means of investment as we expand the degree of technology incorporated into brazil. the u.s. is the main foreign investor in brazil in 2013. the total investments came brazilian investments in the u.s. have grown. the aggregate amount came to $15.7 billion. this does not represent the order of magnitude of these investments. it is important to indicate that between 2007 and 2012, the growth of direct investments by brazil in the u.s. came to 201%. we want to further expand trade flows and want them to be higher

. that is one of the objectives of the efforts we have engaged in the strength of macroeconomic policy, reducing risk for brazilian investment and investments in brazil. we have developed a microeconomic agenda, expanding transparency and the accountability process between companies and the government. we are expanding the investment opportunities in an area where coordination by the government is key in terms of the right expectations -- infrastructure. we have launched an infrastructure program and thank president obama for his commitment in assuring a greater

presence of u.s. investors in that program. i would also like to say that we have enjoyed a fruitful relationship between our governments and business communities. the recent bilateral ceo forum illustrates the importance of infrastructure to identify coordinate, and promote investment as well as the guarantee for investments in the long-term in stimulating private sector involvement. we have a wide or great -- array of achievements, such as defense efforts. we welcomed two agreements recently passed by congress.

the defense and cooperation agreement which will allow a fruitful collaboration with the u.s. ministry of defense. the military information agreement, which will allow exchanges of information in that area. in the field of technology, biotechnology, aerospace technology. i would like to highlight one point president obama and i discussed, one in which we have come to a decision i view as important. i am talking about climate change. climate change is one of the essential challenges of the 21st century. and we have one important objective, which is to ensure

our countries will have a substantial share of renewable energy. the decision is a great deal to do with the current outlook in parts of global emissions reductions, so we are in a position to materialize that agreement during the upcoming conference in paris. the second area relates to the first one -- the joint decision by our countries to establish a 20% goal in terms of expanding renewable sources of energy except for hydro sources between now and 2020. it will prove extremely important in reducing greenhouse gases and it speaks to our

commitment of ensuring the global temperature will not go up. we have the very important greenhouse gas emission target. in brazil, we have the commitment of zero deforestation, illegal deforestation by 2030. we wish to turn the page and engage in a clear-cut re-for station -- reforestation, which

reflects the commitment we have undertaken for the forests in brazil. the environmental agenda is key for our countries. cooperation in energy efficient -- efficiency, for example. we are committed to smart grids and minimum energy consumption levels. president obama and i also discussed education extensively. we believe education in brazil will provide us with social inclusion and a qualitatively forward -- quantitative leap forward in the knowledge economy. we are excited on our

cooperation between the department of education and the ministry of education. we have a view of achieving scientific improvement and innovation. i would also like to stress the importance of using education technology as a means to move towards higher quality, more inclusive education. in that regard, without a shadow of a doubt the high quality and the ability of the united states to develop scientific and technological equipment in that arena is imperative.

we are also participating in the science without borders program. an important highlight is that the u.s. has received the biggest number of brazilian students. it has become the main destination of brazilian students for the science without borders program. i thank president obama for welcoming such a substantial wave of brazilian students. we want to make progress in energy cooperation, particularly between national laboratories and the brazilian research center in energy.

tomorrow, i will be in california. i intend to hold a meeting with information technology, biotechnology, and aerospace companies. i would like to thank president obama because we have come to a decision to facilitate entry of frequent travelers from the zillow into the united states as part of a global entry program. we are talking about a social security agreement that will allow brazilians working in the u.s. to be equally covered under a social security agreement. we also addressed a wide array

of initiatives. i would like to highlight the following. the decision by brazil to join the global health security initiative. ghi. it is important to underscore that we have a wide array of joint initiatives that can be developed and put in place in third-party countries towards triangular cooperation. particularly for full production -- fuel production. in conclusion, may i refer to the importance of latin america during the decision made by president obama and president

raul castro in cooperation with pope francis on opening up relations with cuba, cuba, a very decisive milestone in u.s. relations with latin america. it ultimately highlights the level of relations between the u.s. and the region. it is important to world peace at large and an example of relations to be followed. in conclusion, i reiterate my invitation for president obama to come to brazil for the 2016 olympics. the invitation is extended to the vice president, but i understand they cannot be at the same time at the same place.

but president obama has a standing invitation to the olympics in brazil. he will be able to wear his green and yellow jersey, which says "obama" on the chest. you will be applauded if you do so. this trip to the u.s. stands as a relaunch of our bilateral relations. thank you for the warm reception and welcome. we have indeed taken a step ahead in bilateral relations. thank you very much. president obama: we are going to take a few questions. i will start with jim koonin who i understand announced his retirement today. you are kind of young to retire. quitting while you are ahead?

we are going to miss you, but he will be here for a couple weeks, right? congratulations. appreciate it. >> you on the cusp of entering into a nuclear agreement with iran, but there are still a number of unresolved issues. in particular, the fates of americans, robert levinson. you and your administration raise the imprisonment of these americans, that still you will sign likely an agreement with tehran in those issues will remain unresolved. what do you say to the families about how you will deal with their loved ones? and i guess the bottom line, do you find the iranian leadership trustworthy? madam president, welcome to the u.s. you canceled the previous trip to the united states following

the snowden -- do you need a translation? a little louder, certainly. you canceled your previous trip to the united states following the revelations by edward snowden by the nsa spying on you. are you still troubled by these revelations and have you received assurances and are you satisfied with the answers you have received from the administration? thank you. president obama: first of all, with respect to u.s. citizens who are held in iran, this is something that we continue to push hard on irrespective of the nuclear deal. it is a top priority for us to make sure that our people are

treated fairly and on the face of it in the case of these individuals who have been held they have not been and they are not being afforded a basic due process we afford visitors to our country. so we are deeply concerned about it. we spend a lot of time pushing on and we will continue to do so. there is no lessening of the sense of urgency. when i talk to the families of -- we remind them of the fact that this mission will continue and has been worked on it consistently throughout their captivity. with respect to the larger issue of whether i trust the iranian regime, as i said before, there are deep-seated disagreements

and divisions between the united states and iran. and those aren't going to go away overnight. the goal of the nuclear negotiations is not to rely on trust, but to set up a verifiable mechanism where we are cutting off pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. john kerry right now is down there with secretary of energy moneys who one of the top is nuclear physicist in the world. my extractions to them have been clear. the framework agreement that was established is one that is implemented effectively and

codified properly would, in fact, achieve my goal, which is iran not obtaining a nuclear weapon. there has been a lot of talk on the other side from the iranian negotiators about whether they can abide by some of the terms that came up. if they cannot, that is going to be a problem because i have said from the start i will walk away from the negotiations if in fact it is a bad deal. if we cannot provide assurances that the pathways for iran obtaining a nuclear weapon are closed, if we can't verify that and the verification regime is inadequate, we will not get a deal. and we have been very clear to the iranian government about that. the good news is that our p5+1

partners in these negotiations feel exactly the same way. so there's still some hard negotiations to take place, but it will ultimately be up to the iranian to determine whether or not they make the requirement that the international community has set forth to be able to fairly and accurately and consistently assess whether or not they have foreclosed the possibility of obtaining a nuclear weapon. and given past behavior on the part of iran, that can't simply be a declaration by iran and if -- and a few inspectors wandering around every once in a while. that has to be a serious rigorous, verification mechanism.

