strategies, chains, positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? open an account today and get a free 13-month e ibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0157 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. [ chainsaw buzzing ] humans. sometimes, life trips us up. sometimes, we trip ourselves up. and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at... to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage

and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? good morning. i'm thomas roberts. topping the agenda this hour, a watershed moment in united states supreme court history as the justices hear arguments over whether gay and lesbians have a right to marry, a right that cannot be trumped by the states. advocates have waited for years

to get their day in front of the supreme court. right outside the court, where the argument on prop 8's ban on same-sex marriage began in the last hour. audio recordings will be released this afternoon. demonstrations began early in the morning, and people for and against marriage equality mamped for the supreme court giving speeches right there on the steps. >> i feel a moral obligation to advocate more marriage equality. >> marriage equality for all. marriage equality for all. marriage equality for all. >> one woman, one man. children need a mother and father. >> only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children. >> today's case is formally known as hollingsworth versus

perry. the question is whether california violated the constitution when it passed proposition 8. it has wide reaching implications, it could potentially up-end marriage bans across the country. >> we call on this court today to simply do your job. there are no second class citizens in america, and there are no second class marriages in america. >> we believe in equality under the law, and we have faith in our country's judicial system. >> today i am hopeful. i am hopeful that we will finally feel the equality and inclusion that will come with the reversal of proposition 8. >> the decision facing the justices, simply put, is go big or go safe. justices may say the constitution allows gay and

lesbian couples access to the right to marry, or they could leave the ball in the states' court. our special guest at the top of the hour, jimmy lasalvia, co-director of go proud, wisconsin congressman mark pocan, the only openly gay married man serving in congress. brian, i want to start with you. the court's hearings are happening now as we speak. we've been seeing a big shift throughout the country in public opinion. the nbc/"the wall street journal" polling numbers show a big change in feelings about marriage equality since 2004. how might this public shift in sentiment influence the court's ruling? >> it's not even just the numbers, but the fact it's in all 50 states, red and blue states, rural communities and progressive communities, it's catholics, it's people everywhere. and i think that that's something the court looks at. they look at what america thinks, and america is ready for marriage equality. >> and the ruling will not come out until late june.

jimmy, if we look at the attorneys involved in this case, the ones who are arguing on the side, on one side, we have chuck cooper. on the other side, ted olson, along with boyes. both arguing prop 8 should be struck down just as another landmark ruling, loving versus virginia, which overturned a state ban on interracial marriage. 30 states have amendments banning marriage equality. what will those states be watching for in today's arguments? >> i think it's up to the supreme court justices. they'll decide whether everyone should be treateded equally under the law or not. i think that we've even seen, going back to public opinion, polling in states that have a ban on same-sex marriage, ohio 53%, a poll showed yesterday

they favor reversing their ban on same-sex marriage. we'll have a clearer lay of the land at the epd of the summer after the ruling is clear, but beyond that, we'll just assess at that point. >> jimmy, today also marking the ten-year anniversary of the landmark case on gay rights, lawrence v. texas. justice kennedy writing the majority opinion. he also seems to be pivotal in this case. "the washington post" quoting kennedy saying in a recent interview, "a democracy should not be known for its major decisions on what nine people from a narrowly elected background should say." i think that statement itself leaves legal scholars scratching their heads. if it comes down to picking between gay rights and states' rights, what do you think kennedy will do? >> i don't think i can predict what any individual justice will do, but i think it's worthy to note that very few cases in the history of the court have

affected so many americans in a major way. i think the justices are keenly aware of that. it's a major issue for every family in america. i think they're keenly aware of that. >> you make a great point about personal being political. we have chief justice john roberts pivotal in any high court case, but add to the drama that these two cases, his cousin will tend to two hearings. she's an openly gay lesbian. she has been quoted as saying she has faith in justice roberts. do you think he'll have an eye toward the legacy of his court, and do you think that loving v. virginia from 1967 over interracial marriage is going to have a legacy for this court today? >> i think the judges are always looking at their legacy. it just goes to show that personal connection people have can have such an impact.

we've moved the ball forward on marriage equality so far, and one of the things that keeps coming over and over again is i know someone who's gay or lesbian. i have a friend, a family member, a colleague. that has pushed our movement so far forward because it's very hard to deny rights to people you work with and live with and are family with every single day. >> gentlemen, i'm going to ask you to stand by and bring in congressm congressman. you're one of two openly gay members of congress in the state of wisconsin along with senator tammy baldwin. you and your partner married in canada, but that marriage is not recognized back here in the states, certainly not in the state where you reside. what does this fight mean for you personally and professionally as you walk the halls of congress? >> sure. anything that is about equal treatment is important to me, but it's especially important, obviously, because i'm living it. as someone who's been married for 6 1/2 years, we had to go to canada to get married, and even in the halls of congress, my

spouse doesn't have a spouse i.d. he has a designee i.d. he's a ziggee in the eyes of congress. i think we need to move to that full step of equality. it's so important what the courts are looking at because equal treatment under the law is exactly what the two cases we're going to be hearing about, and if we're going to have full equality in a citizen, we need it for congress. >> congressman, you signed for doma to be overturned. doma going to be heard tomorrow. and a number of lawmakers voiced their feelings for marriage equality. mark begich coming out for it. despite the fact that over 130 other republicans have signed an amicus brief doing so, the supreme court, if it signs prop 8, do you think that takes the

