygamy has a much longer history than same-sex marriage in many cultures and it is practiced in the bible, for the bible callers. he questioned what distention the law could draw between -- distinction the law could draw between authorized a same-sex marriage and a plural marriage if the key question was the love

and commitment of the partners and their desire for social acceptance and so on. the majority did not respond for that. they talked about it being a two -person union being unique, and we will see if there any challenges there but that might be a more serious type of legal claim because it more closely approaches the claim we saw the supreme court endorse on friday. host: let's hear from david in massachusetts. caller: good morning. thank you to taking -- for taking my call. to respond briefly to the caller that brought up the dictionary, i would remind them that webster goes through every year and picks out words that are no longer used as words -- adds words that are new to the lexicon, and it is a dynamic thing. words are changed all of the time. so, that is just on that.

going back to same-sex marriage and the discrimination that people have felt for many years i am reminded of the film that i saw in a civics class in ninth-grade and it was pretty much about parents teaching their children hate. it was, you know, a five-year-old boy on screen with the family in the background and he had a toy gun and the parent said what is the gun used for and the little child said it was for killing the n-words and the jews and the homosexuals. this is a taut thing. -- taught thing.

i would say for religious people they ought to practice what they preach, be tolerant of others and understand other people do not have to follow their religion. it is a whole country and we do not all prescribed to their exact determination. host: david. sorry about that, and thanks for the call. bravin mr. guest: -- mr. bravin? guest: that is what the majority said today, in the 21st century, after a long history of repression shame, enforced silence of the gay community now they have been able to express themselves, live more openly, be true to their identities, and they were a part of society and it is too late to deny them this right brings them into the full umbrella of constitutional protection. so basically the court said

this social battle is over. that is pretty much what they had to say, that people can continue to sincerely believe that it is wrong and immoral, i just cannot enforce that morality through the law. host: from lebanon, ohio. up next. caller: i want to congratulate you and the producer who scheduled mr. bravin. he should get a break. guest: what about me? caller: he is quite an expert. first, i want to say i can support the windsor decision and not support this decision. let me make this -- my case. windsor said a state like ohio can go about -- we actually had a constitutional amendment here in 2004 which i voted for. if you remember, mr. bravin judge sutton in the fifth circuit actually made a case and

i will paraphrase marriage is basically a tri-party agreement. you have a couple number one couple number two, and i'm specifically making it abstract, couple one couple two and the immunity. he referred to it as subsidies. there is a financial arrangement, responsibilities from couple one, couple two, and the community saying we will have responsibility to the couple and the couple will have responsibilities to the community and for that we will subsidize it. that is my main objection to this ruling, the state of ohio until yesterday, had made the decision that we would only subsidize certain types of relationships when we deemed them beneficial to the community. it was not anything about loneliness, subsidizing loneliness and friendship. in fact, we need to subsidize people who, maybe, are engaged

to be married. they have love and there is no law overseeing those. i would like you to speak to those -- to that and how the court circumvented the opportunity for me as an ohio and to actually say what relationships would be subsidize and benefit the community as a whole. i could have someone like new york where windsor ruled over them and said by all means it it is right for you, but not right for ohio. well, that is a --guest: well, that is a good point. windsor was about defining what type of finally lit -- family relationships they would recognize. the way the court looked at it was true ohio in amending its constitution did seek to deny the benefits, and also obligations -- lets be clear --

containing some obligations and duties as well. in deciding which of these relationships it was going to admit to this institution and subsidize it in some ways and strengthen it in some ways, the question would be, well, what is ohio's reason for excluding them from this, and that would be the question that would go to the caller -- what is the reason other than moral disapproval of these people and the way they live and the way they express themselves? is there any reason, because they could do other things, for instance, raise children, and that is the third-party that justice kennedy and the majority was more concerned about denying them the right to marriage, harm is inflicted on the children they are raising and what is the justification for doing that that ohio had?

ohio really had no answer for that question and i think the court found that very, very significant. that is the question to go back to ohio. you do not want to recognize, subsidize, or honor these relationships -- why not? is it for a reason that is legitimate, and the court did not see one. host: santa clara, california. jackie up next. good morning. caller: hello. i am a little nervous. a couple of points to make. i thought that the government was supposed to be separate from religion. what about people who do not believe in god? i do. there are people that do not believe in god, so why are they not being considered? why is it only the people that believe in god saying this is the way it has to be? then there was a time when those people said black people were