that is going to be the test as to whether we get a deal or not. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] translator: yes, that is true. i did cancel my previous trip to the u.s. at that point in time. since then, some things have changed. the changes are particularly do to the fact that president obama and the u.s. government has stated on several occasions that they would no longer engage in the act of spying on friendly countries. i believe president obama. furthermore he has told me that if he ever needed to need nonpublic information, he would pick up the phone and call me. so yes i am certain that the conditions to date have become very different.

at this point i'd like to call upon journalists and the global youth network. president obama: if brazil plays someone else. but if they are playing the united states, i'm sorry. >> president obama, you were talking about a new relationship based on trust. the president just mentioned when brazil canceled this trip because of the matter of trust and brazil is now in the middle of a very political and economic. can you trust one another in this moment? president rousseff: [speaking foreign language]

translator: brazil is itself as the key player president obama: i'm going to answer in part the question you just asked the president. we view brazil not at the regional power but as a global power. if you think about the free economic forum for coordinating between major economies, the g 20, brazil is a major voice in that. the negotiations that are taking place in paris around climate change can only succeed with brazil as a key leader in the announcements that have been made today about their goals on renewable energy is indicative of brazil's leadership. brazil is a major global player and i told president dilma last

night that the united states, as powerful as we are and as interested as we are installed -- interested in solving international issues, recognize we cannot do it alone. on issues like global health, we are not going to succeed unless we are working with brazil and other major countries so we can identify where there might be the outbreak of the disease, how we prevent it from turning into a pandemic. if we want to be successful on climate change, countering terrorism and making sure we reduce extreme poverty around the world, all the major countries have to be involved in the process. and brazil we consider an absolutely indispensable partner in these efforts. with respect to trust i will say

president rousseff and i have had an excellent relationship since she took office. i trust her completely. she's always been very candid and frank with me. about the interest of the brazilian people and how we can work together. she has delivered on what she has promised. when we met in panama we discussed the defense cooperation agreements that were just mentioned. she got those through congress. as somebody who knows something about congress, i know that it's never easy. for her to use political capital to get that done i think is indicative of the kind of reliable partner that she is. and so, we believe that this meeting that we've had this week

builds on a series of steps that continue to deepen cooperation between our two countries. there are still going to be differences occasionally, but that is true with every one of our close friends and allies. no country will have identical interests. there will always be some friction. but our common values, strong people and the relations we have, the fact we are the largest countries in the hemisphere with similar histories, all of that means we should be very strong partners for years to come. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] translator: i believe part of my answer was given by president obama. and i'd like to thank him for that. i would like to make the

following remark. countries do go through crisis and difficulties. it is just natural. and the difficulties and/or crisis should not entail a a lesser role for any country. they can only be said to be a great country if they overcome difficulties. the bravest to overcome difficulties and challenges. face up to them. and still fulfill commitments to people and country. it also applies to relations with countries such as the u.s. and the rest of the world. these are essential relations. i think brazil and the u.s. have a great deal in common. we are two countries that with a hallmark in our history and something we actually had to fight to overcome.

talking about the blemish of slavery. we have large black populations. we have a very significant ethnic and multicultural variety in our makeup and that is a major asset in our population. the same is true for the u.s. we have two strong democracies. brazil, as in the case of the united states, i congratulated president obama for having overcome the crisis the country in 2008 and 2009. likewise, brazil will overcome the current trend and we will do so decisively. with great commitment. more than that, we will ensure continuity of the achievement we have established in the past 12 years.

and we will make sure these gains multiply into the future. we truly want to build a predominantly middle-class country. i think the efforts to reduce inequality are a major gain. >> thank you, mr. president. i hope you don't mind if i ask a multipart question the first one being on greece. i would be remiss if i didn't ask about the financial crisis in europe. in layman's terms and language that americans can understand, i want to ask simply is a financial crisis in greece capable of bringing down the global economy? and separately i wanted to ask you about what some people are calling your best week ever last week. you had two supreme court decision supporting the affordable care act and gay rights and you also delivered a speech in charleston that was pretty warmly received.

it seems you've built up some political capital for the remaining months of your presidency. i'm curious how you want to use it. what hard things do want to to tackle at this point. president rousseff, you asked to join us at the olympics in rio next year. the terrorist group isis has shown a willingness and capacity to carry out terrorist attacks around the world. what preparations are you making to ensure the olympic games are safe and are you concerned about that happening in rio? thank you very much, madam president. president obama: on greece, this is a situation we have been monitoring throughout the year as i think most people are aware. there has been an ongoing crisis in greece dating back to 2009, 2010 and something i've been deeply involved with periodically working with european partners.

it is an issue of substantial concern. it is an issue primarily of concern to europe. essentially what you have is a country that has gone through some difficult economic times, and needs to find a path towards growth and a path to stay in the eurozone. what we have been encouraging both the greek government and our european partners to do is to continue to negotiate and find a pathway towards a resolution. it is also important for us to make sure we planned for any contingency and that we work

with the european central bank and other international institutions to make sure that some of the bumps that may occur in the financial markets that have already occurred are smoothed out. in layman's terms for the american people, this is not something we believe will have a major shock to the system, but obviously it is very painful for the greek people and it can have a significant effect on growth rates in europe. if europe is not growing the way it needs to grow that has an

impact on us and on brazil. those are major export markets. and it can have a dampening effect on the entire world economy. it is something we are monitoring and something we spend a lot of time on. jack lew has been on the phone consistently over the last several months. i have spoken to my european counterparts, encouraging them to find a path towards resolution. so it is something we take seriously, but it is not something i think should prompt overreactions. and so far i think the markets have properly factored in the risks involved. in terms of my best week, my best week i will tell you was marrying michelle. that was a really good week. malia and sasha being born,

excellent weeks. [laughter] president obama: there is a game where i scored 27 points. [laughter] president obama: that was a pretty good week. i have had some good weeks in my life i will tell you and i am blessed to have had those. i think last week was gratifying because number one we were able to get a package of trade legislation that i believe will serve the american people, american workers and businesses well going into the future. it gives us the opportunity to negotiate high standard agreements that have enforceable labor and environmental provisions. it was a tough fight because there are lot of folks in my own

party who viewed this as accelerating some of the damaging or frightening trend around globalization that have taken place over the last several decades. my argument has consistently been we are not going to stop globalization. we have to shape it in a way that helps people and these are tools that will help us do that. being able to get that done was very important. the affordable care act as i've said before, the results speak for themselves. we have the lowest uninsured rate since we started keeping records. it has worked better and it costs less than supporters anticipated. if we can get some governors

that have been holding out and resisting expanding medicaid primarily for political reasons, think about what they can do for their citizens who don't have health insurance but can get it very easily if state governments acted, we could see even more improvement over time. my remarks in charleston were heartfelt. it was not a celebration. i think it was a reflection on the consistent challenge of race in this country and how we can find a path towards a better way. i was gratified to see not only the incredible response of the families that had been affected

