captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> sreenivasan: all americans have the right to marry. a historic day at the supreme court: justices find equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples. good evening. i'm hari sreenivasan. judy woodruff is away. also ahead: terror strikes across three continents-- from the beaches of tunisia to the french countryside-- the continued threat of violent extremism. then... ♪ ♪ ...mourners pay respects in south carolina. president obama speaks at the funeral of a pastor and state senator killed in the charleston church shooting.

blinded by hatred the alleged killers does not see the grace surrounding reverend pinckney and that bin bible stood group. >> sreenivasan: and it's friday. mark shields and michael gerson are here to analyze a full week of news. those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf the engine that connects us. ♪ >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their

solutions to the worlds most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> sreenivasan: it will now be the law everywhere in the united states. the supreme court ruled five to four today that same-sex couples have the right to marry. 36 states and the district of columbia already recognize that right. under this decision, the remaining 14 states have to drop their bans on the practice-- an outce that sparked widely varying reactions outside the court.

>> today's ruling from the supreme court affirms what millions across this country already know to be true in our hearts. our love is equal. that the four words etched onto the front of supreme court equal justice under all apply to us too. >> well the supreme court has imposed same sex marriage on the nation and this decision is -- they have issued their decision but it does not end the conversation about what marriage is and why it matters for children for the future of our society. and we will be continuing to stand for marriage as the union of a man and a woman. and to stand for the freedom to speak and to act consistent with that understanding of marriage. >> sreenivasan: several religious organizations also criticized the decision, as did some republican presidential candidates. but at the white house, president obama said it's a day when justice "arrives like a thunderbolt." >> this decision affirms what millions of americans already believe in their hearts: when

all americans are treated as equal we are all more free. there's so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of america to every american but today we can say in no uncertain terms that we've made our union a little more perfect. >> sreenivasan: news of the decision set off celebrations by gay marriage advocates in a number of cities. and at least eight states began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. we'll explore the supreme court's decision in detail after the news summary. there's word police have killed an escaped murderer in northern new york state after a three week manhunt. it's widely reported that richard matt was shot dead near malone, not far from the canadian border. police are still pursuing david sweat, who escaped with matt. hundreds of officers have been searching for the pair. the hunt intensified in the last few days after they found items that the two men had left behind. terror attacks left a bloody toll around the world today. 37 people died when a gunman opened fire at a beach in tunisia, 27 more were killed in

a suicide bombing in kuwait and a lone attacker in france tried to blow up a gas plant. we'll have a full report on all of this later in the program. in syria, reports say islamic state gunmen killed at least 145 civilians in a new round of fighting. a syrian human rights group says the massacre followed an attack on the kurdish-held town of kobani, on the turkish border. fighting continued there as kurdish fighters surrounded the isis gunmen. al-shabaab militants in somalia have staged a new strike on african union troops. local officials say the militants exploded a car bomb and stormed a remote base, killing 25 soldiers. al-shabaab has vowed to step up attacks during the muslim holy month of ramadan, now under way. and back in this country, wall street failed to find much direction. the dow jones industrial average gained 56 points to close nearly 17,950, but the nasdaq fell 30 points and the s&p 500 lost less than a point. for the week, all three indexes were down a fraction. still to come on the newshour: a deeper look at today's historic

decision on marriage at the supreme court, terror attacks kill dozens on three continents mourning those killed in the charleston shooting, mark shields and michael gerson on the week's news and a new documentary looks back at a time when the federal government targeted gay employees. today's decision on marriage sent waves of reaction across the country. beginning with a large crowd gathered on the supreme court steps. political director lisa desjardins takes us there. >> reporter: this is the decision from a very personal view. the view of tom fulton and robert westover first hearing word, then getting confirmation that the supreme court had upheld their 15-year marriage. >> it's just very, very exciting.

