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.

the nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own time. the generations that wrote and ratified the bill of rights of the 14th amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions,". -- that is why the provisions were written in an open ended way that would encompass new understandings of liberty and equality and it is precisely the responsibility of the supreme court of the united states to discern and applied these. over the past hundred years the supreme court opinions have been decided based on this approach to the constitution, as a living document not interpreted just by the original intent. despite the alarming reactions

from the dissent newsflash the obergefell is not the first time they have used this approach. even if one egg knowledge is interpretations of the 14th amendment must encompass new meanings and understandings, doesn't mean the 14th amendment prohibits a state from an acting a democratically elected law that prohibits persons of different races from getting married. the civil institution of marriage.

the supreme court has answered both of these questions. lets confirm how they got there. in the loving case the state of virginia criminalized the act of opposite race couples getting married. challenged under equal protection clause and due process. the state responded in terms of equal protection with two arguments. they said no equal protection problems because we are criminalizing and penalizing black and white people equally. if a black person marries a white person they go to jail. equal treatment. the court did not buy that argument. the law is using a racial classification, you're taking race into account, that brings the claws into play. the next argument, if you don't

buy the first one, there is no violation of the clause because the state has a rational reason for enacting this prohibition. the reason they gave was that the scientific evidence of the impact of interracial marriages was substantially in doubt and therefore was rational to prohibit such marriages. the court didn't buy that argument either. they pointed out when there is a distinction based on race the court is going to adapt a less deferential attitude to democratically enacted laws. the point of the constitution is to make sure there is the backstop to majority arian views. there has to be overriding purpose for the law that is not

simply a desire to treat one race more poorly. the states on justification for the law when you look in the record was to maintain white supremacy. that was the goal. they don't want mixing of the races. the court said that is not ok. that is a violation of equal protection to have that be your reason. law invalidated under equal protection. the court through in due process. it ruled virginia's law violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. it explained marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man fundamental to our existence and survival and therefore the court

said to deny this fundamental freedom, fundamental right to marry on unsupported of basis is the racial classifications embodied in the statues, classifications directly subversive of the principle of equality, is surely to deprive all the citizens of liberty without due process of law. it is in violation of the constitution and must be struck down as violation of due process. i believe there were important ramifications to the fact that the court in loving used equal protection law and rhetoric in terms of legal ramifications and the social message. when you use equal protection you're not just a fundamental right.

maybe they wanted to buy some items, military commissary store without being told the store doesn't serve blacks. there is no fundamental right to go shopping. some people may feel that. but there is no fundamental right to go shopping and be served in a store. there would be an equal right to be served. there is no legitimate overriding purpose to not serve someone. equal protection has a broader scope. by deciding the constitution on the equal protection ground the court sent a strong moral and social message because the message was that the ideology of white supremacy could not

justify unequal treatment and that was the message that came out really -- came a clearly. even though there were just two paragraphs in loving about due process, loving is largely remembered as a strong due process case setting forth the fundamental right to marry. it is the first key case. it will be curious to see whether the equal protection analysis of obergefell, i know that name is hard. whether the protection analysis of that case over time and set being some of the most important aspects of that case. so we get to that case. 48 years after the supreme court decides the loving case. it is faced with the question of

whether a state's democratically elected laws prohibiting same-sex couples the access to marriage is unconstitutional. the court decided yes. how did the court get there? the 14 amendment does not say anything about a person having a fundamental right to marry. but for years, the supreme court had ruled certain substantive rights were included in the word liberty. not just the liberty of not being put in prison. but other certain substantive rights. the court concluded these included the right to bring up one child as one wished

including if you wanted to learn german. you had a fundamental right to procreate, and a case in 1942 in validating a law that required sterilization of criminals. a fundamental right to marry explicated in the loving case. in the late 1960's and 1970's the fundamental right to use contraception or to have an abortion. in these cases the courts interpreted the due process clause as protecting certain fundamental rights under the rubric of liberty from infringement absent a strong justification. that was interpreted in the due process part. all of these cases, marriage contraception, abortion, they

were on the books when the supreme court in 1986 was faced with the question whether a state that criminalized sodomy between two consenting adults violated the liberty interests liberty rights of those individuals. many of us thought that it surely did based on the logic of the previous cases. in ballard's versus hardwick here is how justice wife started his analysis. explaining the relationship between those previous cases in the question before the court. "we think it evident that none of the rights in those cases there is any resemblance to the claims constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy.

no connection between family marriage, procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated. no connection between family, marriage or procreation, and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated. i was clerking on the first circuit in 1986 when this case was scheduled to come down. i was also committed to working as a law clerk to justice harry blackmun the next year. i called the court every day to find out whether the case had come down and how the justices had voted. there was an number you could call. there was a tape.

you could find out what cases were decided and who was in the majority and who was in the dissent. i was clearly very relieved when i got the tape recording saying that justice blackmun was at least in dissent. i was upset we lost the case but i thought thankfully i'm voting -- i'm clerking for justice blackmun and he wrote a strong dissent on behalf of gay people. two weeks after i started at the court i walked into the elevator and justice white was standing there. there i am in the elevator. my stomach clenched and i thought this man does not think there's any connection between

the lesbian relationship i have and other relationships of family. my eyes stung. they stung again 17 years later for a different reason when i was in the courtroom in 2003 hearing just six -- justice kennedy in lawrence versus texas overruling that case. here is what justice kennedy said. he jury on the language of cases that had found fundamental rights to use contraception or to have an abortion, and in those cases the court had defined liberty to include the right to make certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy.

liberty included the right to make certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy. he applied that to the personal sexual choices that gay people make. he stated those sexual choices were often one part of a personal bond between two persons that can be enduring. that is why he said the liberty protected by the constitution had 12 gay people to engage in such sexual activity without fear of criminal prosecution. part of why -- my eyes cried. partly was the relief of having the case overruled that had done such harm in the previous 17 years. it was because it is the first

time the countries highest court and described gay relationships in a respectful manner. in a way in which a similarity between the intimacy of gay relationships and straight relationships could be imagined. justice kennedy was also very clear that he was not saying gay relationships necessarily deserved the same legal recognition by the state as opposite sex relationships received. he said state sodomy laws seek to control a personal relationship that whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. without saying the word marriage

he made it clear this opinion did not say anything about the right of gay couples to acts of civil marriage. the opinion was holding a stick could not make a sexual gay relationship a crime. in 2003 justice can is seen -- justice kennedy was not faced with the decision to the civil institution of marriage. in 2013 in the 5-4 decision in windsor, he wrote for the court the only thing the court has to decide and the only thing the court did decide was whether a section of the federal laws violated the due process clause when required the federal government not to recognize civil marriages that had been validly entered into by same-sex couples in various states. the court decided it did violate the due process clause and that section of doma was invalidated.

