part of society and it's too late to deny them this right which brings them into the full umbrella of constitutional protection. so basically the court said this social battle is over. that's pretty much what they had to say. that, you know, people can continue to sincerely believe that it's wrong and immoral they just can't enforce that morality through the law. host: from lebanon ohio. mario is up next. caller: good morning. first i want to congratulate you and probably the producer who scheduled mr. bravin should get a raise because he's really spot on. host: what about me? caller: he's quite the expert. first i want to say i can support the windsor decision and not support this decision and let me make my case. windsor said a state like ohio can go about and actually -- we

had a constitutional amendment here in 2004 which i voted for. if you remember, mr. bravin and judge sutton in the fifth circuit actually made a case and this is a case i'll paraphrase that says marriage is basically a triparty agreement. you have first the couple number one couple number two and i'm specifically making it abstract couple one, couple two and the community. and he actually referred to before subsidies. and again, there is a financial subsidy to that arrangement. there's responsibilities from couple one couple two and also the community saying we are going to have responsibilities to the couple and then in turn the couple will have responsibilities to the community and for that we are going to subsidize it and that's my main objection to the ruling that the state of ohio until yesterday had made that decision that we were only going to subsidize certain

types of relationships when we deemed them beneficial to the community. it wasn't anything about loneliness and subsidizing loneliness or subsidizing friendship. in fact we didn't even subsidize people who are maybe engaged to be married. they have love. there's no law overseeing those. anyway, i'd like to speak to that and how the court circumvented the opportunity for me as an ohioan. to say what relationships we would subsidize and benefit the community as a whole. and i can say that intellectually, being intellectually honest and say i could have someone like new york where windsor ruled over them and by all means saying have it your way, that was right for you but not right for ohio. guest: i mean, that's a good point. windsor, as you say, was about in part states authority to define what kind of family relationships they were going to recognize. i think that the issue the way

the court looked at it was true, ohio in amending its constitution did seek to deny the benefits and also obligations, let's be clear, i mean many married people would see it not as completely a -- as containing some obligations and duties as well but 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 i would have -- 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 can do other things for instance, raise children. and that is the third party i think justice kennedy and the majority was more concerned about by denying them these couples, these families, the

stability of legal recognition through marriage, harm is being inflicted on the children that we are raising and with a is the justification for doing that that ohio had? and ohio really had no answer for that question. and i think the court found that very, very significant. that's really the question to go back to ohio. you don't want to combies or recognize or honor these relationships why not? is it for a reason that's legitimate? and the court didn't see one. host: santa clara california, jackie is up next. good morning. caller: hello. i'm a little nervous but a couple of points to make is i thought the government was supposed to be separate from religion. what about people who don't believe in god? i do but there are people who don't believe in god so why are they not being considered, why is it only the people who

believe in god say this is the way it has to be? and then there was a time when those people said black people were lessen, there was a time black people couldn't marry white and 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. you have black people who marry white people and nothing horrible has happened. everyone wanted health care with no preconditions but the republicans fought it for years and now we have it. and gay couples who wanted to be equal under the law they said no, you can't be equal under the law, you can't have anything and now they have apparently. so all these people who have said all these predictions it's like you're a little late

things have changed. thank you. guest: to be their 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 were very strong opposition from some religious groups, the conference of catholic bishops called it a tragic decision and was very much against it, as were many of the aadvantage cal groups but also there were protestant groups and 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 courts ruling comport with their teachings. in terms of health care, that decision was on thursday. we're not talking about that today. but didn't have much to do with

the friday ruling on marriage and as far as only religious people, you know, getting what they want -- actually, they didn't get what they want if what they wanted was to prevent same sex recognition across the states, they lost. huh a supreme court majority, a narrow one but still a majority saying that even sincere religiously motivated forms of discrimination cannot be upheld in the circumstance. host: ted cruz weighing in "national review" saying this, a proposal he is making i propose a amendment to the united states constitution that would subject the justices of the supreme court to periodic retention elections and every justice beginning after the second election after his or her appointment will answer to the american people and states in a retention election every eight years. have you heard anything like this? guest: i haven't heard -- heard it on the federal level but that is similar to the way many states operate their own judiciarys where judges are

appointed by the governor and then they stand for retention, you know, sometime thereafter. i believe it was retention election in iowa that cost several justices on that state supreme court their seats after they found that their own state constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage and so it's not an unheard of practice and there are -- it really plays to the question of the benefits and disadvantages of an appointed life tenured judiciary versus a elected one or one that's more democratically responsive. that's an issue that has, you know sort of separate from this. i would just say, though, it tends to come up when people are really unhappy about a particular decision, and i think that in judging how well the courts work, we have to look more broadly, you know, at their overall record, i think on any given day, depending on how the court rules, you'll find there are people of all

political stripes who wish they could vote against members of the supreme court. host: mary ann of illinois, mr. bravin of "the wall street journal." go ahead. caller: it's my opinion 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 or 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 their law but 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 morals. they are deteriorating as a country, as a whole. and when do we stick by these morals and say no, this is what i believe and i'm going to stick by what i believe? guest: this is really, you know, a good question, one raised by the dissenters in the sense that well, if you are, you know, if these are your values now, what is the limiting principle, what stops you from imposing whatever values you have in the future? and that's why chief justice roberts brought up these two notorious cases from the past the dred scott decision where the court majority affirmed and sought to entrench slavery forever, and the lockner