>> we feel like it's just a surreal moment. it's hard to put it into words, i mean ten minutes ago we were second class citizens and now we're equal in the eyes of this nation, this entire nation. >> reporter: the crowd was largely supporters of same-sex marriage. but the decision was also personal for opponents standing on the steps. including these students on a catholic mission from nebraska. >> i'm against gay marriage, i am disappointed this happened. i believe marriage is between one man and one woman. i believe this will have a detrimental effect to society, and families and everything that we know. >> reporter: all those gathered- - no matter the side they took-- were looking to the future and what the ruling means for america. >> our lives have changed forever, and not only have our lives changed forever, but these young gay folks, gay, lesbian transgender people, they are all

gonna know what it's like to be full inclusive citizens. >> reporter: as same-sex supporters celebrate, some opponents are now looking away from the court toward a possible constitutional amendment to try and overrule today's decision. lisa desjardins, pbs newshour. >> sreenivasan: for more on the supreme court's landmark decision we're joined-- as always-- by marcia coyle of the "national law journal," who was in the courtroom today. how did we get to this decision. >> okay hari first i would like to say people who are list ink and really interested they should read the decision, they're easy to read up on the court's website and i think people will enjoy reading them. i look at justice kennedy's majority opinion in basically three parts. first he acknowledged that the tradition of marriage has been between a man and a woman for a millennia. but he said the nation's understanding of marriage has changed as new generations embrace the development of freedom. then he moved to marriage is a fundamental right of the constitution and he said there are basically four principles that show why it's a fundamental right and where they apply with

equal force to same sex couples. first, are he said inherent in the right to marry is the right to personal choice. decisions about marriage are among the most important, most intimate that an individual can make regardless of sexual orientation. the right to marriage also includes the right to intimate associations. back in 2003 the court struck down state anti-sodomy laws saying that gays and lesbians had a right to enjoy intimate associations. the right to marriage protects families and children. it gives them predictability, respectability, stability. hundreds of thousands of children, justice kennedy said are being raised by gay couples. and feel if their parents want marriage, that their family units are somehow less are than those of opposite sex couples. and finally he said marriage is the keystone to our social order. it comes with benefits and

obligations that these couples want. he moved then to the constitution. the right to marry, the fundamental right is protected by the liberty and equal protection guaranteed under the 14th amendment. state bans on same sex marriage treat gay couples unequally and the states have offered no petition just occasions for that unequal treatment. finally the constitution fundamental right to marry includes gay couples. >> sreenivasan: there's a section from the majority opinion. it says it would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. their hope is not to be condemned, to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. they asked for equal dignity in the eyes of the law, the constitution grants them that right. he also part of this he actually quoted sort of the decision from 12 years ago. >> yes, he did. in fact with justice kennedy in

particular, dignity and liberty are sort of essential to thinks jurorsjurorsi don'tjurisprudence. threw prior decisions he wrote and that's what he was relying on here, the dignity that marriage confers. >> sreenivasan: there's also four that didn't vote for this individually wrote. i want to read something from scalia. this practice from constitutional division from an unelected committee of nine always accompanied as it is today by extravagant praise of liberty robs people of the liberty of the independence the freedom to govern themselves. >> the sort of unifying scene through all four separate dissents is this was a decision that belongs in the democratic process not to be made by the courts. justice kennedy did address that. also the dissense also said the

majority opinion is cutting off a debate that should continue within the american public. justice kennedy responded first by saying this is not a new debate. the nation has been debating this for at least 40 years. there have been countless studies of gay couples' marriages. court cases, court decisions. and he also said, we're talking about a fundamental right and we don't leave to the electorate or to the democratic process the decisions about fundamental rights under the constitution. >> sreenivasan: very briefly, what was it like in the courtroom. >> no one really expected the decision today. the courts i can't call it a tradition but it has in past practice, the biggest decisions have come out on the final day which is going to be monday. but as soon as justice kennedy chief justice roberts announced justice kennedy would have the first opinion, we knew it was probably going to be same sex

marriage. it was an emotional moment. of the lawyers in the supreme court bar who were sitting there, had worked on these cases. they saw where justice kennedy was heading. there was tears after the decision was announced. there were hugs and handshakes. >> sreenivasan: thank you as always, marcia coyle. >> my pleasure, hari. and for a broader look at today's historic decision. and to jeffrey brown: >> brown: and joining me now to further explore the legal and cultural implications of the court's decision we are joined by sarah warbelow, legal director for the human rights campaign, an l.g.b.t. rights organization, austin nimocks, he is the senior counsel at the alliance defending freedom, a conservative legal group, bishop harry jackson who serves as senior pastor of hope christian church in beltsville, maryland. let me start with you sarah warbelow. a 5-4 vote bitterly contented.