less than. there was a time where black people could not marry whites. there was a time when health care was a problem. there was a time when gay couples only wanted equal under the law. now you have black people like ben carson who perform brain surgery, black people who marry white people, and nothing horrible has happened. everyone wanted health care with no preconditions, and the republicans fought it for years, and now we have it. gay couples who wanted to be equal under the law -- they said no, you cannot be equal under the law. you cannot have anything. now they have marriage. all of these people have said all of these predictions -- it is like, you are a little late. things have changed. thank you. guest: well, to be fair, there are religious views on both sides of this issue. at the supreme court, and certainly in the reaction that

we gauged yesterday, there was very strong opposition from religious groups, a conference from -- the conference of catholic bishops called it a tragic decision and was against it, as were many evangelical groups, but they were also protestant groups, jewish groups, other religious groups that also command millions of followers in this country that thought it was a good decision. so, i think we have to say that religious views are split on how the court's ruling comports with their teachings. in terms of health care, that was a decision on thursday. we're not talking about that today. [laughter] it did not have much to do with the friday ruling on marriage and as far as only religious people getting what they want -- actually, they did not get what they wanted if what they wanted

was to prevent same-sex marriage from recognition across the united states. they lost. you had the supreme court majority, a very narrow one, but still a majority saying sincere, but religiously motivated forms of dissemination cannot be upheld in the circumstance. host: ted cruz saying -- every justice beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment will answer to the american people and the state every eight years. have you ever heard of anything like this? guest: no, i haven't heard it on the federal level but that is similar the way many states operate their judiciaries. they stand for retention you know some time thereafter. i believe it was a retention election in iowa that costs several justices on that state supreme courts their seats after

they found that they own strait institution. -- state constitution. it's not an unheard practice. that's an issue that has, you know, separate from this. i would just say that it tends to come up when people are unhappy about a particular decision and i think that in judging how well, the courts work, we have to look more broadly at their overall record. i think that on any given day depending on how the court rules, you'll find that there are all people with different political stripes who wish they could vote from areas of supreme court. host: go ahead marianne. caller: this is my opinion that every person has a duty to

create a moral foundation to stand on. i understand the supreme court has for now, said that same-sex marriage is fine. my concern is what about a person that is born with tendencies to be a pedophile? do we then say in 30, 40 years well, they were born that way and that's their preference. so, who are we to say that they can't follow that? and i heard you say yes, well, children are protected under the law. and i understand that. but when will children not be protected under other laws? when will we say well, that was 40 years ago. we now know better. we just keep making accommodations for our convenience, our more or less,

are deteriorating, as a country, saldana. and -- as a whole. and when do we stick my these more or less and say this is what i believe and i'm going to stick by what i believe? zd as a whole guest: well, if you are you know if these are your values now, what is the principle? what stops you from imposeing whatever values you have? that's why the chief brought up these two cases in the past. one sought to entrench slavery forever and one essentially protect employers from wage and hour regulations that might limit how long they could make their workers stay on the job. so he was essentially saying that the court is using these principles to put its own values

above those of others. the majority, again didn't really address this issue directly. they didn't see this as just one of a million decisions intended to erode the moral fiber. they were talking about something very specific. they were looking at individuals who came before the court with a very specific complaint about how they were harmed by these laws. these are ways i'm being harmed right now by the state. we challenge the state to justify why they're doing this to us and the state couldn't do it. and that was really the way the majority looked at it. so there is this argument called a slippery slope. if you do this, the next thing you're going to do is that. but i think that there was not any sense in this opinion that they were open the door to something other than allowing a minority group that had been subjected to all kinds of legal

and social disadvantages for generations to share in the general benefits and obligations of citizenship. host: here's mark from orlando florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i remember years ago in school when i read about the constitution. they were worried about faction and the role majority would play against minorities. and one of the things i read yesterday about this from scotus' blog was what happened was that state -- they say we should leave it to the legislatures. states have put laws in place and made them part of the constitution through amendment. so legislatures could easily go back and change things where you know same-sex couples could get married and when they say the constitution has nothing to do it, you know, protection of minorities especially where

they -- you know, there are people who are just trying to make it impossible to change things behind the reasoning behind this decision. in florida t for example when the republicans took control of -- people started using, you know constitutional amendments so -- through petition, but you're going to now have to get 60% of the people to prove it. before was 50% plus one. so they changed the rules so that things can't be changed. host: thanks, mark. guest: well, you had a good example of that in california of 2008. in may of 2008 the california supreme court applying its own state constitution found that same-sex couples were entitled to marry under a separate authority of this california state constitution. a voter initiative in november of that year called proposition

eight amended that constitution to say no, marriage is one man and one woman and nullified the state supreme court's decision in a way that the supreme court could never examine again and the legislature could never examine again. the legislature passed a bill to authorize same-sex marriage that governor schwarzenegger had vetoed. they made it difficult to change these provisions but state constitutions are subjected to the united states constitution. host: carl is up next for our guest. carl go ahead. caller: in terms of disasters in our country, we come together and we pray and we ask god to bless us and protect us. well, this is a disaster. and we need to come together and we need to pray because until