decision which sought to essentially protect employers from wage and hour regulations that might limit how long they can 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 it is doing this to us and the state couldn't do it. and that was really the way that 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 opening the door to something other than allowing a minority group that had been subjected to all kind 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 of the majority would play against minorities, and one of the things i read yesterday about this from scotus blog was that what happened was that states when they say we should leave it to the legislatures, states had 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 that was part -- you know, when they say the constitution has nothing to do with it protection of minorities, especially where they, you know, where people are just trying to, you know, make it impossible to change things is part of the reasoning they sighed the decision. in florida, for example when the >> when the republicans took control, people started using constitutional amendments so what the republican legislature did said you can use constitutional amendments to petition but you're going to now have to get 60% of the people to approve it. whereas before i think it was 60% plus one. so they changed the rules so that things can't be changed. host: thanks, mark. guest: huh a good example of that in california in 2008 and

in may of 2008, the california supreme court applying its own state constitution found that next couples were allowed to marry under the california state constitution. a voter initiative november of that year called proposition 8 amendeded the state constitution to say no, a marriage is one man and one woman and nullified the state supreme court decision the way the state supreme court could never examine again and also the legislature could never examine again. the legislature passed a bill to authorize same-sex marriage i believe governor schwarzenegger had vetoed. so the -- it's true that the states had made it difficult to change these provisions but, you know, state constitutions are subject to the united states constitution. host: from ray city georgia, karl is up next. for our guest mr. bravin. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me. in terms of our disasters for our country, we come together

and play -- and pray and ask god to protect us. well, this is a disaster. we need to come together and we need to pray. because in two instances our supreme court has changed the course of history for our country. you know, with their decisions on row have had wade and now same-sex -- row vmpled wade and now same-sex marriage and -- roe v. wade and now same-sex marriage. i don't believe they represent the views of the majority of americans. it's disappointing but we compare civil rights with gay marriage. you know, you don't have to hate somebody to have a belief in what this country was founded upon and many people will tell you no, it wasn't founded upon god, it wasn't founded upon this but we forget sod only and gomora -- we forget about sodom and gamorrah and have our own views and want to look at the future of our country and we're intelligent

men but when we get to the point where we think we're smarter than god, we're going to be in some serious situations here in our country, and people don't want to talk about that. you know when they hear people like me talk, they say well, that's just your own opinion. no, that's what the bible says and that's what we've been basing this thing on all of these years, this country, our founding fathers. 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. you can read in romans and leviticus and he specifically says, you know about the same-sex marriage, men with women and women with women and it's just not right. and it does make room for other things to happen. and i'm ashamed. this is one of the first times or second times with roe v. wade but i'm ashamed of our supreme court. i'm ashamed of america. not just for posing 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 countries. that's just not right. host: karl thank you. guest: i think the question the supreme court was looking at more specifically was hundreds of thousands of children who are being raised in same-sex households, and they are raising their -- they have adopted them, they may be their natural children they're in there for all kind of different reasons and these are their parents and there's no reason to think and no evidence to suggest that they are any way worse off than people -- children raised in opposite sex couples. so by denying legitimacy to your parents relationship, that harms these children. that is a -- that makes their families lesser in the eyes of others the court said. and it denies, for instance, if one of the parents is sick getting hospital visits. it makes it difficult to arrange for medical help, it interferes with inheritance and

all kinds of practical things that really are an issue at very stressful times in a family's life in which the law makes certain presumptions about a marital relationship that don't apply to an unmarried relationship. so these are -- this is the kind of harm that the court was looking at you know, it's quite specific. to these plaintiffs and to their condition and their injuries, so the question is why would you have a situation in the country where there are hundreds of thousands, 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 the court foresee other issues including gay people in the united states because of this decision yesterday? guest: well, the court opinion doesn't say anything about it, about other issues. i think that, you know, in -- about half the states have some kind of anti-discrimination

protection based on sexual orientation. and half don't and the federal government doesn't either. so while it was you know, the supreme court and federal government were moving pretty much in concert in the 1950's and 1960's when it comes to civil rights. not really here when it comes to gay rights. so i think a question may begin to arise 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 refuse to hire them or promote them. they are not part of what's called a protected class such as that's based on race religion, national origin or sex. though in most employment relationships, hire or fire at will for any reason or no reason. there have been efforts to add sexual orientation to the federal nondiscrimination laws but have been defeated in

congress. i think that is where the gay rights movement goes. how that plays out in states resistant to same-sex marriage will hard to follow. host: mr. bravin covers issues regarding the decision yesterday. thanks for your time. >> in the next washington journal, dr. ezekiel manuel, the former advisor to the budget discusses the decision to uphold subsidies in the affordable care act and how the a.c.a. has been working overall and why health care reform in general has become such a divisive issue. radio and talk show host armstrong williams, cousin to the slain charleston emanuel a.m.e. pastor clementa pinckney talks and we talk about the iran nuclear negotiations.

as always, we take your calls and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in his weekly address, president obama reacts to the supreme court's ruling on health care. senator john bozeman of arkansas has the government's response and talks about defense spending. john: hi everybody. president obama: we declared in health care it is not a privilege for few but a right for all. this week after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, we can now say this for certain the affordable care act still stands. it is working. and it is here to stay. on thursday, when the court

upheld the critical part of the affordable care act it was a victory for hard-working americans all across this country whose lives are more secure because of this law. this law means that if you're a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26. if you're a senior, or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions. you can't be charged more just because you're a woman. and you can't be discriminated against just for having a pre-existing condition. this