in the cases that came to the supreme court this term the court did have to decide the ultimate question of whether the denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples violated the liberty interests of those individuals. as all those watching the supreme court news that meant that justice kennedy would have to answer that question for himself. justice kennedy describes his evolution on this question as follows. he read this on the bench. while lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability it does not follow that freedom stops there. outlaw to outcast may be a step forward but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty. justice kennedy sees this ruling

as a means of moving gay couples from being outcasts to being members of society. a lot of us as gay people have not viewed ourselves as outcasts for some time. we have been out and proud for a wild. there is no doubt that this decision stating in no uncertain terms that gay couples deserve the same access to civil marriage and straight couples is a statement unlike any other about the dignity and worth of gay people. the way justice kennedy got to this place was to apply everything he had seen -- said before and carried it to its logic will conclusion. he started with the cases that have dealt directly with the right to marry. these include primarily the 1967 loving versus virginia case as

well as a later case that invalidated a law that prohibited fathers behind on child support from getting married. and another one that invalidated regulations that limited the privilege of inmates to marry. justice kennedy has technology all of these cases had presumed a relationship involving opposite sex partners. as justice kennedy put it the court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part. to answer the question now whether the fourth rationale of those past cases should apply to same-sex couples, he said we need to explore and respect the basic reason why the right to marry has been long protected.

we have to figure out the reason why this is a fundamental right and based on those reasons see how that applies to gay couples. his first reason was to say there was a fundamental right to marry because the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. this has been a major thing for justice kennedy. liberty includes being able to make personal choices that are central to individual dignity and a tonic made. he says in the opinion 2 men or 2 women have the same right to make this profound choice as a man and a woman. justice kennedy could have stopped right there in terms of a due process analysis. there is a liberty interest in making this profound choice as to whether to get married, and a state may not restrict that on the basis of child support my

prison status, or sexual orientation. no overriding purpose restricting in that way. for those of you have been to a passover seder, one of the main songs that we sing is if god had just taken us out of egypt that would have been enough. he could have just done that due process violation but he didn't. he went on. part of why he went on withas this was a hard case for justice kennedy. he had evolved in his understanding and he wanted to explain why. he wanted to explain why the logic of cases applying the fundamental right to marry"

applied equally to gay couples. another reason he explained was that it helped safeguard children and families. marriage safeguards children and families in the state has an interest in that. justice kennedy for some time has been very affected by the research showing that 100,000 children are currently being raised by same-sex couples. research done by the willing's institute. as he explained in this opinion allowing those couples to marry will be incredibly important to those children. not just because of the material benefits they will get up because of the stigma it attaches to their families. those are the reasons why they are the fundamental right to marry. there are two more reasons.

first, the right to marry is fundamental because it is a unique relationship. it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to be committed individual. here is one of the things he says. marriage response to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. it offers the hope of companionship and understanding in assurance that we will both still live and there will be someone to care for the other. i don't know about you, but i know a lot of unmarried people who are not lonely. they have good friends that will actually be there to offer companionship and care. i believe that the for justice kennedy there is a fundamental right to marry not only because it is an important personal choice, but because

marriage itself is so important and it is so exalted. a lot of that rhetoric captures that. in addition, there is a fundamental right to marry because marriage is a keystone of our social order. that is why justice kennedy explained it was appropriate for a state to place the status of marriage at the center of the legal and social order. precisely because of what he called the precious status of marriage, excluding gay men and lesbians from that has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects, it demeans gays and lesbians to lock them out of a central institution of the nation's society.

justice kennedy then moves to equal protection. the right to marry is derived also from the amendment's guarantee of equal protection. he doesn't do it very rigorous. he talks about the two clauses being interlocking and reinforcing. clearly he knows he has to address the equal protection clause, he has to ground his conclusion in the equal protection clause as well. not only because it had been argued so much, but i think in order that the other four justices to assure they were not going to write concurrences, they negotiated this section with justice kennedy. what's interesting about that is

there is a lot of stuff that is interlocking. he does ultimately say it must be further acknowledge that the challenge laws a bridge central precepts of the quality. the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in assets unequal. nothing about how fundamental the ride is that they are being denied. what are the legal ramifications of justice kennedy mostly using the due process laws and what is the social implication of that? the legal arm of vacation justice kennedy thinks he was trying to achieve -- the legal

ramification justice kennedy was trying to achieve was in fact a cabinet. you don't have a fundamental right to go shopping. you don't have a fundamental right to get a job. to the extent that gay people are experiencing inequality in areas that are not a fundamental right, the way to get protection in those situations is either under the protection clause if it is a government actor or through statutes that federal congress passes or state legislatures pass requiring equality. obviously a statement that says it is a violation of the protection to treat gay people differently is a boost to the equal protection analysis with regard to other government actions and a boost in terms of equality under existing laws. for example the argument that

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is actually and always discrimination based on sex, that is an argument that is beginning to play out in the courts, that the commission on which i am on has engaged with and said it is sex discrimination. that is not dismissed by the court. it is not even address. it is a form of -- it violates the equal protection clause. justice roberts asked during oral argument, isn't this sex discrimination? differences based on the different sects. i actually think that the statement that there has been an equal protection violation with this law comic even not explicated, will end up having significant effects.

the legal arm of vacations could be narrow but i don't necessarily think they well. -- the legal ramifications could be narrow but i don't necessarily think they will. there was a particular social, moral message that he wanted the court's opinion to convey. the ruling is based not just on the fact that a state must treat a people the same as straight people instead all of the exalted language about marriage allows justice kennedy to make the point that i believe was clearly driving him throughout this whole analysis, gaming and lesbians do not deserve to be demeaned in society and that giving them access to civil marriage sends the message loud

and clear that they will not be. it was not die a enough to provide a few reasons, he wanted to provide all of them. he wanted to explain the exalted status even though the rhetoric understandably makes some people uncomfortable. to him, the overriding importance of marriage in our society is precisely why gay couples cannot be excluded from that civil institution. that is the exact opposite of what the court said in bowers where there was no connection that could be seen between homosexual activity and family. in this opinion, by using the fundamental right to marriage

the fundamental right to a civil institution that is exalted and val arrived in our society, that is how he made the point that there is a similarity, and there is a goodness, and a respect that goes to all of those relationships. thank you for your attention. i'm looking forward to your questions. [applause] >> would you now pass your written questions to the student monitor. do you want to go first? but for one vote. there would be no lgbt right to marry today. the three dissenters boiled down to two kind of issues. none of the dissenters say they are against same-sex marriage.