the supreme court has changed the course of history for our country with their decisions in roe v. wade and now same-sex marriage. what they've done is actually legalize sin and we don't want to talk about that and people want to push that aside. but i don't believe the supreme court represents the views of the majority of americans. it's disappointing but when we compare civil rights with gay marriage. you don't have to hate somebody to have a belief in what this country was founded upon and many tell you it wasn't founded upon god and it wasn't founded upon this. we forget solomon and gomorrah. we are intelligent men but when we get to the point to where we think that we're smarter than god, we're going to be in some serious situations here in our country. when they hear people like me talk about this, that's your opinion, but that's what the

bible said and that's what we've been base this thing on. and when we pull away from that, we're going to see some serious things happening. now, you mark my words. there's going to be some serious things happening because to be honest with you, god is not pleased with that. he specifically said about the same-sex marriage, men with men and women with women and it's just not right. and it does make room for other things to happen. and i'm shoiment. this is one of the first or second times with roe v. wade but i'm ashamed of our supreme court. i'm ashamed for america, not just for opposing this on the american people but also encouraging other countries to do the same thing and withholding aid from countries who refuse to allow this to come in their country. that's just not right. host: carl, thank you. guest: well, the question that the supreme court was looking at more specifically was hundreds of thousands of children who are

being raised in same-sex households and they're raising -- they're adopting them or maybe they're adopted children. they're in there for all kinds of reasons and these are their parents and there's no evidence that suggests that they are any way worse off than people children raised in opposite sex couples. by denying legitimacy to the parents' relationships, that harms these children. that is a -- mat -- that makes their family lesser in the eyes of the court and it denies for incense if one of the family is sick and it makes it difficult to arrange for medical health. it interferes with inheritance and all kinds of other practical things that really are an issue at very stressful times at a family's life in which the law makes presumptions about a marital relationship that don't apply to an unmarried

relationship. so this is the kind of harm that the court was looking at. it's quite specific to these plaintiffs and to their condition and their injuries. why would you have a situation in a country where there are millions of people in these situations who are denied these legal protections? and the court could not find a valid reason for doing that. host: do you foresee or does the court foresee other issues concerning gay people in the united states because of this decision yesterday? guest: well, the court doesn't say anything about these other issues, but i think about half the states have some kind of anti-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation and half don't. so while it was, you know, the supreme court and the federal government were moving pretty much in concert when it comes to

civil rights, not really here when it comes to gay rights so the question may begin to arrive over other forms of civil rights for gays and lesbians. right now for instance in about half the states, it is -- it is not illegal to fire someone because they are gay or lesbian. they can do that. they can refuse to hire them or promote them. they are not what's called a protected class that's based on race religion, national origin or sex. and most employment relationships, hire or fire at will for any reason or for no reason. there have been efforts to add sexual orientation to a federal non-discrimination laws but those have been defeated in congress. that's where the gay rights movement goes, how that ends up affecting -- you know, how that plays out in state has been resistant in gay marriage and that's very important to follow.

host: thanks for your time today. we continue on with your call from yesterday's decision. you supported it, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it 202-748-8001. and we will continue on with those calls as "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> next week while congress is out for the july 4 holiday break, "american history tv" is on prime time on c-span3. monday, the manhattan project. the production of the first nuclear weapon during world war ii. and tuesday a sim boehme between baldwin and buckley jr. about the american dream.

wednesday, highlights of our 2015 c-span cities tour. and thursday, examine the text of the declaration of independence and the efforts behind preserving the original d. friday, we're in yorktown, virginia to cover the french sailing ship that brought its general to america in 1780. watch our special prime time edition of "american history tv" and tune in every weekend as we tell america's story on american history tv on c-span3. >> while congress is out for the july 4 holiday break, book tv takes over prime time on c-span 2 featuring a different subject each night. monday the war on terror, tuesday, book publishing, wednesday, digital age, thursday biographys and memoirs. and friday, books on science and technology. watch our special prime time edition of bock tv starting

monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern and tune in every weekend for the latest in non-fiction books. book tv. television for serious readers. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span. created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: again 202-748-8000 if you support same-sex marriage. you oppose it, 202-748-8001. we'll hear susan from massachusetts who supported the decision.