how important in legal history is this. >> this is the end. guaranteeing same sex couples access to marriage in every corner of this country. it's a critical decision bringing rights, benefits and obligations that will strengthen families all over the nation. >> austin anymore nimocks same question to you. >> the supreme court historically never had the last word on anything in the history. the last word belongs to the people and the people are going to continue debate this question about marriage long after the supreme court's opinion. we knew before the fact before it came out because tens of millions of americans still believe deeply marriage is still one man and one woman. mothers and fathers, men and women both have the humility -- humanity matter. we're going to continue to debate this. we saw a constitutional amendment now introduced in congress. so this debate is not going away any time soon. >> brown: we're going to come

back to that. let me come back to you kevin johnson, it affects you personally. so give me a personal response. >> today's decision was very reflective on america and how progressive we've come as a nation. i feel that you know, are the supreme court made the right decision today. our parents have always been seen as second class citizens and they've always felt like second class citizens. and today's decisions it's like they are just like everybody else and they deserve the same rights and promise that a married couple gets to have. >> brown: immediate consequences for your family. >> immediate consequences no but i would like to see a wedding reception. >> brown: bishop jackion for you personally how do you see today's decision. >> i was disappointed 60 million ideas, concerns were disregard disregarded. my real concern is where does the line stop where you have an overcompensation and when

suppression begins to happen. meaning that there is bush back. back-- push back. right now we purnd wonder who is going to conduct them and how free will we be. in houston folks said we want to see the surmonths of pastors, preach a certain way we want to come after you. san antonio folks said there are people who won't get contracts because there's a church that preaches about traditional marriage, therefore we're not going to let you have a job or contract or an opportunity. so there can be following problems we need to face. >> brown: you're sitting next to kevin right now and what he said about his family. what's your response to him? >> well, i don't totally understand the parallelism, if you will, between the blacks or white's movement of the past. i think that gays have come a lot further. all civil rights issue were

salaries, opportunity to make money education. access to public facilities. there's a litany of five things that don't seem to be the kind of overt discrimination. if anything, in these days, okay, gays have a lot of rights. i'm looking at that from my perception brown brown. >> brown: kevin how do you respond. >> i have a good example of gay parents not having rights. my 16 year old brother, he wanted to go get his driver's permits. one of my dads took him to get his driver's permit and the other one who was his adopted father could not get off work. so my dad takes him to the dmv to get his license. they turn him away and say you're not the adoptive parent and you can't prove you're the awe dataive parent so he can't get his license. so my brother had to wait six weeks for my other dad who is

his adopted parent to get off work to take him to the dmv. and you know, it could have just been a simple process where my brother could have been immediately got i his driver's permit and he couldn't. >> not a life and death situation. i'm concerned if the trivia -- i do believe in human dignity and the importance of people. >> brown: let me bring our legal experts. what about chief justice roberts today. he essentially said go ahead and celebrate if you want but do not celebrate the constitution because the constitution was not involved in this decision. >> the constitution absolutely was involved in this decision. and the majority opinion made that clear. this is about equal treatment under the law. and there are very real harms that come from people being denied access to marriage. one of the things that has happened all over this country same sex couples who end up in the hospital and are unable to make medical decisions for their

partner, their spouse this critical every day moment that really are life and death. and individuals who are lgbt experience ploimght discrimination, housing discrimination, execution with education. it is a systematic problem for the entire community. >> brown: austin nimocks your argument is this should be left to lawyers. >> absolutely. if you have a problem with hospital visitation we don't have to redivine the entire institution of marriage for the entire country to resolve that problem. and we didn't see equal treatment here. what we saw was five lawyers taking a debate, an you earnest debate away from millions of americans. that's not equal treatment. in a democracy where we have heated ideas and important and impassioned ideas, we respect all the view point and we put them together and we revolve them democratically. we don't issue equal treatment by taking a debate away from the american people.

and a court making law and choosing sides which is exactly what happened today. the court made a new fundamental right. it chose sides, and it took this debate away from millions of americans who were involved in it. that's a sad day. >> brown: i want to go back to something that was said earlier. do you see this the law essentially catching up with the culture. >> yes. >> brown: what do you see at your college campus. what do you see around you. >> this day and age, this generation is a lot more accepting of people for who they are and what they are. i feel like the supreme court's decision was really looking i guess at the future. and you know, they were making their decision based on where we're moving and where we're going towards. i feel like a lot more people especially where i go to college they're a lot more open and a lot more of just accepting of other people and people aren't afraid to be themselves. i feel like the decision today was really sending a message.