they simply say the wrong party in our government decided it. it should've been the legislature. the second argument is they try and pick apart the liberty interest. you stated there is no express right to liberty. tommy says liberty gets constrained from doing something. nothing is constraining gays the way that blacks were constrained in america to suppress them under segregation. how do you think kennedy doubt with those arguments? he did try to address them. ms. feldblum: they make a lot out of the 5-4 decision. there have been a lot of 5-4 decisions. citizens united. the bottom line is sometimes the

decisions are 6-3 and 5-4 7-2. that does not make a difference. this is the supreme court. these are the nine justices who have been given the responsibility of interpreting the constitution. of the dissent, chief justice roberts dissent is i think quite different than the other three. he does, this was not the right entity to decide this question. he did it for different reasons. the other dissent, they are refighting the question of whether the courts should put any substantive right into the word liberty. justice tomas' opinion is about liberty means you cannot be shut up in prison, that government

can't do something to you, and doesn't even mention the cases of an affirmative right to educate your child as you wish to use contraception. these are rights that necessarily interact with government. the reason people were criminalized in the contraception era, trying to use contraception or sell or prescribe contraception. that is a public right and access. they were just essentially refighting those fights and not really explaining why it should be different now for liberty interests or a same-sex couple versus any of the previous cases. justice roberts was somewhat different. he did not say it is completely inappropriate for the court. it is a general matter to deduce what is in the liberty interest.

he didn't argue that is in the fundamental right to marry and it is wrong to have found -- in 1923 in my and versus nebraska they did a list of fundamental rights even though the case was about the right to bring up your child as you wish. the right to marry had been listed. the first time it was used was in loving. he wasn't saying there is no fundamental right. what he said is it is beyond the authority of the supreme court to decide that same-sex couples have the same fundamental rights. why? why would it be a beyond the authority of the court? he did that by basically saying there is a thing called right to marry. that is one species. then there is something called right to gay marriage, to same-sex marriage and that is another species. under right to marry you have

things like you can't stop people of office it -- opposite races marrying, that is under the fundamental right to marry. you don't have the authority to create this entire new species of marriage called gay marriage. the gay community for years has been saying we don't want gay marriage. we want marriage. we just want access to the exact same civil institution. in a way justice roberts was just saying it is a different animal, it is a different species. he didn't have to engage with the reasons justice kennedy book forward as to why there was a fundamental right to marry. as far as he concerned the couples were asking for a fundamental right for gay marriage and that was somehow completely different.

>> let's do a follow-up. and talk about the geopolitics a little bit of this case. justice kennedy wanted to write the opinion. he was the senior justice on the winning side, have the right to determine who would write the decision, and he sought that himself. secondly, he wrote the opinion in such a way as to align the five justices who were with him to support his conclusions without themselves writing collateral opinions. i think he did that in part because even though it was a highly divided court he wanted as what unanimity as possible. when one looks at the groundbreaking cases of loving versus virginia, or brown versus

the board of education, they were unanimous decisions by the court. while that did not necessarily make a difference in the legal outcome, it did convey that the court was of one mind and looking at these issues. in the loving case the court overturned a racial integrity statute that was first adopted in 1924. anyone who looked around the country knows racial integrity had not been respected given the one drop rule that had affected how race in this country was viewed. it refers to the fact that if an individual has one drop of african blood in some states that person is automatically considered to be black. this notion of preserving racial integrity through some statute had long been rendered no. it did not exist.

the justices in brown, the justices in loving were trying to convey a sense that the court has changed its view on these important issues. that was not available to justice kennedy in terms of getting a unanimous view or anything close to that. he wanted to have unanimity among the five justices. he also incorporated some social science research into his analysis which is comparable to what the court did in brown using social science research as a basis for its decision in this case, he cited the impact of research showing that children raised in same-sex homes benefit from the parental relationship and that parental relationship would be strengthened if it was

also buttressed by the institution of marriage. he went out of his way i think to create as much of a climate showing that same-sex couples and marriage had all of the social benefits that flowed from heterosexual marriage. he went into that. the reason i raise it is because i suspect that given the nature of the divisions that exist within the court, and still exist in the country, there will be a backlash around the court's decision and you are already beginning to see that. the attorney general in texas has issued a statement today which said that all county clerks will not be required to issue marriage licenses to individuals who seek them if the clerk believes that his or her religious belief would be

impaired. the opposition is already beginning to set up what we have seen in the aftermath of the civil rights act and the brown decision, which is an emerging form of resistance. to the decision and putting in place a legal justification for that effort. the fear that i think justice kennedy had was to the extent that you had concurring opinions on justices, you would not have a cohesive color caret rationale -- caret rationale for the change he was proposing and i think you look to the future of how his decision would be handled in the body politic to emphasize some of the analysis he did. you agree with that? ms. feldblum: i definitely agree.

and let me make two observations on what you said. i think if there had been five votes for some other opinion some other legal analysis and a bid on fundamental right to marry without exulting marriage that would have been the case. i think it was very important for the other four justices, ginsburg, breyer, so to meyer kagan to come behind one opinion precisely because of the need to convey that to the country as a whole. some decisions have been unanimous that were important. some decisions have not been. and still have been absorbed and taken by society. in terms of the issue of a backlash, there is going to be solved. it would be odd if there wasn't.

we are still in the midst of this social change. i find it hard to believe that there will be such a backlash that in fact this right will be taken away in some way or that there will be a huge outrage against gay couples. justice roberts tried to say you have cut off the debate, you have hurt yourself in this. i thought about that when i looked on my twitter feed. i'm a big tweeter. if you use facebook, i post all this stuff. it had this link to all the companies that were putting out their brands. oh my goodness. everyone had their pain. this is in the mainstream already. this is not something where the backlash is going to include 60%

of the population. most of the population are so passed it. let me tell you, those corporations would not have been putting out that branding if they thought their going to lose a lot of money. let me say something else about the non-concurrences and the piece about marriage. i have this piece, a blog post that and hunter wrote on the nation's blog. she notes this idea, the final paragraph speaks the plaintiff not be condemned to live in loneliness. imagine what it felt like to join that language, how much sharper the edge for a single mom or bus driver. i do think that in justice kennedy's effort to say we

should no longer demean gay couples who want to get married there is this inadvertent effect on devaluing those who never get married or no longer marry. i don't think that was his intent. which is why i was trying to separate the two reasons that he could have used established due process violation and just stopped. that would have been enough. the two others were the ones that said how important, and the loneliness language the reason why this is the most important relationship one can enter into. i think it was worth it to them so long as there was something about equal protection and there. >> perhaps the next two questions reflect one of the

largest concerns about this decision with respect to religion in the church. one of the audience asked can nature it refused to marry due to religious beliefs, is the church protected, and similarly, why do pastors fear the intrusion into their day-to-day activity, and how do we respond that they are missing the point? ms. feldblum: the easy part of this question is of course churches are protected from retaining their beliefs that only opposite sex couples should get married. any priest, any rabbi, any religion officiant who is marrying someone in that religious tradition can say i am not going to marry you.