susan, go ahead. caller: yes. first of all, i'd like to address all those good christians out there that this -- our constitution is a civil document, not a religious document. it gives rights to all the people in america equal rights. and therefore these people who wanted equal marriage under the law can now have a civil marriage. if the religious churches do not wish to honor those civil marriages, they have every right not to. and marriage, if someone who is gay marries, it does not affect my marriage or anyone else's. the lady was talking about a pervert who was attracted to children. there is damage done there. there would never be anyone

saying that was all right. also, these people keep quoting the old testament. jesus came to fulfill the old testament and bring us a new way to interpret it, which is love. and hate has nothing to do with his message. also, the laws such as this law allowing gays to marry and the abortion law do not force anybody to either have an abortion or to marry someone of the same sex. you have the freedom. but where you don't have the freedom when religions want to impose their views on all americans. i would not want a -- what is it? the scientist who believe that blood transfusions are bad -- to impose their beliefs on me.

i guess that's all i want to say. host: we'll move to eve in cape ka and a half, florida. opposes the decision. hello, eve. caller: hi. i want to make a comment about the supreme court didn't want to hurt anybody yesterday. and when he said that as a born-again christian of 40 years, this year, i could feel my heart break because i've known -- i became a christian and probably received jesus as my lord and savior. so the holy spirit of god came to live in my heart and i could feel my heart break and i know that was god. and this had nothing to do with religion. god blessed america because we were following god.

christians cannot condone it according to what the new testament says in romans chapter one verse 32. but if we condone this, then god will judge us. and it surprises me that they want to do what is done in the bible and yet they don't believe the bible. they want to get married you know. i just wanted to make that comment. it hurts very hard about the supreme court decision. host: if you go to the pages of the austin pages state man, it tells you how that state is reacting by the supreme court. the headline supreme court ok's gay marriage.

joining us on the television is chuck lynn desm what was the initial reaction to the decision and is it -- are licenses being issued statewide? guest: they're not being issued yet statewide. it's done on a county by county basis and texas counties decide or issue marriage licenses. the reaction in texas was different. the statewide republican leadership and every statewide elected official is a republican. roundly condemned it to the point where our tea party lieutenant governor dan patrick sought to try to protect county officials who have religious objection to gay marriage to protect them from having to issue licenses. our governor greg abbott issued a memo to state agency saying anybody who opposes gay marriage on religious grounds can't be

held against them, that no adverse reaction can be taken against them. and then here in austin, travis county austin is home to a very vibrant gay community and is completely democratic embraced this ruling. our county clerk is very supportive of gay marriage had a plan in place and within 90 minutes, travis county was issuing marriage licenses, a couple of hundred by the time the night was done. host: so and forgive me if i'm misunderstanding, there is a patchwork system in place in texas even though the decision was made yesterday? guest: some of the counties were waiting for new forms to be issued from the state that applications for licenses that right now, they say man and woman. or husband and wife. they wanted more gender-neutral forms even though county

attorneys across the state were saying that doesn't matter. you can't wait for that. there was a little foot dragging going on. we'll have to see monday what happens because it looks like the forms have tow been updated. host: so monday is when you expect more people to come in across the state and ask for licenses to get married? guest: i do. host: you talked about reaction on the state level. have you heard any reaction from former president bush there or anybody -- him and/or others? guest: not from our former president. we have a lot of republicans running for office from texas and ted cruz, rick perry, you know, thought that this was an attack on the u.s. constitution. host: chuck lindell of the austin american statesman giving us a little sense of what's going on. what's the opinion like? i know you talked about leadership. but what's the opinions of texans overall to same-sex marriage? guest: like absolutely

everywhere else. they either thought it was great or they thought it was horrible. host: chuck lindell, thank you for your time this morning. ulysses is up next. supports the decision. ulysses, go ahead. i'm sorry, i pushed the wrong but to believe apologies. go ahead. caller: good morning. he said everything i wanted to say. i mean, i feel that tough these religious people get up in the culprit and say we're all god's children and we should love each ochoa and we should do this. but then when it come down to a person being gay or straight or whatever they want that opinion to go forward. if i was a gay man i'm a straight man but if i was a gay man, if i love a man, that's me and my partner. that's not anything on the church. that's not anything on the pastor. that's not anything on anybody

who wishes. all that is is me and my partner. i mean, you say god says love -- love your brother, love your fellow man. well, love your fellow man and if that's what makes him happy then let him be. because it doesn't take anything away from you being a god-fearing man, or a god-fearing woman. if you love a gay person, just because they are a person, jump shot not because you are in love with them but you love them because they are people. and of course, somebody saying they chose to be gay, if you would just take time and think about it, with all the problems that gay people -- why would anybody wake up one minute and go you know something? i want to try the gay thing. and why if a woman admitted abused and heart been broken by