by this tragedy, but by the response of people like governor haley and how they viewed the issue of the confederate flag. as i said on friday, it doesn't solve all of our problems, but it does signify a sense of empathy and recognition that is always in the start of progress. in many ways, last week was the culmination of a lot of work we've been doing since i came into office. how am i going to spend whatever political capital i have built up? you know, the list is long and my instructions to my team and my instructions to myself have always been that we are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make as long as i have the privilege of

holding this office. we announced overtime rules that i'll be talking about more this week that will give a raise to 5 million people potentially in this country who really deserve it. i want to see if we can get bipartisan worked on with congress about rebuilding infrastructure. we've got work to do their. i'm really interested in the possibility, the prospect of bipartisan legislation around the criminal justice system, some of the themes i mentioned on friday and we have seen some really interesting leadership from some unlikely republican legislators very sincerely concerned about making progress there. i want to keep on making

progress on job training and making sure that the idea of two years of free community college starts taking root. the list is long. we will keep hammering away at all the issues that i think are going to have an impact on the american people. some of them will be left undone, but we are going to try to make progress on every single one of them and i've always said one of the things i've learned in this presidency is that there are going to be ups and there are going to be downs. but as long as my focus and my team's focus is on what is going to make a difference in the lives of ordinary americans are we going to give them more opportunity so if they work hard they can get ahead. are we going to make this a more

inclusive economy, more inclusive society, a more fair and just society, and if that is our north star and we keep tacking in that direction, we will make progress. i feel pretty excited about it. i might see if we can make next week even better. >> another press conference? president obama: i love press conferences. it is my press team that is always holding me back. [laughter] [laughter] president obama: i want to talk to you guys every day. [laughter] president obama: sorry, josh. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] translator: we take the issue,

security at large, very seriously. which means that we involve all of those agencies that can't and -- can and will ensure proper security. this includes the armed forces the federal police service, and all of the state level police in the state of rio de janeiro. we already have experience in security. last year we organized the world soccer cup. we had to provide security not only to one city but we had to cover the whole country there was not one single place not control. thereby establishing a very effective control system by means of command and control centers as well as monitoring control centers covering the

displacement of athletes as well as high ranking government officials and authorities. so we followed up on proper security conditions to all those steps. and that is why i am certain that we will be in the position to ensure absolute security during the olympics, just as was the case during the last year world soccer cup. i actually believe that the upcoming 2016 olympics to be held next june-july will be a unique and special occasion because it will bring together the joy of the brazilians and the beauty of rio. each country tends to think they have the world's best city but i do believe it is the most beautiful, most beautiful city. it will bring together excellent

organizational capabilities. they will be able to receive athletes and all those who wish to come. you have a standing invitation. we will make sure you'll be able to enjoy beautiful and great celebrations during the olympics. i would like now to call upon our daily newspaper reporter. >> [indiscernible] they are being investigated because of allegations of corruption? is it an issue of concern? [speaking foreign language]

president obama: i make it a policy not to comment on active cases that are working their way through the justice system. partly because of the people here in the united states know that lawyers work for me and i want to make sure that we appear impartial. i'm not familiar with all the details in the case so i will decline to comment on the specifics. i will make a general statement, that i have had the opportunity to work with president rousseff on the open government initiative that we've been trying to mobilize internationally, and brazil has been a great partner in that process, that the more we can create accountability and transparency in our government systems, the better off we are going to be. and that takes work, it takes

time, but brazil has been a strong partner with us in that process. and i hope that both countries can continue to make progress on that front. president rousseff: [speaking foreign language] translator: i would like to highlight the fact that petrobras is indeed one of the major oil-producing and oil exporting companies in the oil industry. it has more than 60,000 employees. some employees did engage in corruption, therefore the investigation of course that is going on, it has been going on by the federal prosecutor's office and they're being sued by that office. but circumstantial evidence that is available from the

prosecutors are pretty substantial. what i'm trying to say this all legal measures that may possibly be taken against against petrobras will take into account that acts of corruption were practiced within petrobras, yes, but it does not involve 100% of the company. it follows that those who practiced corruption be held accountable and be punished. the people who actually engaged in these acts of corruption should be punished. the good news about petrobras is it is a strong company, well managed today with proper governance, processes and compliance processes are well placed and properly adjusted. were that not the case, how

could you possibly understand that it has a production level of 800,000 barrels a day could -- a day? furthermore, this year, it was awarded the so-called oscar of the oil industry, oil and gas industry by the innovation granted to the president this year. as regard to your second question, i have never appointed or have i dismissed ministers that may have been appointed or dismissed by the press or by the media. that teeing the case -- being the case, i will wait until all facts and events be properly looked into and disclosed before coming to an assessment. but at least in principle i think it is important and necessary that all of us have access to the same information.

the brazilian government does not have access to the court records. strangely enough there was selective leakage of information supposedly or allegedly stemming from the court records. people are free to say whatever they want, and those who are accused have no way of defending themselves because they don't know exactly what they're being charged with. we are a country marked by democratic process. we were able to put an end to all of the arbitrary arrangements and violation of rights of the past. we had a very strong military dictatorship a given our track record we should really enshrine the right to defend the we should stick to the principle of sentencing once all the evidence that's available. not the other way around. people have the right to proving their innocence. those who are accused are the ones who should provide evidence of guilt. it's the underlying basic

principle that western civilization shares. that's what we talk about when we talk about democracy people's right to a fair defense. the burden of proof among the accusing party. they should be of course grounded type of evidence, not just allegation, speculation that does not ensure acts to all of the court records. that would be medieval, send us back to the middle ages. that's what we do in brazil today. president obama: last week, i had a chance to do the rose garden celebration of the court decision around same-sex marriage. i didn't have a chance to comment on how good the white house looked in rainbow colors. [laughter] president obama: that made it a really good week, to see people gathered in evening outside on a beautiful summer night and to

feel accepted and they feel that they have a right to love. that was pretty cool. that was a good thing. >> no regrets? president obama: that, that was a good thing. the only bad part about it was i couldn't go out and take a peek at it myself because then it secret service would've had to clear them out. so i could only reflect on it from a television screen. that's a moment worth savoring. thank you very much, everybody. [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] >> president obama and secretary of state kerry will address the media wednesday about the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with cuba. the president is expected to

announce the opening of embassies in washington and havana. later, president obama travels to tennessee for a speech on health care. he will visit taylor stratton elementary school north of nashville, home to 250 health-care company. that is at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on c-span, a discussion on the impact of this of the work same-sex marriage ruling. after that, a discussion of the future of civil rights for the lgbt community. then, governor chris christie announces his run for president. >> here are a few of our future programs for the holiday weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span friday night at 8:00, radio personalities and

executives at the talkers magazine conference in new york. saturday night at 8:00, new york times chairman arthur schultz berger on the future of the time. sunday night members of the church committee, walter mondale and gary hart, on their efforts to reform the intelligence community. on book tv on c-span2 friday night at 10:00 eastern, martin ford on how artificial intelligence could make good jobs obsolete. saturday carol burkiss on why the bill of rights was created. sunday join our three-hour conversation with peter schweitzer, who has written a dozen books, including "clinton cash" and throw them all out.