even more than that, right now there are many rabbis that refuse to marry an interfaith couple. they will not marry if you are a jew and a christian. they will not marry you. that is obviously discrimination on the basis of race, but they are given the right to do that. that is because the free and exercise clause of the constitution to practice religion is absolutely protective of those activities. anyone who talks about churches and rabbis and priests no there is not an issue there. but they are actually talking about, and what we have tried to get embodied into laws, though

there has been backlash to that, is an individual religious person who is running a restaurant and doesn't want that gay couple who just got married to come in and be celebrating and kiss each other. they do not want it. they do not want to serve that person. they don't want to bake the cake for the wedding, they don't want to do the photographs. their personal religious beliefs says i don't want to serve you. that has never been permitted in our country to overwrite someone else's civil rights. that is what happened in the civil rights act of 1964. barbecues, shops, it's against my religious beliefs to serve blacks and white together and the court said sorry. of course that is a religious belief.

a belief can be burdened by a state if it is necessary to carry out the state's purpose. the states purpose is to ensure someone can walk into a restaurant, and get served. >> we say in most instances where you have identified a business or photographer or a restaurant that refuses to serve, these individuals have licenses granted by the public to allow them to operate as businesses in the communities in which they serve. those licenses require you to serve the public interest as defined. you are not required to provide services to identify criminals if that person is fleeing law enforcement but as a general matter you are required to provide assistance to those who come to your shop if you have a

license granted from the state to provide that support. to make the argument that somehow your personal religious beliefs which may be violated trunk your responsibility to the public goes a step too far. the precedent in the wake of the 1964 civil rights act comes in to foresee her. julian made an excellent analysis. he was there for the passage of the 1964 civil rights act. he remembers the response to serving african-americans under the title two of the civil rights act of 1964 which deals with the issue of public accommodations and saying we expect you to carry out those responsibilities. strong enforcement from the outset from the federal government and in some instances the state cut off that line of

debate. you are seeing now an effort by some to use religious freedom which we acknowledge is a legitimate issue of concern. everyone is entitled to have their own personal religious beliefs. those religious believes cannot be used to trump newly established rights that the court has granted to same-sex couples anymore so then they could do on issues of race. it seems to me that while we are obviously talking about a variety of different things, the shared interest that we have in providing consistent responses on the part of quasipublic officials trumps those religious views if the individual seeks to operate in the public sphere. ms. feldblum: i want to add one other thing in terms of religious -- respecting

religious believe some practices. it is something that i personally feel strongly. i grew up as an orthodox jew prayed my father was an orthodox jewish rabbi, holocaust survivor. we lived in very much of a bubble of orthodox judaism. i went to orthodox jewish school , elementary school, high school. the government allows religious parents to pull their kids out of public school and teach them in their bubble. that was important. i personally left that bubble and became not religious and entered for the first year, i called this world that you operate in, the secular world. i would say in the secular world they do this. all these new and different things to me. i think it is the essence of who we are as a country, the essence

of protecting pluralism that we ensure religious communities get to exist in this country in whatever bubble that they want to exist. but, and justice kennedy said this, those religious beliefs cannot dictate the laws and policies for the rest of the country. they just can't. >> religious beliefs and the freedom to exercise one's civil rights are not in conflict, and nor should we perceive them to be in conflict. my concern is that some who believe themselves to be deeply and personally religious should not expect the state to support activity that would permit them to violate the rights of others when they are dealing in the realm of commerce. if in fact you are a religious

-- you are in officiant at a church or synagogue you can deny the right to marry to same-sex couples. if you are operating in the civil world in which you are attempting to regulate behavior in the marketplace, that is a step too far. i think the recognition of the business community that there are interests here that are fundamentally american, it seems to me is a good thing and we want to encourage that. one of the purposes is to show that there does not have to be a war of ideas between the religious and those who have more secular views. they are not in conflict. i do think there is some education that is needed and that is why this is a valuable exercise.

>> this is probably a longer question for you. how do you feel about mounting sexual orientation claims under title vii on a theory of gender stereotyping. what affect will obergefell have on title vii employment termination laws? ms. feldblum: i'm not actually sure the case itself will have significant impact. it will have -- that sentence i read, this is a violation of the protection will have some resonance. in terms of what the eeoc has done to date, our responsibility is to interpret the words of a statute that congress passed. that is our job. after congress passed the 1964 act that said you can't

discriminate based on sex, we got charges from a transgender person who was discriminated against ricci says it is about sex. we said no it is not. we got charges from gay people who said this is just great nation because of the person i'm involved with. we again said no it is not sex. after we said it the court started saying it also. they have these rationales. it is not sex discrimination because the employer discriminates against a man who is gay and against a woman who is lesbian. they are treating them equally. that is a poor argument then, it is clearly a poor argument now.