men, many men and she still loves men, that just shows that there's nothing about that's proven or you're choosen to be gay. host: thomas from ohio. you're next. caller: good morning, c-span. i want everyone to realize that history does repeat itself. all we have to do is look at it. we realize that with everything going on in this world, everything starts somewhere. and if we really look at it closely, we would see that this is the start of our downfall. we only lasted 200 years the last couple of times that went on. are we going to do this again? be aware, folks. this is just the start of a slippery slope. we have to be cognizant of

what's going on in this world and the lord help us all. host: with a do you think is the next step in the slippery slope? caller: it will -- they'll legalize sodomy throughout. they will allow pedophiles to go on. it's just -- they opened the pandora's bodgets that's what happened to rome. host: jack is from iowa. caller: i have four questions affecting marriage for your audience and i would like them to call in. catholics already don't recognize gay marriage and they don't recognize marriage -- remarriage by divorced people. but in common law marriage, you don't need a church person. you don't even need a judge to get married. the two parties create the marriage and that doesn't include a clergyman. it's not a three-way question.

it's a two-way thing just between the parties. kathy theology doesn't say a priest performs the sacrament of marriage. only two parties that will marrying do that. in catholic theology, it might be a sin to put asunder when who gays commit to each over. protestants send to downplay it here are the four things. how would people say if we wanted to pass a constitutional amendment like this? one mixed races can't marry. i bet there are a lot of people in the south that like that one. two, jewish perform marriages are not permitted. a catholic performed marriages are not permitted. buddhist performed marriages are not permitted. three, divorce people can't get married because that's the catholic thought. and here's the fourth one. people over 60 can't marry

because people over 60 don't make babies. host: bob is next from kentucky. hello, bob. caller: hello. i'm at heart i'm against this, but god gave everyone a choice. and it's a choice. if you want to be gay, that is your choice. but in corinthians, it says that the man lays with a man or if a woman lays with a woman, that is wrong and you're already lost. if man or woman, either one lays with an animal, it even says that and how bad can that be if he compares it to laying with a woman. that is very bad and you're already lost. but i'm this way. and i am a christian and i believe in god and trust him as my lord and savior but he gave you your choice. and if you want to go down the wrong path and you want to lead

that type of life, you know already that you're going to hell. you're hell bound and there's no getting around it. so, i just let people do what they want to do but christians -- it's the christian's duty to try to teach these people the wrongs that they're doing and trying to get them to read the bible. and if anybody reads the bible you'll know that's wrong but, you know, that is no worse than stealing, lying. a sin is a sin. it doesn't matter. god doesn't measure them. a sin is a sin. host: that's bob from kentucky. sofia says my issue with the chief is he doesn't get how this logic applies to health care. that is not consistent. --

host: alan is from houston teveragets he supports the decision. hello, alan. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for giving me this opportunity. i support this decision because number one it is not the government's role to decide who you marry. you choose who you want to marry, not government zwhoice you marry. the other issue is i understand the case because they look at the 14th amendment which is equal protection and due process. how does government treat a heterosexual marriage versus a same-sex marriage. that was the issue. if i got married in one state i recognize same-sex marriage. when i go to another state,

forfeit and credit does not apply. the natural supremacy clause with the decision of the federal government supersedes decisions of the state. so the federal doft can overturn state laws and under religious. i would like for people to go back and read the treaty of 1648 that says that the state or government is above religion. so in this case, it means that the church can choose not to marry people of the same-sex but government recognize marriages, not the church. and the last thing i will point out in the first amendment for the u.s. constitution. government cannot impose a religion on anybody. and government cannot stop anyone from believing in any religion it choose to. so if people come in and quote the bible and talks about god they don't understand. england regulated religion.

host: ok, alan. that's alan. various voices appearing before the supreme court yesterday in reaction to the decision. pro traditional marriage groups as well as those who support same-sex marriage. here is a group that opposed the decision. here is what took place outside the supreme court. >> what i saw with the very strong reactions to individual business owners, etc., who expressed a view that marriage is only defined as one man and one woman, is that laws are used to compel them to participate in ceremonies that they don't agree with or force them to make messages about marriage and the definition of marriage that they don't agree with. as justice kennedy said just moments ago in the courtroom constitutional rights are not up for popular vote. so popular laws cannot take away people's right to freedom of speech. their right to freedom of press

and assembly to choose their own jobs. and we hope that this decision today will not be used as an excuse to ostracize to demonize or to punish people for holding views contrary to what five of the nine justices said today. host: we will hear next from danny in silver spring, maryland. danny, go ahead. caller: hey. i oppose based on many reasons, but other people said moral, religious. and also legal. i like thomas' dissension. he ced they asked nine judges on this court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the federal constitution, thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation. that a bare majority of this court that they were to grant this wish wiping out with a stroke of a keyboard to result of the political process in over