on c-span3 friday evening at 6:30, the 70th anniversary of the united nations with nancy pelosi and ban ki-moon. saturday night at 8:00, a lecture on the revolutionary war and how supplies and timing influenced the outcomes of major battles. saturday afternoon at 4:00, a look back at a 1960's film featuring joe brown about a nationwide search for circus wagons and the efforts to restore them in time for a july 4 parade in milwaukee. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. >> the supreme court friday ruled 5-4, legalizing same-sex marriage in the united states.

from the heritage foundation, a discussion of the court ruling and how opponents will go forward. this is about an hour. host: good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. we especially welcome those joining us on our heritage.org website and c-span tv. please check cell phones as a courtesy to our speakers. to those watching online, you are always welcome to send questions or comments by simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. we will post the program following today's presentation for your reference in the future.

posting is richard severino, who earned a jd from harvard law school. he is alumnus of the fun and served in the civil rights division of the department of justice. please join me in welcoming roger severino. [ applause ] mr. severino: thanks, john. so glad to be here. so glad to see such a large turnout for a discussion of what may be the defining issue of our generation, the future of marriage, religious liberty, and the law. as you know, the supreme court recently issued its decision, a monumental one with deep implications for the future of society. we had a significant setback. all americans who believe in the constitution, limited government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman should pay close attention.

the supreme court got it wrong. we have a distinguished panel to give us perspective and help inform our responses to this decision. please hold your applause until the end of the introduction. in the middle, we have gene schaerr, a washington-based attorney who specializes in appellate litigation. he served as associate council to the president and justice scalia. he argued and won dozens of cases in various form. he is a graduate of byu, holds a masters degree in economics from yale university. dr. ryan anderson at the end researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty and is a senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. he focuses on justice and moral principles and has expertise in

bio ethics and natural law theory. he filed an amicus brief in the obergefell case. the book which he co-authored is "what is marriage, man and woman" cited twice in the case. ryan is the author of a book , truth overruled, which is available for preorder on amazon and will ship in a few weeks. ryan received his bachelors from princeton university, political philosophy from notre dame, where he received his masters degree. carey is chief council and policy director of crisis network. she has written on a wide range of issues. she has filed briefs in numerous cases, testified before congress

and is a regular contributor on national review online. if you have interest in courts you have probably read her materials or seen her on tv. she was previously a law clerk to clarence thomas. she is a graduate of harvard law school, duke university, holds master's degree from michigan state university and married to the luckiest man in the world, me. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [ applause ] host: we read this giant decision, and i'm sure there are many takeaways. but i want to focus on three. what are the big takeaways you

saw in terms of the law religious liberty, and marriage? ms. severino: thanks for being here. it is nice to be on a panel where i do not have to tell the introducer how to spell my last name. i will talk about the legal basis of the decision. then we can talk about how it plays out in terms of religious freedom. justice kennedy's decision, writing for the majority, was based fundamentally on the idea of substantive due process and the fundamental right to marry. i would actually agree there is a fundamental right to marry. it is something recognized by a lot of cases. most famously in loving versus virginia, where the laws of the state of virginia were struck down. but justice kennedy gets it wrong. as he acknowledges, all the

court cases that talk about a fundamental right to marriage take as a presupposition that marriage means the union of a man and a woman. it is dangerous when we redefine the term that we are dealing with because you can easily shift the meaning. so, for example, if we were to have freedom of speech and define speech to mean something else then we have freedom to something else. all terms have to carry content. the challenge here is that he redefined the term marriage in the process of attempting to uphold the fundamental right to marry. the way he did so is by looking at some of the cases the court decided previously and intuiting four principles from the cases that he viewed as central to this institution of marriage. one is that it was an expression of individual autonomy through personal choice. one is a unique two person union that gave particular importance to individuals. third was that it safe guards

children and families and particularly draws on the rights of child rearing, procreation and education and the fourth is that it forms a keystone of our social order. there are undeniably themes of all of these in the previous supreme court literature however justice kennedy seems to have cherry picked which principles to look at in coming to his conclusion which is the features of the fundamental right to marry doesn't matter if it is a man and woman and therefore the fundamental right to marry isn't defined by that. unfortunately, by assuming the conclusion, he chose the principles to support. he did not choose those principles to overlap. he cites the right of childbearing and education. it is difficult to understand how a person with a particular

right to procreation has nothing to do with opposite sex unions when that is how procreation happened. there is a real problem with justice so there is a real problem with justice kennedy's bait and switch on this. he takes things that are really there as part of the definition of marriage, isolates only those and not even only those but mostly only those that don't have an obvious connection to the opposite sex couple union and says marriage is about two people having a unit of relationship. additionally after deciding the due process clause that the fundamental right is being denied he claims that the equal protection clause is implicated. it is true that the discussion of equal protection clause and due process liberties are very intertwined and can be confusing

at times. he didn't follow traditional analysis which is to say what is the level of scrutiny. we know when we look at traditional law there are different levels of scrutiny to give certain distinctions requiring strict scrutiny so it is hard on the basis of race. on the basis of sex there are certain things where there are differences that the government can take into account. he didn't talk about what level of scrutiny we should be given. that i think is a line of cases we see coming out of this going forward. to talk quickly there were four major deissents in the case. in large part all touched on few major themes. one is the decision as a legal matter is not correct, whatever your policy views on the issue -- i actually would wager there

may be different policy views on whether or not they would vote in a referendum who would say i want to create same-sex marriage. i think they come out differently on that but all agree as a legal matter the constitution is not where that happens. the constitution is completely agnostic as to how marriage is defined and if anything the windsor case that happened a couple years ago got it right on this point that the states have traditionally defined marriage law and for state purposes states should be able to do so. that is one feature. another is talking about concerns about the democratic process, concerns about the way that this decision was reached and how that under mines the ability to have this debate in the public sphere.

we were all talking about this issue. there were a lot of referenda and state laws in both directions and that has been cut off by this decision. justice kennedy basically said there are all sorts of briefs. we have had this discussion. we are done. time's up and now we make the call. i think they say the court doesn't get to be the one that makes that call of you have had enough talking. when it is an issue that the constitution leaves open even if you feel you are sick of hearing the debate you don't get to cut it off. finally, i think some of the panelists will talk about the concerns about religious freedom coming out of the decision. justice kennedy's decision did allude to the fact that as solicitor general said this is going to be an issue going forward. it's taking things out of the democratic process does mean our back stop is the courts. we have first amendment protections but the courts do it. to highlight justice thomas is my favorite having worked for him he pointed out two errors in the decision.

first it assumes that dignity is something conferred by the government. if we look at our declaration of independence and the constitution dignity is presumed to either come from our creator if one goes declaration or independence or to be innate in a person and not something the government can confer or deny. furthermore he pointed out the inversion of liberty that our nation and really the american legal tradition has history of liberty being freedom from coercion and not liberty being a government grant of benefits.