>> brown: bishop johnson do you also see that cultural shift that in your case think should be resisted. what do you see happening in our country. >> african americans are still pretty much against the majority, against same sex marriage not because i think they are prejudiced against someone because of the fabric of how people dwell together in marriage or not, is waning. cohabitation, the primary way that people live together in america today, marriage is an institution is becoming more and more devalued. these kinds of decisions cause people to think in different ways about foundational in staw to goes. we need to get to family strength and how to get there from here is unclear. >> brown: you're arguing for family strength, right. >> my family has a lot of strength. my parents have been together for 24 years.

and i've been raised in that household, i'm 120 20 years old. i've been raised in that household for 20 years. it takes a special kind of person to go through what they've gone through as a couple. i can recall when i was ten years old going to my first -- and they were banning things. here we are 11 years later and i get to witness the supreme court ruling in favor of marriage equality. it's a powerful thing. >> brown: let me come back. we just have a minute to our legal experts. sarah warbelow you said you thought this was the end. is it really the end. are there not more fights to be had in workplace and other areas. >> marriage equality but there are many more issues for the lgbf community. employment, housing education even access to credit. we don't have clear consistent federal law that guarantees the protections that are necessary for people to live their daily

lives. the vast majority of the american public supports it. poll after poll shows 80% of americans supporting non-discrimination protection and every day that goes by more and more americans look for equity as wall. >> brown: how do you see the legal battle going from here. >> we're going to continue to debate marriage and talk about rights of connions conscious for people in america who still believe marriage is between one man and one woman and to believe an act upon those beliefs. kevin brought a great story today. there are kids who have been raised by sam sex couples who have a different story like heather who said she ached for the father she never knew. what's sad about today's decision is that the supreme court decided to go with one set of stories and discount other storesstories that do matter. we have things that were hurting and they needed to be heard and the supreme court chose we're not going to hear them anymore. >> brown: austin anymore uks hairy jack sean sayy warbelow

thank you so much. >> thank you for having us. >> sreenivasan: we return now to the deadly attacks in north africa, in the middle east and in france today. william brangham recounts a bloody day overseas. >> reporter: three attacks, three different continents, dozens dead. it was a day filled with terror- - from a beach in tunisia, to a mosque in kuwait to a factory in france. the killing in the tunisian resort of sousse was the country's worst terror toll ever. a gunman disguised as a tourist pulled an assault rifle and opened fire on sunbathers at a beachfront hotel. >> ( translated ): i came this morning to see my friend at his office. they told me to wait outside that i wasn't allowed to go in. i went outside and i found gunfire. he kept firing around the beach then came to the swimming pool. >> reporter: the dead included tunisians, britons, germans and belgians. the rampage ended when police killed the gunman. tunisia has managed a democratic

transition since the arab spring began here several years ago. but today its president said the attacks were a warning for his nation, one that's exported more extremist fighters to iraq and syria than any other country. >> ( translated ): we have repeatedly said that tunisia is in a war against terrorism. this war does not only concern the police or the army that paid the higher price and was often targeted, today we are reminded that the tunisian people as a whole are involved. >> reporter: meanwhile, in kuwait, a suicide bomber unleashed that country's first domestic terror attack in more than 20 years. it happened at one of the largest shiite mosques in kuwait city. witnesses said worshippers were standing shoulder to shoulder in group prayer, when the blast ripped through the mosque. >> ( translated ): i can see that all the muslims are dying by terrorism, they are not targeting a sect, but all the arab and muslim nations. we are not safe anymore, neither in our houses nor in the mosques, and we are calling upon

the islamic countries to fight terrorism. >> reporter: a branch of the islamic state claimed responsibility for this attack. and, in southeastern france the target was a u.s.-owned gas plant, less than a hundred miles from the swiss border. a man with ties to islamist radicals rammed a car into gas canisters, setting off an explosion that injured two people. investigators later found at the site the severed head of the man's employer, along with an flags with arabic inscriptions. french president francois hollande immediately left a summit in brussels, returned to paris and raised the threat level in the region to its highest point. >> ( translated ): we need to make sure that all verifications can be made, all checks can be carried out, in different sites, at stations at industrial sites. there can be no doubt about the ability of our country to protect itself and be vigilant. >> reporter: the suspect was arrested, along with his wife and one other person. in washington, state department spokesman john kirby said there's no indication the day's events were coordinated "on a tactical level," but he also said this: >> there is a common thread of terrorism throughout them,