30 states based on due process which he said was their basis of due process anthony kennedy was bogus. it was his idea. it wasn't based on law. that's one big reason why i oppose it. yes, i believe with all the -- your last guest, he said hundreds of thousands and millions of children live with gay parents. well, that's just -- i want to see where his stats are. where did he get that number? i don't think it's that much. he's just put ought a big figure to support his view of zpwargee. and i could tell he supported it even though he's coming on as a reporter. and he caught -- called all the people who called the bible people. well this country is steeped in the bible.

if you drive down a street, there's going to be four or five churches there. maybe they believe different stuff, but we are a god-fearing people. we believe in god. so you can't just say the bible doesn't matter. it does matter. but thanks for taking my call. host: let's hear from linda from connecticut. caller: good morning. that's funny because based on popular vote of a lot of states, we still have jim crow. but my point isn't about religion. my point is about our tax code. the second i go into a church and get married, i come out and i can't claim married filed jointly. i have to go to a state county entity to have that. now if i go into a clerk's office and get married, state county, whatever it is, i come out and i can file married joinly. -- jointly.

the tax code says can file it this way. there's no reason why myself and my husband should do that and not people of the same sex. and that is my point. let religion alone. let it stand on its own. let them do what they want. but the unitas tax code is for all. -- united states tax coiced for all and that's why i agree with it. thanks. host: here is elaine from washington, d.c. caller: hello? host: you're on. caller: okay. three quick questions. one, what constitutes confirmation of a homosexual marriage? and conversely, if that confirmation didn't take place within a certain amount of time, what would be the basis of an annulment? second reference you referenced something about a majority opinion saying some people's moral views can't be the basis for certain laws and you did that with reference to a sodomy, i think, opinion that was

overturned at some point. i just wanted to say that in some states, it's stale crime to sodomize animals. so i guess in that case, animals are a protected class and i was wondering whether that's based on somebody's moral views. and then the third question -- i mean, the third comment. a lot of people get upset about the so-called bible people calling in saying they don't support homosexual marriage and then they turn right around and want to talk about the new testament and says that jesus says you know, jesus says that love is what rules. so, the same people that object to hearing the bible comment want to use jesus and love as a basis for supporting the homosexual marriage and the supreme court's ruling that's it. host: that's elaine from washington, d.c. we're taking your call until the end of this program on the 5-4 decision on the supreme court yesterday giving same-sex couples the right to marry. one of the other events that

took place yesterday outside of that decision, outside of washington, d.c. was in charleston, south carolina. president obama traveling there for the services for the reverend pinckney. eight church people killed in the basement of the emanuel a.m.e. church in charleston, south carolina. one of the things that the president addressed was the issue of guvens here's a little bit from that event yesterday. >> none of us can or should expect a transformation and race relations overnight. we talk a lot about race. [applause] every time this happens, they say we need a conversation about race. there's no short cut. we don't need more talk. [applause]

none of us should believe that a handful of gun safety measures will present every tragedy. it will not. people of good will be continue to debate the merits of various policies. as our democracy requires, there's a big -- it's a big raucous place america is. and there are good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will police be incomplete. but it would be a betrayal of everything reverend pinckney stood for, i believe. if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. [applause] once the eulogies have been delivered, once the tv cameras

move on, to go back to business as usual. that's what we so often do. to avoid uncomfortable truths about the prejudice that still infects our society. [applause] that's how we lose our way again. host: much more occurred at that service yesterday. you probably saw the news report of the president losing the crowd in "amazing grace." you can see all of that at our website at c-span.org. littleton, colorado, you are next. this is tim for those who supported the decision. hello. caller: thank you. the timing of your showing obama is perfect because, you know, as a christian, we have separation of church and state. and when the opinions come down

from the supreme court, there's never a reference to the bible. so while i may have certain beliefs and i want to lead my life in a certain way that's not what guides our country. and it's really -- and probably in large part why our democracy works. we have shiites and sunnis fighting each other fighting for religion and we don't have that in the united states and we're grateful not to have that. so on the very same day, one dangers there's an approval of gay marriage and white house lit up and on the very same day, obama is practicing his belief in christianity in its own open way and speaking very eloquently about grace and the two did not get in the way. he could live his lifestyle and

practice his belief in christianity and at the same time it did not get in the way of what the court had said about what was fair and right for the general public and the likes of all citizens. when i hear so many people call and complaint, it's mostly rooted in the reference to the bible. and never does the court make a reference to the bible because they understand there's clearly a separation. and people will comment. when people referred to the founding fathers and what are their intentionists. jerry son was not even a believer and he was not the only one. so, you know there's credit to the fact that we are -- one nation under god. what god we are one nation under god and we have a right to practice what we believe but

that does not dictate our laws. and when people call in and they make their case around religion, they have to at least acknowledge that our constitution is rooted in the separation of church and state. i thank you for taking the call. host: the concerns about the religious people were part of the editorial in this morning's "wall street journal." they thought -- host: frank from fort lauderdale florida, on our oppose line.