that is what happened in this case, the idea that the government conferring the benefit of marriage and the associated benefits is actually increasing people's liberty. i will hand it back to roger. >> so you mentioned the dissent, there were four that wrote and spoke on religious liberty. what do you think about the extent of the dissent being for them and how much weight is to be given to those arguments compared to what justice kennedy had to say about it. >> what is interesting to me is the extent of the recognition that there really is a conflict between same-sex marriage or institutionalized same-sex marriage and religious liberty. you might wonder why is that. what a lot of people don't seem to recognize or remember is that all three of the major abrahamic religions and all other major world religions have for

millennia have taught that a man/woman union is not just an incidental feature of marriage but is central to marriage. and that, of course, is fundamentally different from some religious teachings about interracial marriage which, of course, was the issue in the loving versus virginia case.

i spent high school years in the south and never heard of any religion that viewed racial as a central defining feature of marriage. there were some people who thought that was preferable for sometimes religious reasons. i'm not aware that any small or large religious body has ever taught that racial is the central defining feature of marriage. that is fundamentally different from the situation that we have with respect to same-sex marriage. there are a few religious groups that have broken from that tradition. if you look at the number of people that claim to adhere to those religions it's a pretty minuscule percentage of the population of all believeers. and so there is this enormous conflict or at least enormous potential for conflict between same-sex marriage in general and the decision in obergefell and religious freedom. that may be one reason that

justice kennedy sort of went out of his way in numerous places in his opinion to try to suggest respect for the religious view point on this issue. in fact, i think of all of the opinions that have been written in the course of this litigation over the last couple of years that have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, justice kennedy's opinion is probably the most respectful of religion. so those of us who care about religious liberty can be grateful for that. and just for example, justice kennedy did not rule the

traditional marriage laws were based on animus or hostility or bigotry towards gays and lesbians. a number of people were urging the court to rule that way. he did not rule that traditional marriage laws are irrational as judge posener ruled for the seventh circuit not long ago. either of thosinge rulings would have been taken as a holding in opposition that same-sex marriage was manifestation of religion and other bigotry against gays and lesbian rather than defensive position. justice kennedy also implicitly rejected the u.s. justice department's position that sexual orientation is suspect class and that kind of ruling would have created a whole host

of religious liberty problems outside of the marriage context. so those of us who care about religious liberty can be grateful that justice kennedy's opinion dodged some big bullets, but the opinion unintentionally i think launched a number of grenades that are still in the air. as i thought about it i have identified really 12 concrete threats to religious liberty what i call the dirty dozen. and in the very short time that we have i'm not going to try to explain them in detail but let me list them and maybe we can

talk about them later. one is the issue that was raised at the oral argument about tax exempt status. you probably remember that exchange between justice aledo asking if we rule in favor of same-sex marriage doesn't that create a risk that religious organizations that believe in the traditional view of marriage would have their tax exemptions revoked. and after initially appearing like he was going to try to dismiss the question decided that he needed to be frank and honest and he said i can't deny that's going to bowe an issue. it's going to be an issue. and so that's certainly -- it is going to be an issue, i suspect. the fact that the obama administration has not done anything to walk back from what he said at the oral argument suggests to me there may be people within the obama administration who are actually planning to issue a regulation or some kind of decision that would, in fact, deny tax exemptions to some religious institutions that choose to adhere to traditional understanding of marriage. and my first six examples are in the area of what i call institutional religious freedom that is the ability of religious institutions to carry out their self defined religious missions.

the second one is an issue that justice scalia raised which is a church's authority to have marriages performed by its pastors recognized by the state, by civil government. that is the standard practice. any minister who marries people in the united states, that marriage is recognized not only for religious purposes but for legal purposes, as well. justice scalia raised the question if we rule that same-sex marriage is required by the constitution, isn't that going to set up a situation where churches that don't believe that a same-sex marriage can be religiously legitimate aren't they denied the ability

to marry people and have those marriages recognized by the state? aren't they going to be denied ability to marry anybody and have the marriages recognized by the state? that i think is likely to be a serious issue over time. chief justice roberts raised the issue of religious school housing policies. as you probably know most religious colleges in the country have policies that they have special housing for married students, but in order to use that married student housing you have to be married in accordance with the beliefs of that particular religious college. the chief justice raised the question aren't those policies going to be cast into doubt if we rule in favor of same-sex marriage. that is a another serious issue. and even scarier prospect from my standpoint is the licensing area which is very important in higher education, religious colleges, like every other college they depend on their ability to get accredited by a wide variety of accrediters in order for their students to be able to get federal funding and in order for their students to get jobs in a lot of professions and so if same-sex marriage is really the law of the land and really constitutionally required isn't there a risk that accrediting bodies are going to start pressuring religious colleges to recognize same-sex marriages for all purposes on

their campuses as a condition of accreditation? and we have seen a similar issue with regard to other religious organizations like catholic charities that in some circumstances need licenses to carry on their works, for example, licenses to place children for adoption and those sorts of things and catholic charities has been forced to withdraw from providing adoption services in some states as a result of licensing policies that told them in order to be licensed in our state to provide adoption services you have to place children -- you have to be willing to place children with same-sex couples on equal terms with opposite sex couples. to do that would have violated the religious beliefs of catholic charities so they chose to withdraw. that is going to become now a nationwide problem, not just a state by state problem.

and then more generally religious institutions constantly face the question of can we apply religious criteria in making employment decisions and deciding whom to hire and whom to promote and all of that? and, of course, for churches and religious colleges and other religious institutions that adhere to the traditional definition of marriage they want to be able to hire people who agree with them about core issues like marriage and the purpose of sexuality and all of those sorts of things. but the obergefell decision casts into doubt because there

is exemption in federal law but a lot of laws don't have similar religious exemptions so religious organizations in those states face a serious issue of to what extent they can continue to apply religious criteria. >> you list a whole lot of institutions that is mediating between government and civil society. i want to take the conversation to the broader culture, see if you can speak on how the institutions are addressed by the decision because kennedy does speak about the wider culture. these institutions are caught in the middle. what are your thoughts on the cultural question? >> the cultural question is probably most important question in the long run. the central thesis of my new book is that the promarriage movement is in the same situation culturally that pro life movement found itself in.