the other reason they said was that was in the intent of congress. the intent of congress was to protect men and women. that shifted when in 1989 the supreme court held that it doesn't matter if you treat some women find if you don't treat other women ok, because they are not matching up to your stereotype of what a woman should be like. evidence that they didn't want to be a partner because she was too masculine, told to wear more makeup, go to charm school whatever. that is sex discrimination. 10 years later, justice scalia dealing with sexual harassment saying yeah there is no protection in a same-sex situation, he said very clearly

we are governed by the words of this statute. congress feels differently and congress can change it. those two cases started to change what courts were doing. a few court started to save termination against transgender person was a form of sex discrimination because it was waste on gender -- based on gender stereotypes. we get cases in the federal sector applicants for federal jobs or federal employees can come to us if there are claims of discrimination. there was someone who was discriminated against, she wanted to bring a claim that she was discriminated against. in 2012 we at the commission ruled that discrimination against a transgender person is inherently based on gender

stereotypes. there is no other basis other than the stereotype someone designated at mail -- as mail at birth should stay that way. you are taking sex into account regardless of what other reason you are doing it. hired the person when they were a man and you will not hire her now because she is a woman. that is taking the sex into account. and then also, with 2011 through recently, we said we would take claims by lesbian gay, and transgendered people. it is a stereotype that men should be dating women and that women should be dating men. that is a gender

stereotype. most of the courts have said that gender stereotyping of what gay men is -- if a game and is too feminine and he is harassed, you can point to "you are girly " or "you walk like olda woman." it will not protect a lesbian like me. how many of you would think will my goodness, that must either the first lesbian commissioner of the eeoc. i violated gender stereotype. -- eeoc? i violate the gender stereotype. we are taking charges from gay

people and we have gotten hundreds -- i mean hundreds -- of charges. people have taken the charges. we have investigated and helped 223 people get relief. not one of those in a court. throughout this process you can get relief through mediation settlements. is that enough? no. of course it would be good to have the explicit federal law that says that you may not discriminate against sexual identity. in public accommodations, you may not discriminate. it is better because it is clear. you do not have to argue in court that you should agree with the eeoc.

it is clear and it is guaranteed. it is much more visible. a law like that passes and employers know that. the employers of the fortune 500 companies know that the eeoc will take the charges and that we consider lgbt people to be covered under federal law. they are taking that into account. most of the people are employed by the small businesses. the businesses with more than 15 employees. not businesses that no they should not be discriminating. the law would get visibility out there. >> here is one of the two last questions that comes back into the case. can you discuss now how the

impact of the statutes defining spouse in the context of divorce and adoption? >> one of the things that happened two years ago when the supreme court struck down the section of the defense of marriage act that says, if you are valid the married in your state, we at the federal level will not recognize you. the benefits that come through federal law -- everything from federal security and tax, we are not going to consider you. thgaat was struck down. anyone who got married in any state, one of the things the office of personnel management sent out as a ruling early on was if you lived in mississippi

and cannot get married in mississippi and you want to massachusetts and do gotten married -- you had gotten married, the federal government would view that marriage as valid. you could get the federal rights. lots of people in lots of states said -- but, you do not get a writes that mississippi gives. all you can do is get federal rights. it will not change the definition at all. there is not a gay spouse. there is a spouse. you get married and you will be a spouse and you will get the benefits and responsibilities or you can choose not to get married and then you are not a spouse. >> yeah. the answer raises another issue

that i think we should put on the table. as much as we may celebrate part of the decision by the court. it is landmark, by any standard. this is a decision that will forever change how we in the country view marriage and the issue of of same-sex marriage. it is groundbreaking. having said that it, the individuals who got married after the decision was rendered could go home and find out that they had been dismissed from their job with no potential consequence they could pursue. no protection under federal law. the job discrimination, in many states, even though they are wired to recognize the sanctity and the legality of your marriage.

>> you witnessed a very important moment in washington politics. >> drumroll, please. >> one of the things that a lot of the groups say is what you just said. right? you get married and you put the picture of your spouse on the desk and you get fired and have no recourse under federal law. i need the people to stop saying that. you do not have the recourse under the federal law. do not believe you have no recourse. we have the one 800 number. we have had people come through the doors. you know why they came through the doors? they are not even part of the community and have not heard.

they have not been giving money to organizations. you know how 80% of the country thinks it is illegal to discriminate? that 80% was walking in. it is not prayer -- fair to a person in mississippi or any state -- the states without explicit laws -- to say you have no recourse. eeoc takes complaints under existing law and i think we are right. i think we are right. i voted for the cases and the courts are beginning to agree with us. will there be a difference in opinion along the way? certainly. will the supreme court have to decide the case?

of course. i would have loved if the court had said it was a violation of the equal protection clause following up on justice roberts it is a form of discrimination and sex discrimination gets heightened scrutiny and it is a violation of sextus rumination. we would have jumped over everything and, clearly, it would have been including sexual orientation. that did not happen. instead, we are in a two track effort between congress and the supreme court to get the rights. >> here is the problem. here is the problem. assuming you are correct, the decisions handed down are based on part -- in part on statements controlling businesses in some instances to take a progressive

view and you may have some basis and custom on which to race the decisions. the argument cuts against congress being faced with a choice to which they need to respond. to the extent that you provide a safety valve for discrimination that we believe is a poor and -- is abhorrent, for individuals where they would not have no protection, you cut against the argument that congress must step in. the failure to do so heightens the disparity between individual citizens, who have rights to achieve certain benefits that were established. it goes naturally from that. if we look at the areas of

protection, we argue the individual should the protected in their job. we take the view that the characteristics that do not go to the performance of the job should not be considered. if you argue that race should not be a factor to determine whether an individual can perform a certain function or a job, that same argument should apply to sexual orientation and you wouldn't evaluate the standards. the concern i have. i mean -- i hear you. the eeoc is an important safety valve and i'm concerned of the discrimination, housing discrimination that would normally be prohibited under title eight. i'm concerned about violations of public accommodation.

i am seeking to make clear that the statute provides additional clarity and it is important to argue that, even if you can receive an offense without the statute, the benefits received are modest and limited in certain circumstances. >> so, i think this is important as a political moments and i absolutely -- it introduces new wants and complexity -- it introduces nuance and complexity. it is not what people necessarily like in this town. however, from my perspective it is the reality and let's be

strategic and smart about the reality. i do not think the way to think about the eeoc is as a safety valve. in the federal sector, we issue the opinion and that is it. we issue the opinion and they have to comply. we can try to cajole and get people to settle. notice how none of the companies want to be the one that was sued. they all settle all stuff they clearly make a decision. they know we have the authority to go to court and do not necessarily want to be the posterchild. we did settle with companies. one is still fighting. do not think of the eeoc as help you can get. think of it in terms of the role it played after the 1964 act

passed. so, it says you cannot discriminate based on sex. that means you cannot reduce the rights -- they say, if you hire a man who has school-aged children and you will not hire women with below school-aged children, that is discrimination. these are radical decisions. it was the eeoc that included pregnancy discrimination. it is the first line to interpret the law. it is ultimately up to the courts to decide whether or not they agree with us. part -- article one congress passes the law. article two, the executive

implements the law. article three, the courts decide what the law means. in the case of women with school-aged children and not -- we ultimately one of the supreme court. on primed and see -- we ultimately won at the supreme court. on pregnancy, we lost. the legislatures said they would pass a pregnancy act and, to me, it is now simply doing the job. the job is to enforce the laws congress passed. congress says you cannot discriminate based on sex. we say, if you discriminate against a transgendered person, that is because of sex. if you discriminate, we take

that case. in a minor way, it cuts against a new law and it introduces nuac nce and complexity. i helped to draft the original employment nondiscrimination act in 1993. the very first ill was comprehensive and it included housing, public accommodation and recipients of federal funds. we went act after the debacle of the "don't ask, and tell" situation -- "don't ask, don't tell" situation. to be honest, i think it provides for a member of congress is not sure. you tell them, you are not

breaking new ground. you are nailing it down. >> last question. i would make one observation, guys. the congress now is distinctly different from the congresses that responded to challenges at the time of the civil rights act of 1964 or in response to the loving decision -- lovett decision or imperial gold data -- empirical data. this is a congress divided along partisan lines and has an ideological divide. it takes positions that are diametrically against the national interest and are in favor of ideological interests.