clearly. and at the very least, regardless of who claims responsibility for them, certainly at the very least they're a representation of the continued threat of violent extremism. >> reporter: the three attacks came just days after islamic state militants urged followers to stage "calamities for nonbelievers" during the muslim holy month of ramadan. for more on these attacks, i'm joined by peter neumann. he's the founder and director of the international center for the study of radicalization and political violence. peter, i wonder if you would just give me your initial reaction to these three attacks. >> i think it's horrible, it's an indication of the islamic state inspiring terrorist attacks across the world. all of these three attracts were quite different in nature and in tactic. but they were appropriate for what the islamic state is trying to achieve in each of these regions.

so in europe we saw a so-called attack in tunisia where we know a lot of radicals have been, we saw coordinated attack. in kuwait we saw a tech sectarian attack indicating the islamic state is continuing to pursue a conflict in that part of the world. >> from what we know now three attacks within three hours, do you believe these are connected? >> they are connected in the sense that the islamic state is trying to create attacks across the world. i think it is very very unlikely that there were some guy who was coordinating these attacks and who was saying we do one in france and then within an hour we do one in tunisia. i think it's very unlikely and there's no evidence for that so far. i think a lot of them might have been thinking about the first year anniversary of the colorful

decoration which happened almost a year ago. we have a momentum towards those attacks and that might have happened. but in terms of coordination, there's no evidence for that so far. >> isis certainly and very recently called for more attacks like this to happen during ramadan. are we likely to expect should we be expecting more of these to be happening? >> i think we should. one has to be careful with that recent declaration. that recent deck calculation is specifically mentioned countries. those countries were saudis, lebanon. none of the countries where attacks happened today were actually mentioned in the call that was issued two or three days ago. that is another indicator that the islamic state at a central level didn't actually know about these attacks happening. i think there is a lot of momentum towards the attacks by the islamic state. they clearly want to hit western

targets because they believe that is part of its strategy of asymmetrical warfare. it believes that because it is being hit by americans and by western countries in its core territory, it has to hit back. and i think we will see more of that for sure. >> in the end, does it really matter if isis directed this attack or whether it was inspired by isis. i mean the effect is the same in the end, right? >> absolutely. and i think that's what we're dealing with. we're dealing with a very complicated complex movement. we are having in syria and iraq were having an entity like a state but it has followers across the world looking at that state as inspiration. and they are following the advice and the cause given by that movement without it fessly being coordinated. and it is difficult for us to get -- because we're dealing with something that is

simultaneous things at the same time. we have to expect more of these attacks in the future. >> i mean you're describing an enemy that is a many headed hedral. how should they go about doing this. >> i think we need different things in different places. in western europe, pression, we need a concerted effort that is not only that kind of terrorism that is also that prevention that is also deradicallization, intervention because clearly authorities in a lot of european countries cannot deal with the number of cases they have on their desks right now. in a country like tunisia which has been strongly affected by this, 3000 tunisiaians have gone to iraq as foreign fighters, they had open borders. they are not up to the job so the international community has

to come in with support capacity building. the european unions the americans have to help tunisiaians get up to the job so they can protekd their own people. regarding the islamic state it needs an aggressive paul at the of containment. boots on the ground that's exactly what the islamic state is asking for. they want america to send boots on the ground back to the future back to the iraqi occupation. what you need to do is to keep the islamic state keep losing and continue where it is and let it fall on its own promise. and i think that will take some sometime, it will take strategic patience, it will happy ventionally. >> all right, peter neumann, thank you very much for joining us. >> sreenivasan: now to charleston, south carolina, and the funeral today of clementa pinckney, the preacher/politician killed in last week's mass shooting.

people came from far and wide for the service, and the president delivered an impassioned eulogy. ♪ ♪ >> songs filled the air with some 6 thousand people filled the arena at the college of charleston. >> we come at this hour for the home boy celebration of our departed and beloved breath rend senator clenlt clenlt awe pickally. he was killed last week at the church. state senator gerald maloy served with pinckney and as his personal lawyer. >> senator pinckney's last act as a christian and as a senator was to open his doors to someone who he did not know. who he did not understand.