the work that needs to be done in is three steps, the three steps that we divvied up. the first step is correctly identifying this marriage ruling as judicial activism. we have never accepted row v wade as final word on constitution. for 42 years we have been bearing witness to that truth, the same thing needs to happen with this supreme court ruling. the second point, one of the first things that the pro life movement did was protect the rights of conscience for all american citizens to never have to pay for aboergz or perform an abortion if it violated their beliefs. in the same way the promarriage movement will need to protect our rights, not to be coerced by the government into violating our belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. step three is the harder more

difficult long term program of bearing witness to the truth about marriage in a legal culture. every year on january 22 hundreds of thousands of citizens come for the march for life. feminists for life, silent no more. women speak for themselves. students for life. the list of groups that sprung up in the wake of the decision has been remarkable. there has been a concerted cultural effort. what do we do on the marriage front? because the reason that the government was in the marriage business in the first place is

that marriage places a limit on the state. marriage in civil society limit the government's proper domain. the state has to recognize the truth about marriage and not free to redefine what marriage is. the same way the state has to recognize the truth about our natural right the state is not free to redefine who has a natural right to life. we have to remind citizens of the basic fundamental truths especially of political fillacy off which justice kennedy seems to ignore. justice kennedy, the driving part of his opinion is his philosophy of marriage. as carey mentioned that has no basis in the constitution but it didn't come out of thin air. justice kennedy's philosophy of marriage is the natural result the logical result of the past 50 years of the break down of the american family. it's the natural logical conclusion of the sexual revolution. it is only a culture that has had the spike in nonmarital child bearing, the fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the family and human sexuality that 50 years later would even contemplate redefining what marriage is and having five unelected judges redefine marriage for the entire country.

let me quote a law professor who went through kennedy's opinion and collected all of the words that he used to describe what marriage is. she says the supreme court rules instead that marriage is about adults defining and expressing their identity, adults desire for fulfillment, aspirations autonomy, self definition. the avoiding of loneliness and desire for companionship and understanding. nowhere is there any discussion about a child's right to a relationship with a mother and a father. the central defining feature of what got government in the marriage business in the first place to make sure that men and women commit to each other permanently and exclusively as husband and wife so children have a mom and a dad, totally ignored. never seriously engage any of

the arguments that litigators like gene were making, the attorney representing the state of utah and state of idaho. didn't engage the briefs that people like me filed, didn't engage it at all, just to say in one throw away paragraph that it is counter intuitive argument. it is true. and the best way to see this is think what happened after we redefine marriage of no fault divorce. under certain circumstances you could file for a divorce and common law tradition abuse abandonment and adultry, serious reasons for saying relationship is being terminated. with no fault divorce you could file for divorce for any reason or no reason. we saw divorce rate more than doubled because ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. what happens now?

take washington, d.c. the children who live in georgetown are by and large born into married families and raised into adulthood. other children are born to single mothers that have absent fathers. how do we as a culture rebuild a strong marriage culture insisting fathers are essential when anthony kennedy redefined marriage to say fathers are optional? that is the cultural message we have to respond to. in the same way that row v wade told a lie about a child that is a clump of cells. we now have to respond to a bad idea about what marriage is, what the right to procreation with respect to marriage entails. is it a right for adults to have children or a right for children to have moms and dads? what direction does this work

in? that's what i think the long term consequence is. we have to call the decision what it is and protect our rights to live in accordance with the truth and we have to commit ourselves to a long term program of rebuilding a truthful strong marriage culture. that won't be resolved in the next vote of congress. this will be a generational campaign, not that the next vote in congress or next election doesn't matter. they do. this is going to be something that our children and grandchildren will be responding to. >> so you mentioned a couple possible responses to the cultural issues. speaking more broadly and more immediately what are concrete

responses that you think can be done near to medium term to respond to this decision to make sure that marriage culture is restored, law is restored. >> i will give one that i think is bothand that is a commitment to nominating and confirming judges who have a principled view of the constitution and of the law and have demonstrated willingness to stand up for that view when it's challenging and when they are under fire. because this is something that while obviously this is rebuilding culture, the next president will likely have maybe three supreme court nominations. we saw that last week's decision was a very close decision. this is not the only decision. we saw a series of decisions leading to this. it was lawrence versus texas decision in 2003. this won't be the last one in that series.

it is important to have judges in the court that are going to be interpreting the constitution and make sure there is a president in place and senators in place who recognize the overarching importance of this issue. whoever is next in the supreme court will be there for decades and have generational impact has a life term and we need to make sure our politicians realize the stakes worth plopping down political capital on because all other issues they are doing. you look at doma. you have a great congress and signed by a president and then later have it undone by a supreme court. so whatever you do in all these other fields the courts ultimately have the final word on it in many ways or the final legal word in our system. >> i guess on the religious freedom front i would add a couple of things that could be done concretely. i think it is important to continue to press for laws that both the federal and the state

level that will protect the religious liberty of believers both individuals and institutions from the various obvious problems that the decision creates. one is the first amendment defense act which was proposed by senator lee and also proposed in the house. i think that law deserves our support because at least at the federal level it would deal with a number of the issues that we talked about today including tax exemption issue and government contracts and licensing and those sorts of things. a lot of the problems are going to arise at the state level. we have seen the challenges of getting state level religious freedom restoration acts passed. and those would be very helpful if they could get passed. i think at this point it may be more productive depending on the state to get a more narrowly

targeted law that just deals with the religious liberty fallout of same-sex marriage. so i can envision a whole lot of miniature first amendment defense acts getting passed in the states. and, of course, short of that many governors and some attorneys general actually have enough authority that they can mitigate some of the religious freedom problems arising from the decision by an executive order or memorandum to the people that report to them or what not. we saw governor jindal of louisiana do this with executive order that, for example, protects clerks and other people in louisiana from having to perform marriages that would conflict with their religion-based conscience. we saw the attorney general in texas issue a similar directive to the people who report to him

that we are going to protect the religious liberty of the people of texas wherever we can. i have a whole book full of ideas of what we can do at the cultural level. >> available on amazon right now. >> i get a nickel if you purchase it. let me mention three. all will draw parallels. the first is we should conduct rigorous social science into family struckturestructure. what we know is that a child who grows up without a father whether with a single mother, a cohabiting couple, divorced family, all of those family structures produce poorer outcomes for children. we know this beyond a shadow of a doubt for 40 years of consensus. why would it be being raised by two mothers would be the exception? why is it father absence matters

to the child being raised by cohabiting couple why doesn't it matter to the child being raised by two mothers? that is counter intuitive. i suggest we give the space to conduct rigorous investigations into family structures and let the data speak for themselves in the same way ultrasound science was best friend in pro life movement. the second is we need to find

better spokes people in the same way silent no more, women speak for themselves were some of the best spokespersons on the abortion debate i think some children raised by same-sex couples and gay and lesbian people will be some of our best advocates. both groups filed amicus briefs and neither group was acknowledged by justice kennedy. there were passionate letters written. they love their two moms and wish they would have had a father. their argument was that redefining marriage institutionalizes missing parents and it is not just a

result of human frailty but institutionalizes it. there was a brief filed, doug divorced his wife and came out of the closet as a gay man and realized he committed a great injustice. the children needed a mom and a dad. he reconciled with his wife. he makes an argument titled i'm gay and i'm against gay marriage. these are some of the voices i think will be helpful. the third is that science and philosophy are important but they are not the only thing that is important. here beauty and holiness and goodness motivate people more so than philosophers. i speak as someone with a phd in political philosophy. i think unless we live out the truth about marriage and bear witness about the truth about marriage our lives will never rebuild a marriage culture. it is important to rebuild the fact that gays and lesbians did not cause the break down of the family. redefining marriage will not do anything to strengthen the family but will likely make it family weaker. i would say the third thing is look what the pro life movement