this new wants and subtlety -- nuance and subtlety creates change that has to be overcame. i'm telling you as a point of fact that it took 15 years to pass a hate crimes law to protect gay and lesbian transgendered individuals. that should have been the easiest to pass and it took 15 years. the timeline with respect to marriage equality has been short in comparison to the changes that word she is in the courts and not the legislature. i would say that the legislature is not going to be the most hospitable environment to change. we will have to see how it plays out.

>> i ask you to put the supreme clerk had on. look at this from justice scalia. the court has nine men and women who studied at harvard and yield. eight of them grew up in the east. only one hails from in between. not a single southwestern orer. not a single evangelic it christian or a protestant of any denomination. despite the character of the body, they answer legal questions about the american

people ratifying the traditional definition of marriage. they are not voting on that basis. they say they are. to allow the policy question to be considered and resolved by a patrician and unrepresentative panel, there is no social transformation without representation. what do you think he was doing i deprecating the court? >> if you leave justice scalia, he goes on at length on this idea of not being representative of the people. the interesting thing, as he said, is that the majority

technologies -- the majority is applying their values. they are not doing that. they say their job is to interpret the constitution and the constitution has been interpreted to include fundamental right to marry. they, as justices, are obliged to hold -- uphold the constitution and this right to marry. if they decide that they are going to, essentially, adopt the beliefs of some portion of the country. you know what? it does not matter if it is 20% of the country or 80% of the country. if they are going to adopt those, as of close to -- as opposed to --

does that apply to gay couples who are seeking to marry? that is what they did. they put the law consistent with the supreme court three years. to me, those who are out of the mainstream, whether coming from the arenas or not, the other supreme court justices who dissented our parting -- are part of the group. they are ignoring the president -- precedent and superimposing values that say same-sex entering marriage is a different species of marriage as opposed to being entitled to a fundamental right. we have a supreme court to interpret the constitution and

to have the constitution govern our lives as a people. that is what the supreme court did for us to underscore the way obama did speaking at the church and trust in. is the united states of america that because a douche and provides for all of us. >> a perfect way to end what we hope was an interesting discussion for you and me. please join me in thanking her. >> chris christie announces his candidacy for president. then, obama and the brazilian

president. that is followed by a discussion on the impact of the supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage. later, a look at civil rights for the lgbt community. >> on washington journal gelb will discuss a new report on incarcerating criminals and changes. stephen moore from the heritage foundation will talk about the various tax plans offer high the contenders. -- by the contenders. you can contribute by phone and by facebook. >> politico will look at the signing of trade legislation and

same-sex marriage and health care. that is live on c-span b22. >> book tv will cover look festivals and nonfiction authors and books. we are live at the book fair, the flagship literary events. and, we're live from the capital. those are a few of the events this summer. >> tuesday, chris christie officially became the 14th republican candidate for 2016. next, in his announcement from new jersey. this is half of an hour.

governor christie: thank you. thank you, new jersey. thank you. everything started for me. everything started for me. the confidence, the education the friends, and the love i have always felt for and from this community.

when i decide to make the announcement, there was not any choice. i had to come home and livingston's home for me. [applause] i want to thank a dear friend of my mom and a wonderful representative of the town for welcoming us. i want to thank my friend. some of you may be confused. it may be that you thought she was being booed by her high school classmates. she was not. for reasons that i will not explain, hurt and it name was -- her nickname was "the juice." it is not a boo. thank you for being here. i'm here because this is where my family raised me.

you will hear a lot and have heard a lot about my mother and father. all of us know that good and for bad, where we come from is from our parents so you heard sheila and lynn talk about my mom today and i were because all those years ago mother father he came the first -- became the first of either of their families to leave the city and come here and make their home. my mom's not here but i feel her and my dad is here with me today and i am privileged to have him. [applause] they raised my brother and i and brought us here to livingston when i was four years old and two years old and my sister joined us a few years later. this is where we grew up. these are the fields we played

on. these are the playgrounds we played on. this is the school we built our friends with and came and learned with. up until i left to share a room with mary pat, i shared a room with todd the entire time. it was a smith transition. in my sister and todd are as big a part today is anybody else and they are both here and i love them both. thank you. everyone thinks i am the politician in the family. we did a coin flip when we got married. i called tales. i am the guy who ran but the politician just as good as me is the woman i met all those years

ago at the university of delaware, from a family of 10 people. people say why aren't you share -- shy in a crowd and i say youpeople say, why aren't you shy in a crowd? she is largely responsible for the four amazing people you see standing with her. ever since i have been governor i've been happy to use the veto at home. i'm glad they are here today for andrew sarah, patrick and bridget. i could not be prouder of my four children than i am of them.

i told you that my parents moved to lovington -- livingston to make this part of their. meant of their dream, of their version of the american dream. they both lost their fathers at a young age. they were raised by extraordinarily strong women under really difficult circumstances. my dad, one of the best students in his high school class was admitted to columbia university because his father passed away and he could not go. he went to work and was drafted into the army and came home. he went to work at the briars ice cream plant -- breyer's ice cream in new jersey. he went to school at night at

rutgers for six years while working at those jobs during the day. my mother, one of the proudest pictures she ever had was the when she called our first family picture. it was my mom and dad the day that he graduated from rutgers the first in either of their families to get a college degree and it was the first family picture because she was six months pregnant with me. the smiles on both their faces that day were indicative, not of what they had accomplished but what they suck coming ahead of them. their smiles were about the fact that they thought nothing was out of reach now. they built a family and with both of those strong women, they gave them $5,000 each to put a

down payment on a house in this town to give their children a chance to take the dream they had started to build and to make it even bigger and better. i not only think of my mom and dad i think of my two grandmother's. the women who raced children on their own. women who knew how to work hard and knew that that hard work would deliver something for their children. i know that both of them are watching down today and part of today is the fulfillment of their dream, too. i am thinking about both of them. [applause] gov. christie: one of the things my mother always used to say was if you work hard enough, you can be anything. she said god has given you so many gifts, if you just work hard enough, you can be anything. that story is proof, parents who came from nearly nothing, except for that hard work.