and who did not look like him. so in the days or weeks ahead, let us not close the doors senator pinckney gave his life for us to open. [applause] >> the funeral also brought a 2ke8 gaition of u.s. congressman to charleston along with nicky hail eerks reverend al sharpton, jesse jackson president and mrs. obama, plus vice president biden. the president delivered the main you'll praising pinckney's life while decrying racism and gun violence. >> preacher 13 pastor by 18, public surinvestment by 23. what a life commenced to take lift. what an example he set. what a model for his faith. and then to lose him at 41.

slain in his sanctuary. with eight wonderful members of his flock. a sacred place, this church. not just for blacks, not just for christians, but for every american who cares about the steady expansion of human rights and human dignity in this country. a foundation for liberty and justice for all. that's what the church meant. we do not know whether the killer of render reverend pinckney and eight others knew all of this history. but he surely sensed the meaning of his violent act. when asked he imagined how does that feel and recrimination violence and suspicion.

an act that he presumed would deepen the issues the traits back to our nation's original sin. oh, but god works in mysterious ways. [applause] god has different ideas. out of this terrible tragedy. god has visited grace upon us. for he has allowed us to see where we've been blind. for too long we've been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this

information. and acknowledging the pain and loss of others, even as we respect the traditions and ways of life that make up this beloved country, by making the moral choice to change, we express god's voice. ♪ amaze-ing grace ♪ how sweat the sound ♪ that faith of a wretch like me. >> he will be laid to rest. he will be would be 41 years old.

>> sreenivasan: and to the analysis of shields and gerson. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. first topic is going to be a total shocker. gay marriage we've talked a little bit, the country struggled with it for quite sometime. that's legal acceptions mean cultural acceptance. >> yes. i really do think this has been moving unlike roe v. wade which quite frankly 40 years later opinions are still frozen as it was moving toward a legislative solution, but always the ideal the democracy you can do it by popular vote and so forth. i don't think any question that the momentum behind support for same sex marriage for equity was just exponential. it went from 40% five and-a-half years ago of americans to 60% now, 70% under the age of 18 to

49. 70% of the women. it's just incredible. i think this just accelerates it and seals it. >> sreenivasan: we heard someone on the program say this conversation is not over. this could be long lasting. >> well, i think i agree with mark on this. this has moved unbelievably swiftly. seven years ago this summer in august, the current president of the united states said that he believed that marriage was a sacred union of a man and woman seven years ago. that viewpoint has now been declared illegal as a basis for law in all 50 states in seven years. i don't know of another precedent for that. that's pretty extraordinary. if you step back a little bit there are broad cultural reasons for this not just the court. but there's really a strategy of coming out in which more americans now know people who are gay. which i think has changed this debate in many ways, changed in

sexual mowers you see in hollywood and other places that have taken place over the last few decades. changing strategy in the courts, wanting to join a bourgeois institution, marriage and make a conservative argument to people like andrew sullivan and john lausch, they have arguments for stability and commitment. this was an argument that appeared to middle america and it is the argument that won in this court today. >> sreenivasan: it might has been appliance for freedom not heritage foundation. none of this happens in vacuum, we're in presidential cycle and as respected there are responses. the group for presidential candidates for 2016 also reacted to the position. hillary clinton and bernie sarntdz praised the ruling. for the republicans it's a very different story. story.bush thought it best left to state and called for liberties. others like scott walker called

for a new constitutional amendment to oppose it. in a state he says five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage. the only alternative left is to support an amendment to the u.s. condisootionconstitution to define for the states. marco rubio called it the new law of the land. while i disagree with this decision we live in a republic and must abide by the law. in the years ahead it is my hope each side will respect the dignity of the other. this week, beyond the wisdom of koonch, vision in its decisions did an enormous political favor in two ints to instances to republicans. it lets the republicans off the hook on this issue. this is a central plank of the republican platform support for marriage being 2w-7b between one man and one woman. this was republican solid creed.