did. it was setting up centers and project rachel, having all of these sisters for life, all of these outreached to women in crisis pregnancies. we need better marriage prep programs and better programs to help people both understand and live out marriage in their own lives. >> so we have time for questions. there will be microphones on either side. the event is being broadcast. i ask that you identify yourselves and the organization you may represent and keep your questions brief. please make it end with a question mark. >> hi. what about the possibility of the term limits for the supreme court? is that something that could happen? there are people that suggest it and it would certainly open up

the idea that we wouldn't have people in the position of power for a whole lifetime? >> that is certainly something raised before. i think it is really interesting idea. it would be challenging to implement it because both sides would be worried about who is president when term limits kick in. but i think if you could get a bipartisan consensus it is definitely something to consider. what would worry me about that and other proposals is how we can exert more limitations is i would worry about anything that emboldened the president or senators to say we have this back stop here. we have a check on this. we don't have to pay as much

attention to vetting candidates as well because we know they are only there for a certain amount of time. if there were a term limit it would probably be a long one but i think that never can minimize the importance of getting it right the first time and doing everything we can to make sure we have principled judges in place. it is certainly a thought, just not something that would require in the short term. just a quick lamenting that kennedy replaced boric. if children have a fundamental right to mother and father can you think of legal standing to create basis for suit that a child has a right to a mother and father? just thinking out of the box. >> i could see this. justice kennedy several times in his opinion says that the court's opinion is based on new insights into marriage. i could see a situation in which the court has a different composition, chances are the next president will have up to four seats to fill. three of the justices will be in their 80s. and if there are new insights into marriage and new insights into the rights of children that could be a possibility for the court to reconsider. i would think the outcome of that would be that we don't know any better than the people so let people decide policy for themselves.

if he continues doing social science research if they keep speaking out and that gets the attention of litigators and the attention of justices, this isn't the last word in the same way we have seen in the abortion context having ultrasound and new insights has allowed us to have better abortion law. i wouldn't accept this as the final word. >> i preface my question with a brief quote. be not deceived, god is not mocked. and it seems like the government of this world is sort of strengthened by even sowing chaos by confusion over meaning of words that look to regulate more. it's all kind of a lie. i wonder if three of the great lies of activism starting with

marriage and back and looking at abortion and maybe the nature of money when the supreme court began to imply that we need isn't it even the decisions about credit, ious fueling the whole power in washington that much of the country will want to take back. and the states really arguably can under section 110 disempower washington. and, you know, let truth reign in faith. >> essentially who decides the nature of truth, is that a good way to recapitulate. >> in our legal system i think it's best to focus on now that some of the practical things that we can do in the short term.

those are theoretical possibilities, i doubt any come to fruition. what we do know is that in the immediate future, you know, even looking down to the hope of saying this isn't the final word legally, that's a very long-term project. in the short-term there are real and immediate concerns about religious freedom we need to focus our energy on. what are the ways, whether it's through executive orders whether it's through legal legislative efforts, to try to bring that back now to allow the room for everyone to have a free understanding of where truth initiates. >> and on that i would just have -- you mentioned redefinition. we're seeing that the obama administration has redefined the

free exercise to worship. that has to be something not allowed to continue, not allowed to proceed. the founders wanted to exercise free exercise, freedom to live out your faith monday through sunday. not just sunday morning in the four walls of your chapel. we've seen it be reduced. this is why they sued -- why the owners of hobby bobby had to sue the government because they were saying, no, once you go into business you lose your right. they're arguing once you open up a center to care for elderly you lose your rights. this is why the little sisters of the poor are still in federal court suing the obama administration. they're free to pray however they want to in the chapel but if they want to take care of elderly people they have to pay for abortion causing drugs. that's how ridiculous things are. we can't allow the redefinition of religion and religious liberty. >> we can't allow the -- you can ride a treadmill in your church but that's the extent of your ability to freely exercise your religion. >> over there. >> hi, my name is jennifer kirk. i work for the heritage foundation. i know this is extreme. i'm just curious what your thoughts are in the concept of completely removing all government, federal, state local involvement in marriage, all tax benefits, all anything and allowing it to be purely a

religious institution as it was a millenia ago. >> i don't think it was ever purely a religious institution. i would question the premise of the question. we've seen political communities have always been recognizing and to a certain extent regulating the marital relationship because it's not purely a private or religious institution. it's not like baptism and bar mitzvah. those really are purely religious personal institutions. the state's in the marriage business because while your church can marry you, your church can't marry you or enforce alimony payments or child support payments or settle custody battles. you either have the opportunity of the state setting up an institution to do that at the

front end or growing government beyond any imagination by doing each and every one of these cases one by one. so, if you get the state out of the marriage business on the front end, you will simply explode the reach of the state on the back end when doing a case-by-case basis of regulating these disputes. much better to have the state recognize an institution and civil society marriage than have the state either redefine it or fail to acknowledge it. >> and let me add one point to that, if i may. there are a lot of people in this country who are not religious, so if you say marriage is only going to be a religious sacrament, we'll get the government out of it entirely, there will they be be no -- for a majority of the population, there will then be no institution that is encouraging young heterosexual couples to get married either before or even after they have kids. and so i think that would -- that would exacerbate the social problems that we've had with fatherlessness especially. if we said, well, we're -- if we said, now the government's just going to throw up its hands and

get out of the marriage business all together. >> so, we got a question from carolyn online mailed in association of mature american citizens. is constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman politically feasible or worth while for advocacy groups to pursue. >> it would be wonderful if it could get passed but it's -- >> the politics of it, i guess we'll see. but at this point, at least with the current makeup of judges that's what it would take to change things. >> or even amendment -- an amendment like the proposed ted cruz amendment, which would leave the decision to the states. that would also be a big improvement over the status quo. >> again, it's a long process getting constitutional amendment passed so it's a longer term strategy. >> back there. way at the back. >> i'm peggy with faith and action. when the decision came down, our phones were flooded with pastors in a panic. can you kind of really state

exactly what happens with pastors? they use the term, they're going to have to be forced to marry things as couples or where are they with this with their licenses to marriage through the church or whether you're a pastor that works for nonprofit and you perform marriages? >> i think the -- can i answer that? i think the first amendment quite clearly forces someone to marry a couple he or she doesn't want to marry. so, i've never really viewed that as a substantial risk. i think the other risk we talked about earlier are serious risks but i think that is probably not a serious risk. >> i'm a student at georgetown university. i'm wondering if you guys can speak to this pattern that we've seen with the courts redefining terms.