parents that brought little to their marriage except for their love for each other and hard work. that hard work not only produced a great life for me and my brother and sister, but think about how amazing this country is, that one generation removed from the guy who was working on the floor of the plant of the breyers ice cream plant, his son is the two-term governor of the state that he was born and raised in. [applause] gov. christie: that is not only what my parents have done for me, but it is what new jersey

has done for us. this place that represents the most ethnically diverse state in the country. the most densely populated state in the country. we are all different and we are all top of each other in places like this gym. [laughter] gov. christie: what has come from that is the absolute belief that not only can all of us achieve whatever dream you want to achieve because of the place where relive and the opportunities it gives us, but that we not only can do it together but we have to do it together. we have no choice but to work together, this country needs to work together again, not against each other. [applause] gov. christie: when i became governor six years ago, we had a state that was an economic calamity and $11 billion deficit

on a $29 billion budget, a state that had a taxes and fees rates raised a hundred 15 times in the eight years before became governor, a state that no longer believed that any one person could make a difference in the lives of the people of this state and so we rolled up our sleeves and went to work and balance this budget. we have refused to raise taxes on the people of this state for six years. [applause] gov. christie: we made the hard decisions that had to be made to improve our education system. we made the difficult decision to reform pensions and health benefits to continue that fight

today, we have stood together against each and every person, every cynic who said why are you wasting your time? the state is not governable, the last 8 years we proved not only can you govern the state, you can leave it to a better day and that is what we have done together. [applause] gov. christie: and now we face a country that is not angry. when i hear the media say our country is angry i know they are wrong. last year i want to 37 different states across this country in one year. i met people in every corner of america. they are not angry. americans are not angry. americans are filled with anxiety. they are filled with anxiety because they look to washington, d.c. and they see a government that not only doesn't work anymore it doesn't even talk to itself. it doesn't even pretend to work. we have a president in the oval office who ignores the congress and a congress that ignores the president. we need a government and washington, d.c. that remembers you went there to work for us,

not the other way around. [applause] [chanting] gov. christie: both parties have failed our country. both parties have stood in the corner and held their breath waiting get their way, oath have led us to believe that our country, that was built on compromise, that somehow compromises a dirty word. if washington and adams and jefferson had believed that was a dirty word we would still be under the crown of england. this dysfunction, this lack of leadership, has led to an economy that is weak and has not recovered the way it should. it has led to an educational system that is 27th in math and 24th in science. it has led us to weak leadership around the world, where our friends can no longer trust us and our adversaries the longer

fear us. this weakness and indecisiveness in the oval office has sent away way of anxiety drug country but i am here to say that anxiety can be swept away. we can find the decisiveness to lead america again. [applause] gov. christie: we just need to have the courage to choose. we just need to have the courage to stand up and say enough. we need to have the courage chart a new path for america. america knows that and knows where we need to go. it must start with this. we must tell each other the truth about the problems we have and the difficulty of the solutions but if we tell each other the truth, we recognize that truth and hard decisions today will lead to growth and opportunity tomorrow for every american in this country.

[applause] gov. christie: what are those truths? those truths are that we have to ignore knowledge government isn't working anymore for us. we have to say that out loud and acknowledged it is the fault of our bickering leaders and washington, d.c. who no longer listen to us and no longer know they are supposed be serving us. we need to acknowledge all of that anxiety and those failures are not the end. there the beginning. the beginning of what we can do together. what we need to decide is that we can make a difference.

that we can stand up and make a difference in this country. you see, that's why i love the job i have. that's why i love my job as governor because kids ask me all the time, the fourth-grader succumbed to the state house every week, they asked me one, what is your favorite color. always. second, they ask me what's the best part of your job? i always tell them that it's that i wake up every morning knowing that i have an opportunity to do something great. i don't always do something great everyday because i'm human but every morning i wake up with an opportunity to do something great. that's why this job is a great job and that's why the president of the united states is an even greater job for a greater number of people. [applause] i have spent the last 13 years of my life as u.s. attorney and governor of the state, fighting for fairness and justice and opportunity for the people of the state of new jersey. that fight has not made me more weary, it has made me stronger

and i am now ready to fight for the people of the united states of america. [applause] america is tired of handwringing and evasiveness and weakness in the oval office. we need strength and decision-making and authority back in the oval office and that is why today i am proud to announce my candidacy for the republican nomination for president of the united states of america. [applause] [cheering] gov. christie: and now, as

livingston and new jersey turns its gaze to the west best rest of americans, what do we see and what can we confront? we need a campaign of big ideas and hard troops and real opportunities -- hard truths and real opportunities for the american people. we need to fix the broken entitlement system, we have candidates who say we can't confront this because if we do we will be lying and stealing from the american people. let me fill everybody else in, the lying and stealing has already happened. the horse is out of the barn. you can only get back in by force. [applause] we need to get our economy growing again at 4% or greater

and the reason we do is because we have to make this once again the country my mother and father told me it was. as hard as you work, that is as high as you will rise. that is not the case anymore, we cannot honestly look at our children and say that to them because we have an economy that is weak and doesn't present them with the same opportunities that mary pat and i were presented in the mid-1980's only graduated from college. when we graduated, we didn't worry about getting a job, we worried up picking which job was the best for us. we didn't worry about whether we were going to be successful, we know we worked hard we would. this country and its leadership does the same thing to my children and yours and i am ready to give it to you. [applause]

gov. christie: we need a tax system that is simplified and will put cpas like my dad out of business. we need to get government off the back of our people and business regulation and encourage businesses to invest in america again, not overseas. invest in our country and our people. and in a world that is as dangerous and as frightening as anytime i've seen it and my lifetime. there is only one indispensable force for good in the world. it is a strong, unequivocal america that will lead the world and not be afraid to tell us we will be with you no matter what and until our adversaries there are limits to your conduct and

america will enforce the limits to that conduct. [applause] [chanting "usa"] gov. christie: here it comes after seven years, i heard the president of the united states say that the world respect america more because of his leadership. this convinces me it is the final confirmation that president obama lives in his own world, not in ours. after seven years of a week and feckless foreign policy run by barack obama, we better not turn it over to his second mate hillary clinton. [applause] gov. christie: in the end,