and this position prevails and he makes that and his supporters and other republicans make it a litmus test issue in the nominating process of 2016 whoever the republican nominee who emerges from that will be hurt and damaged in the general election of 2016. to having had to satisfy the, this litmus test. i just think the same thing is true on healthcare which i certainly get to that they let the republicans, that they don't have to have on their hands that all of a sudden six or seven million americans are stripped of the healthcare. i don't think there's any question politically. >> sreenivasan: i agree if that litmus test is ploitd here there's a political detriment. i think marco rubio and jeb bush came out with the more sustainable decision saying they disagreed with the decision but it's the law of the land now we need to move on to row spec

liberty. a different set of issues in the liberty in the aftermath of this court decision. >> i think that's the sustainable decision the one the nominee is likely to have. but walker has taken a different way. it's analogous to the debate on abortion where people supported the constitutional amendment that was never going to happen. it became like a salute, like a meaningless gesture. i think that's true in this case as well. >> sreenivasan: sitting gears to the confederate flag. since we spoke last week really the topic was about the tragedy. throughout this week we see retailers making shifts, states taking this emblem off the flag. what does this moment mean for the country? >> for the country, first of all i was absolutely wrong a week ago when i thought judy asked about the flag and i did not see it emerging as an issue. i think two things happened. i think the example that we saw by the surviving members of the

family of those who were slaughtered at the emanuel church, the dignity, the forgiveness they demonstrated. we don't have forgiveness much in our society. we don't have it in washington d.c., we don't visit on wall street or faculty clubs or universities. forgiveness is a rare and valued but increasingly rare commodity. people showed i think they set aside almost a political earthquake by their demonstration. and the governor of south carolina i thought showed enormous courage and leadership. what we're seeing is a -- i mean alabama, kentucky mississippi, georgia. it's a remarkable remarkable response. unplanned and unorganized and spontaneous but totally general wuls and i think sparked by the families of the survivors. >> nicky didn't have this position a few years ago. is this an opportunity for the

republicans to change their minds. >> i think it could in many ways. i could not agree with mark moore. this is a group of people in charleston with families and a church that surrounded this group of people. that have raised the standards and ideals of everyone around them through their conduct. you had politicians in republican politicians in south carolina and other places. you can just see it in their mind they're saying you know, i'm a christian. this is a horrible symbol of exclusion and violence. i should have known better over the years. and nicky gave people an opening when she opened the door to do this, a lot of republicans walked through. they've been clearly uncomfortable for this for years. it had been an issue because of south carolina's position in the primary season. these candidates had to come through and say things they didn't want to say for the most part. that's what mccain eventually

said. but this gave i think an opportunity for republicans to get out from under a burden that they did not really want. >> sreenivasan: just off camera when we were talking also the moment we saw with obama singing amazing grace. we were both commenting on it we want to shout out to the audience too but there's still an opportunity for this president to do something that no one else can. >> michael know hills far better than i do. a person in times of tragedy and this is a time of national tragedy, is the comforter in truth. words and presidential words in a time like this whether it's the tragedy in ronald reagan or at oklahoma city with bill clinton. the president i thought stepped up and spoke to and for the nation today. often that involves faith. a brought kind of faith the injustice you see before your

eyes is not the final word. there's actually an order of justice and hope that lies upon and beyond the circumstances that you're seeing. and i think that's often what a president provides some vision that you know what you're seeing in the moment is not final. >> sreenivasan: not a small one, the affordable care act. could a new president attempt to dismantle this law or has this finally been settled? >> i think it has been settled. i think now the republicans again were given a political lifesaver by the court. now the democrats have to make it work. i mean it's a serious program with serious problems. low income people who are finally covered but not enough. mental income the higher income people into the exchanges. and just i think, but i don't

think anybody's going to run -- >> i don't think it's the structure here of obamacare but i think the president has succeeded in imbedding a series of expectations in our common life that the government is going to help prove these conditions or with coverage or insurance coverage. if republicans want to get rid of obamacare, they will now have to replace that system in some important way. and that is accomplishment of the president. you know he's forced his opponents that if they want to get rid of obamacare, they're going to need to do something else. >> hari, i just point, it's 22 years since bill clinton and hillary clinton introduced healthcare. we've been waiting for a republican plan since. it's nothing that the republicans have said this is our plan. >> they're not rallied around it. >> serious policy work. >> i'm not questioning that. but there's a difference between

concept and reality and i just hadn't seen. the fact is barack obama put a lot of democrats at risk possibly his own career to pass this. i don't see anything approaching that in the sense of unity on the other side. >> sreenivasan: is this something you see on the campaign trail. >> republicans believe that healthcare is still an advantage for them. this is a system where putting hands on is increasing but people aren't happy with their choice of services. republicans believe they still have good issue here. obamacare is still not wooldly popular in -- wildly popular in america but it is going to be difficult to replace this system. it's going to require a mandate electoral mandate, a republican president, republican house and senate and some serious policy work. that's a lot to come together. >> opposition is waning. public opposition to the obamacare affordable caring care act.