hello. caller: hello. this is frank from fort lauderdale dale. funny you start reading the "wall street journal" there. that's probably closer to what i believe in this whole issue. so i see this happening in the context of other things that are happening at the same time. and i think we're moving towards less freedom in this country than more. about 10 years ago, around the 2004 election, i was in fort lauderdale. later on i moved up to washington, d.c. and there was a fella at a barnes & noble there who i've sat down with on a friday night. it was very crowded and i needed a seat and he started talking about gay marriage. he claimed he worked for the democratic party. i don't know everything about him. i just got his first name and that was it. and, you know, he was very obnoxious, very forceful in his views. and up until that time, i was fairly tolerant of the issue of

gay marriage but garblinge -- gay marriage didn't become an issue. it was the in your face attitude of some of the opponents of it. later on at the time, jim webb was running for the u.s. senate in that state. i happen to go one night the clarion don barnes & nobles which is where his headquarters are and fairly close to where your identifies, and the people there were supporting jim webb and they were having a celebration party. they were much nicer than this fellow in forth daughterer lail was. and it turns out jim webb which i hadn't paid attention to the wlex there going on that much because i was a floridian and, you know, i told him about my experience in fort lauderdale

and they just shook their heads and empathize with me. i'm a veteran and he was a supporter of veterans benefits. so i started seeing him as a very positive factor. like i said, the gay marriage issue to me, forms into the bigger issue that is related to political correctness. and i think they're going to take away as many freedoms as they can, if they can. host: ok frank, fleet-wood is next, baltimore, maryland, for those who support the decision. hello. caller: good morning. gay people did not come out of here by way of spaceship or from the ground. they were created by god. those people did not want this controversy surrounding them. just as i didn't want my controversy surrounding my rights. they pay taxes. they have a right to be citizens of the united states. i don't understand why people

want to impose their religious beliefs on people. all they want is their right. so that's my comment. host: "the new york times" editorial this morning, "marriage equality in america." the editors devoting a full-page of the column to this topic. some of the argument they make is the constitution's power and endurance rest to the constitution's ability to follow along with the nation's consciousness -- host: that's in "the "new york times." we'll hear next from j.d. i'm sorry. we will hear from dan from decatur, illinois. hello. caller: hi. my name is ben. b-e-n. host: oh apologies.

go ahead. caller: ok. the main flux here is a man may ask a woman to marry him any day of the week. no matter what his sexual orientation. there is no scrim makes. and marriage is for family. one man, one woman. host: we will go to annette from springfield, missouri. hello. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on here live. and i just wanted to make a comment that once again, we have just totally disregarding nature. when it's all said and done religion nor politics or love is going to change the fact that a man and a woman are going to produce another human being not two of the same sex. and i know that people try to

deny and say that doesn't have a place in marriage but it actually does and i realize that there are people -- men and a woman who can't have children or is not to have children, at the bottom line, i mean, it is that in the same-sex marriage, it has to be a third party that's going to produce another human being. yes, they can adopt children. yes, they can -- but for that actual marriage to produce another human being is not going to happen. and that's all based on nape. we're looking to religion. we're looking to politics and laws to concern nature. and that's -- i mean, a man is xy and a woman is xx or if i'm wrong or if it's the opposite way afterward, but those two factors are the ones that we need to look to guide us. are we going to say just because

we feel like a woman that we are a woman or feel like a man that we are a man? i mean, if you want to practice that way and deceive yourself, i feel like that's a deception and i feel like that is just a total rejection of who you are biologically. host: let's hear from j.d. in royse city texas, on our oppose line. hello, j.d. caller: really. i want to start out by saying i'm not a overwhelm phone. my father's a gay man. i don't see how the civil union couldn't have got them the rights through the state if they want. marriage is a religious institution. recently, i heard a pro-same-sex marriage activist say that the institution of marriage needs to be abolished. and that's what they're truly against. also on -- the lady from massachusetts called earlier.