leadership matters. it matters for our country, and american leadership matters for the world. if we are going to lead, we have to stop worrying about being loved and start worrying about a respected again both at home and around the world. i am not running for president of the united states as a surrogate for the elected prom king of america. i am not looking to be the most popular guy who looks in your eyes every day and says what you want to hear and turn around and do something else. when i stand up on estates like this in front of all of you, there is one thing you will know for sure. i mean what i say and i say what i mean and that is what america needs right now. [applause] gov. christie: unlike some people who offer themselves for the presidency in 2016, you

won't have to wonder whether i can do it or not. in new jersey as governor, i have stood up against economic calamity and unprecedented natural disaster, we have brought ourselves together and pushed back that economic calamity and we are recovering from that natural disaster and that's because we have lead and work together to do it. as governor i have proven that you can stand up and fight the most powerful special interest this state has to have and stand up and stop them but at the same time reach across the aisle to our friends in the democratic party and say if you have a good idea, i'm willing to work with you because that's what our country needs. [applause] gov. christie: as governor i never wavered from telling you the truth as i see it and then acting to make sure that you know that it's the truth as i

believe it in my heart. as a candidate for president, i want to promise you a few things. first, a campaign without spin and without pandering or focus group tested answers. you get what i think whether you like it or not or whether it makes you cringe every once in a while. a campaign when i'm asked a question, i will give the answer to the question asked, not the answer my political consultants told me to get backstage. [applause] a campaign that, every day, will not worry about whether or not

it is popular but because it's right. what is right will fix america not what is popular. [applause] gov. christie: a campaign that believes in america that is as great as the hopes and dreams that we want everyone of our children to have. not a campaign that tears people down, but a campaign that rebuilds america as a place where you and i grew up and where we want our children to grow up in again and where we want free people around the world to grow up in an their countries as well. that's what america has a wasted for and that's what this campaign will stand for. all the signs say tell it like it is. we're going to tell it like it is today so that we can create greater opportunity for every

american tomorrow. the truth will set us free everybody. [applause] gov. christie: all the years all 52 years that i have spent in the state with our people have prepared me for this moment. we have no idea where and how this journey will end. but we know that it's only in this country, only in america, where someone like me could have the opportunity to seek the highest office the world has to offer. only in america could all of you believe that your voices and your efforts could make it different, to change a country as big and fast as powerful as

this one. only in america. only in america have we seen time after time after time, the truth of the words that one person can make a difference. the reason that's true is because it's the only thing that's ever made a difference in the history of the world. one person, reaching out to another to change their circumstance and to improve the lot of their children and grandchildren. i don't seek the presidency for any other reason than because i believe in my heart that i am ready to work with you to restore america to its rightful place in the world and to restore the american dream to each one of our children whether they live in livingston or newark or camden, patterson, or jersey city, no matter where they live across this country, we need to make sure that everyone of those children

believes that they have a president who not only speaks to them, but who hears them. who hears them and understands that their voices are what makes any american president great. if you give me the privilege to be your president, i will wake up every day, not only with my heart strong and my mind sharp but with my ears open and my arms open, to welcome the american people no matter what party, race, creed, color, to make sure that you know this is your country, as well. we will win this country and i love each and every one of you. thank you very much. [applause] ♪

>> wednesday, the department spokesman john kirby announced at 9:00 p.m. eastern 3000 pages of e-mails from secretary of state hillary clinton's account would be made public. here is a look at his remarks. >> first on former secretary clinton's e-mails, at about 9:00 state department will make publicly available online about 3000 additional pages of e-mails from her e-mail account. these e-mails were reviewed using the freedom of information act standard for release. the department acknowledges the

significant interest in these documents and we are releasing them for further demonstration of our commitment to transparency. the total page count meets a goal set by a court ruling whereby the apartment is to aspire -- i know that 9:00 is a fairly inconvenient time for many of you in the media and i apologize for the inconvenience that will cause but i can assure you and i want to make it clear from the outset, that the 9:00 release time is not deliberately intended to make your life harder. i know that will be the going assumption, but it is not the case. we worked very hard to try to reach this 7% goal, working right up to the deadline. i can tell you there were many cover stations to try to see if we could move that time to the left but it is a matter of

physics and time. there was no way to get it done earlier. let me make it very clear that i know it is not ideal for you not for us either. you will just have to bear with us as we keep the process going. >> coming up on c-span, a news conference with president obama and the brazilian president. then, a panel on the impact of the supreme court's same-sex marriage ruling followed by a discussion on the future of civil rights and the lgbt community. >> on the next "washington journal," adam gelb will join us to discuss a new report on the cost involved in incarcerating criminals and proposing changes on federal and state sentencing guidelines. then stephen moore on the various tax plans being offered by 2016 presidential contenders. "washington journal" is live

every morning at 7:00 a.m. et and you can contribute on facebook, e-mail or twitter. coming up wednesday, we are in london for question time with prime minister david cameron. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time and like presidents and first ladies a good read can be the perfect companion for summer journeys. what better book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in american history? "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women." a great summertime read. available from public affairs as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller.

>> the brazilian president is in washington this week for talks with president obama. the two presidents met in the morning in the oval office and then held a news conference. during the hour-long event issues included u.s.-brazil relations, the ongoing nuclear relations with iran and recent supreme court rulings. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states and the president of the republic of brazil.

pres. obama: please have a seat. good morning everybody, or good afternoon. it is a great pleasure to announce my partner and friend back to the white house. this is another opportunity for me to reciprocate some of the extraordinary hospitality that the people of brazil showed me and my family when we visited result. i want to go back. i didn't get a chance to experience carniavale. vice president biden got to go to the world cup -- not me. but, the eyes of the world will be on brazil again when it hosts the olympics next year and that will be another reminder of brazil's remarkable lives at

home and on the world stage. as president, i pursued a new era of engagement with latin america where the country's work together as equal partners based on mutual interest and mutual respect. as president i pursued a new era of engagement with latin america where countries were together as equal partners based on interest and mutual respect. him the united states is more deeply engaged in the region than we have been in decades. i believe the relationship between the united states and latin america is as good as it's ever been. we are focused on the future where we can accomplish together. a cornerstone of our engagement with the region as a strong partnership with brazil. i believe our two nations are natural partners in the america and around the world. largest democracies easily understand aspirations of citizens to them that freedom. dilma, the sacrifices you've made in your own life right testament to the d