it's a growing acceptions. not medicare or social security but i think it's becoming, you have to replace it. >> sreenivasan: mark shields, michael gerson, thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> sreenivasan: while today the supreme court recognized the right of gay people to marry, the history of the federal government's treatment of gays and lesbians has not always been so favorable. in the new yahoo! documentary "uniquely nasty: the government's war on gays," reporter michael isikoff explores a dark chapter of america's past. it's striking today, to see how much the country's changed. >> even if there were only one communist in the state department even if there were only one communist in the state department there will still be one communist too many.

>> reporter: the 50's. americans are gripped with fear of communists. but there's also hysteria of what was portrayed as a an equally sin ter proar tail of gruft. >> sexuality was considered a horrible thing that in the decade if they discovered a gay person in government could blackmail them into state secrets. now there was never ever any evidence whatsoever that anybody was ever black mailed but that didn't matter. >> june 20th 1951. upon the seat of an allegation that a president or former employee of any branch of the united states government is a sex deyoutube, deviate. >> they come across a startling document for the first time. >> it's a program of 1951.

we've got j. edgar hoover on our side. we're seeing him provide his grand of sick obsessive focus on gay america. >> each supervisor will be held personally responsible to underline in green pencil the names of individuals who are alleged to be sex deviates. signed j. edgar hoover. >> he's instructing his people to become plants in the federal government to identify potential accused homosexuals. report back to him and then let them investigate. >> the plans were also instructed to delete the names of gays, in some cases anonymously to their employers. >> doug charles is the author of a new book hoover's war on gays. >> it was an effort to silence them, an effort to ruin your

lives. if you were exposed to gays in the 1950's or 1960's your life was over. >> sreenivasan: you can watch the entire documentary at yahoo.com. on the newshour online: a nasa spacecraft's long-awaited flyby of pluto is less than three weeks away, and scientists have only days left to maneuver it around potentially hazardous space debris. read how they're preparing for the july 14th event, on our home page. that's at pbs.org/newshour. and a reminder about some upcoming programs from our pbs colleagues. gwen ifill is preparing for "washington week," which airs later this evening. here's a preview: >> as the summation's tectonic plates seem to shift over same sex marriage healthcare housing discrimination and a revived debate over the confederate flag and racism we offer you a look back at a pivotal week and look forward to what comes next. tonight on washington week. hari. >> sreenivasan: tomorrow's edition of pbs newshour weekend looks at chronic, long-term

exposure to stress, known as "toxic stress" and the profound consequences it can have on the bodies and brains of young children. >> toxic stress can disrupt brain circuits that will create a weaker foundation for a lot of circuitry that's essential for learning, for memory for solving problems for following rules, for controlling impulses. >> anyone can experience toxic stress bias cough says long life effects on can cause it. they can live in neighborhoods with high rates of crime drug abuse and failing schools. >> toxic stress has to do with extent to which adults in a child's life is buffering their child from the stresses of the family changing the child's ability to cope and adapt building resell yens.

>> sreenivasan: that's tomorrow night on pbs newshour weekend. and an editors note before we go: in last night's news summary, during a report about a california assembly vote to require vaccinations for school children, we said, "the bill gained momentum after a measles outbreak that started at disneyland and killed more than 100 people." that is incorrect. more than 100 people were sickened in the measles outbreak, not killed. we regret the error. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm hari sreenivasan. have a great weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and friends of the newshour.

>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

. >> announc this is "nightly with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> weekend cliff hanger the big issue hanging over the market could come to a head this weekend as greece and its creditors resume talks tomorrow. >> historic ruling. the supreme court gives same-sex couples the right to marry. >> left in the does being. a big year for small caps but can the run continue in the second half? all that and more tonight for "nightly" this friday june 26. good evening, everybody. i'm bill griffeth in for tyler mathisen. and i'm sue herera. a major ruling from the supreme court. but we begin with greece where the clock is