is there a way we can stop this from happening in the future in another argument? >> good luck. i think the way we can do that is get judges who have a strong commitment to be faithful to the constitution of the laws. we notice it in a case like this one, wow, this is a term they totally redefined. this is not a unique case because it's a common problem within the law that either someone will say, this is the standard i'm applying. i'm applying, for example, rational basis. then they basically define -- define it and use it in a different way than it's been defined in every court case previously. so, this is really a fundamental problem of judicial philosophy and judicial integrity that we need to address. we saw it again, the discussion of -- most important thing we

can do for a lot of issues in our culture that because this decision took place in the courts rather than in the public sphere, it's the kind of thing we got a give and take at the compromise, we have to protect religious freedom. it is still subject to interpretation by the same judges who are engaging in some of these questionable interpretive linguistic practices. so, i think we need to -- we can never underestimate the importance of judges. >> final question? >> ron cruz. there's already been a call for one activist for all chaplains who hold a traditional view of marriage to resign their commission because they're no longer able to support the constitution as defined by this supreme court but that would apply only to chaplains but to

all military officers who would hold a traditional view. is that a concern? that military officers should resign from the military if they hold a view of natural marriage? >> on one level the constitution doesn't actually say that. if the constitution actually said that all four dissenters would have to promptly resign. they've taken the same oath. i think that's not something -- i hope we don't see a massive exodus of our military leaders. >> it's to the constitution not the supreme court's interpretation of it. >> and that should be the final word. thank you very much, panelists. this conclusion our program. please join us for lunch in the hall afterwards. thank you

>> on the next "washington journal," adam gelb will join us to talk about federal and state sentencing guidelines and then stephen moore, a senior fellow at the heritage foundation. washington journal's life every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can contribute by phone and on facebook and twitter. >> wednesday political will

look at the legal victories for the president last week. >> next a discussion on civil rights for the lgbt community with the first openly gay commissioner for the equal employment opportunity commission. she spoke about the supreme court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. it is an hour and 35 minutes.

>> good evening, everyone. welcome to the university of the district of columbia and the civil and human rights seminar. tonight we have a special program to deal with the recent decision in united states supreme court considering marriage equality. i will turn it over to my co-professor to begin the introductions. i am john britton and together we teach the seminar on civil rights in the 21st century. >> thank you. i am wade henderson. i am the junior professor of public interest law here at the david a clark school of law at the district of columbia. i am also the president and ceo

of the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the nations leading civil and human rights coalition. over 200 local and national organizations working to build an america as good as its ideals. i would like to welcome you to our seminar on civil and human rights in the 21st century. without question, the supreme court's decision last friday, in the case of oberfeld versus hodges which finally recognized marriage for gay and lesbians is a fundamental constitutional right is one of the most important decisions of the century and one of the most important supreme court decisions in american civil and jurisprudence. they recognized the opportunity to love and build a family as

equals and ushered in a new era of acceptance and security. but of course there is still so much we must do as a nation to ensure the citizenship of americans that they have the same protections established already for the majority of americans including people of color, women, religious minorities and persons with his abilities. we asked a good friend of john and mine and the law school, our colleague, holly felt bloomed to be the featured -- feldbloom to be the featured lecturer. as well as the ongoing work our nation must do to secure the work in the united states. holly is a well distinguished

public servant who has spent her entire career working for civil and human rights. she is a graduate of harvard law school, and clerked for justice blackmun on the supreme court. she was confirmed in 2010 to serve as a u.s. commissioner of equal employment opportunity and is currently in her second term. she is the first openly lesbian person to serve. holly is also a professor of law at the law center. at the law center she founded the federal administration and law clinic the national disability rights network and the lounge center for mental health law. she also founded and codirected -- workplace possibility.

a place focused on finding common ground. as legislative council for the american civil liberties union from 1998 -- 1988-1991,, chai played a leading role in the groundbreaking disabilities act of 1990 and i had an opportunity to work with chai in my role as the president of the leadership conference as we worked to get the americans with disability act amendments and 2008 which overturned supreme court decisions that had reduced protections for certain people with disabilities. those who were originally intended to be covered by the ada. in addition chai helped to draft

the employment nondiscrimination act, i bill that would prohibit employment destroyed nation based on sexual orientation and gender identity. neither john nor i could think of a better person to be tonight's lecturer, so please join us in welcoming commissioner chai feldblum. [applause] ms. feldblum: -- >> she will give her remarks and then we will have questions and answers. anytime you have a question just write it down and when she finishes or shortly before they will come around and collect it to would you raise your hand? there is one here and one here.

just pass your car to him or her and they will prevent it -- presented to me and i will read your question. please begin. prof. britton: -- ms. feldblum: thank you so much. as you heard -- and as you now heard from this microphone -- ok . >> this is the live one. ms. feldblum: that is for c-span. ok. so, as you heard, i will talk about the decision that the supreme court handed down this friday. obergefell v. hodges. as you heard in that case, the court ruled that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry guaranteed by the federal constitution as the opposite sex couples.

by that ruling the court invalidated any state law that kept gay couples out of the civil institution of marriage. as many of you know, the opinion was written by justice kennedy joined by justices ginsburg, breyer sotomayor and dissent was written by justice roberts justice thomas and justice alito. there was one majority opinion and four defense -- dissents. i will talk about the opinion in two ways. i will talk about the legal reasoning that justice kennedy used and the social and moral message that was conveyed by the court -- court's opinion by not only the result but also the

legal reasoning that justice kennedy used. for those who have read the decision already i hope that this talk will provide you with additional insight. for those of you who have not read the opinion, i hope that this lecture will serve the same purpose as a book review often serves very at how many times -- serves. how many times have you heard -- i have not read the book but i have read the review? if you don't read the opinion hopefully this will serve as the book review. one way, perhaps the best way to understand the legal reasoning that the court used in the social message that it sent, is to compare the court's decision last friday in june 2015, that states may not deny same-sex couples access to the civil institution of marriage. two, the court's opinion and

loving versus virginia handed down in june, 1967, that a state could not criminalize the marriage between a black person and a white person. both of those decisions grounded their results in the 14th amendment of the constitution. both of those opinions said these laws violate the 14th amendment of the constitution, violate both the due process clause of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause. now we will see how they use those in slightly different ways. with the loving case leading with equal protection and adding a dose of due process. and obergefell leading with due process and adding a dose of equal protection. let's look at the words of the

14th amendment. no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law," or "nor deny any person the due process within equal protection of the law." first clause, note person shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law. it says nothing about what that right to liberty includes. there is no definition of liberty. for example, if someone -- it certainly doesn't say that someone has the fundamental right to raise children and a certain way. a fundamental right to use contraception or get an abortion, or a fundamental right to marry. it just says no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process.

the same thing with the equal protection clause. the equal protection clause does not say that while public schools may not segregate on the basis of race. public universities may not refuse to admit women. it just says no state shall deny a person the equal protection of the law. over time, judges have advanced two ways. giving this language meaning of interpreting these words. one way is to focus on the intent of those who drafted and ratified the 14th amendment. what did those people think right to liberty and meant? what did those people think a right to equal protection meant. this is called an originalist view of the constitution. the meeting should be primarily

if not solely determined on the original intent of those who drafted and ratified that portion of the constitution. an an alternative approach means they intentionally used general, open-ended terms so that over time the constitutional protections would encompass whatever the country then understood to be included in liberty or equal protection. this is the theory of the constitution as a living document, a living constitution. this is the view that justice kennedy used in his opinion. here is a quote i have heard already in a speech, tv. i'm going to quote it too.