everybody's got health care, that's great. we haven't seen this drastic effect of this health care law and we haven't seen the medical austerity to citizens who have been here for generations for the illegals that are coming across the border right now. host: on our newsmakers program which airs tomorrow at 10:00, the hud secretary castro talked about issues dealing with housing, obviously but also made comments on the supreme court's decision from yesterday. here's his thoughts. >> i'm very happy with the ruling on marriage equality. it's a landmark day and in our nation and really, our world, the acknowledgement that when who people love each other that they ought to be able to enter into marriage. i'm happy as a texan that in my home state they will have marriage equality. there are still about 15 state where is we didn't have it in our country. with regard to how that impacts

housing, there's no question that marriage is a stabilizing influence in the how old. and i believe -- household. and i believe that having marriage equality is going to make communities and neighborhoods that much stronger. with regards to a particular policy, one thing that comes to mind for instance, is our reverse mortgage program and the impact that same-sex married couples of surviving spouse rule which we just changed that basically says that if you have a spouse that took out a reverse mortgage and that person passes away, the surviving spouse is able to stay in the home. but it's limited to states until friday that didn't have same-sex marriage. >> now it's going to be uniformly available to same-sex couples. host: that full interview available tomorrow at 10:00 right after this program on our "newsmakers" show.

don of california is up next. caller: hey, pedro. what i would like for you all to know is that for the people out there that don't believe in the bible, the bible says that america is known as so dom and gloria -- sodom and gomorrah and egypt. and so the decision that was made yesterday, i'm looking forward to what's going to happen next to this country. because the decision was definitely backward and against the word of god. and for all you people out there that don't believe in the word of god, you're going to be destroyed right along with america because of this sodomy and this -- all these laws that are made against the bible. america is truly against the bible. host: from twitter, a freelancer said if the g.o.p. wants to

raise separation of church and state, they must pay to play and continues on with the thought. a fellow saying it is not equal and never will be. let's go to maryland. shady side of maryland. hello. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. i support the recent ruling by the supreme court because marriage is not exclusively a religious constitution. there are certain benefits that are given to the married couples that we should not be eliminateding to one -- one sexual orientation of individuals. host: up next, randy. caller: i disagree with the decision. basically because i think the concept that the reason the

bible is and is a book of wisdom and the reason that it's against homes sexuality is because, obviously, homosexuals can reproduce and also if the legal things that are against -- i'm sorry, i got to go. host: tim from maryland on our support line. hi. caller: hello there. i think a lot of the religious callers that are anti-gay marriage are really taking up way too much time in the conversation. we may be a nation under god allegedly, but that doesn't mean we're a nation under christianity or religion. we are a very diverse nation. and at the supreme court it does reflect the will of the people whether or not it is

reflecting all the legislatures of all the states, because the majority of americans actually aren't supportive of gay marriage and it will continue to be that way into the future. and there is no sod dom and gomorrah coming and because america has lived in sin since its founding and it's not changing by this law. that's just kind of funny and thank you for taking my call. host: "the washington post" highlights some of the activity of the islamic states that are taking place worldwide. three attacks. these are other stories taking place in light of the decision that took place yesterday of the supreme court. there were 60 attacks in the country. one killed near lyon, france. 37 killed in tunisia. 25 killed in kuwait city. the full story there in the "washington post" this morning. the islamic state claiming they're behind these attacks.

warren in new hampshire on our oppose line. go ahead please. caller: yes. good morning. host: good morning. caller: since colonial times, the catholic bishops have gone along to get along. and this situation surfaced in 1973 with roe vs. wade. the hip credit abortionist -- hypocrite abortion was -- from the church. now it surfaced again in this time. justice anthony kennedy should be ex-communicated because sod mite marriage is unhealthy unevil and unnatural.

thank you. host: st. petersburg, florida cynthia. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that i am supporting the supreme court's ruling. it i wonderful. i'm very happy about it. 19 countries have approved the freedom to marry. netherlands, belgium spain canada, south africa norway, sweden portugal, iceland, argentina, denmark france, brazil you're gay, britain, ireland and now, united states. i would also like to address both callers who claim to know god and jesus christ's position in this issue. the god i believe in supports this ruling. i am extremely proud of our court system. and i am extremely happy for what is happening in this

country. thank you. host: last call on this topic for tomorrow's program. lots of things being discussed. probably more about yesterday's decision as well. we will be joined by a former health care advisor under the obama administration talking about the supreme court's decision to uphold subsidies in the affordable care act. we will also hear from armstrong williams radio tv, and talk show host, columnist outspoken conservative, a south carolina native and a cousin of clementa pinckney and we will discuss about the current state of race relations in the united states. that discussion is at 8:30. and gary seymour, a coordinator of arms control from 2009-2013. we'll talk about this deadline that's coming up with nuclear deal with iran and talk about the latest in that and what he expects might happen from those discussions. we will take your calls and look at the paper as well.

as "washington journal" continues tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. we'll see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up this morning on c-span a discussion about the use of body chemist by police. then, a hearing on the v.a. budget and health care for veterans. that is followed by discussion on u.s. national security and defense with the chair of the house armed services committee mac thornberry.