heat off this issue? >> this is an issue where the public is so far ahead of where elected leaders are. we saw 58% nationally. if you look at that 18 to 29 demographic, 89% support marriage equality. the country is so far ahead of elected leaders. the fact we have elected leaders talking about it is simply a statement they're hearing from constituents, they want equal treatment under the law, and my marriage is as valid as anyone else's marriage, and if we have that, we're really respecting the institution of marriage. i think that's the me message that resonates. and you're going to see more and more republicans recognizing that because certainly the public is. >> you make a great point about the millennials of being well ahead of other generations. sir, i do want to ask you. there are elected leaders in d.c. who have public secrets. basically, they're closets gay and lesbian leaders. how dangerous are they to the

equality process? >> i'm not so worried about who's dangerous, i'm worried about who wants to be inclusive. as i talk to members on both sides of the aisle, and they know me, i'm new, been there 12 weeks, they find out i'm happy married for six years, talk about my marriage, which is so much like their marriage. i want to find new allies that want to work towards equal treatment. i'm not going to think about the negative or going backwards. i want to move forward. best thing i can do is reach out to democrats and republicans who recognize, when they get a chance to know someone, my marriage isn't any different than theirs. in fact, we're together for 6 1/2 years. a lot of elected officials don't have that long of a record. it's something of value. it's good for society. and i think we're just trying to change the hearts and minds of those who really want to move towards full equality. i think there's a lot more people who eventually will be doing that. >> gentlemen, thank you so much. congressman mark pocan, brian silva, thank you so much for joining me. coming up next, the next big

question, the filibuster. the warning rand paul and mark cruz issued to fellow members of the senate. a dramatic rescue captured on camera. you'll see more of the frantic moments as police try to save a man trapped inside that burning truck. and the question of the kda. back to the supreme court, do you think the court will rule in favor of marriage equality? [ male announcer ] you know that guy that owns that aquarium store. he's got salt water tanks, fresh water tanks, brackish tanks, tanks you can't even fathom. and he eats the liquid gold of velveeta shells and cheese. liquid gold. eat like that guy you know.

liquid gold. the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf., and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf

are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger.

welcome back, everybody. there's a new effort by republicans to stopping gun control legislation. senator rand paul, ted cruz, and mike lee threatening a filibuster. saying, "we will oppose any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun on jansing and company, last

hour, one of the dads who lost his son in the newtown shooting reacted with my colleague chris jansing. >> i just can't believe that there's congressmen out there that can't recognize there's changes that need to be taken. i'm ashamed that congress just won't even give these children the courtesy of a vote on stronger gun measures and control. i'm not real proud of what i see in congress. >> we have "the washington post" columnist jonathan capehart. democratic strategist chris. and christie todd whitman, former republican governor of new jersey. governor whitman, let me start with you. as we hear about what harry reid is planning, to bring up this bill that would expand background chicks and crack down on gun trafficking, when they come back from vacation, rand paul's filibustering on drones

made him a hero. >> i think it's a mistake. i think they should allow a vote to come up. as it is, harry reid isn't going after assault weapons or trying to reduce the amount of wet bullets you can have in a cartridge. even here, they have pared back dramatically, i think, some of what needs to be done, but certainly here they're out of step. i believe they're truly out of step with the majority of the american people. even gun owners, meks of the nra. i'm a gun owner i ha. i have a license to hunt. i don't need an assault weapon. i certainly can pass a background check. is it going to stop everybody? no. but our murder laws don't stop all murders, but do we give up on those? is no. i don't see why we're going to stop a comprehensive background check for the american people. >> we have gun rights, political rights, the culture wars, they're back but this time with

a significant twist. the left is picking up the fights, and for the most part, enjoying being on the right side of public opinion. is momentum really on the side of the democrats and progressives who are pushing some of this fight from the far left? do democrats, moderate ones, have a risk of overplaying their hand. >> the public opinion, the momentum is in the public opinion. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and the folks they send to washington to represent them. >> you mean the people we elected? >> yes, exactly. that's why you have majorities favoring assault weapons ban, comprehensive immigration reform, marriage equality, yet on the hill only one republican senator in favor of same-sex marriage. we now have three democratic senators in favor since then. the idea that congress would voluntarily overturn the defense of marriage act, not going to happen. the wrangling over immigration that's happening on capitol hill right now, the tough

negotiations and discussions despite the overwhelming support of the american people to get something done, that's one of the issues. and then with gun control, the american people have said time and time again in public opinion polls they want something done, especially after the slaughter of 20 innocents in newtown, connecticut, and yet the assault weapons ban, it will probably come back as an amendment to a bill, but it will probably go down. and the idea that background checks as something that's remotely controversial is also, again, a representation of that disconnect. >> and it seems like that's a foundation for everybody to agree on that right there. chris, let me talk to you. as we turn back to marriage equality at the supreme court this week, what is your take from the perspective of strategy for the gop? do you think that most people on the right are hopeful that the supreme court will just get this albatross from around their neck? because republicans know that this is an issue that will kill them moving forward.

>> if you look at where public opinion polls were and where they are now, it's an enormous shift in public opinion. that's, i think, a worrisome sign of the republicans. jonathan's right. if you look at the politics of how the republicans in particular, and some democrats to be fair, but mostly republicans, with where they are on gay marriage and all these other issues, they're kind of living in the past, i think they want the supreme court to say the opinion, and we have to subscribe to what the supreme court says. it's kind of a cop-out. i don't think it's going to show what a progressive and democratic shift in the country. this is the problem that republicans have. they are still kind of trapped by this old guard, this old view of the world. until they figure this out and realize they've got to change, they're going to have some serious electoral problems at the national level, in particular, but even key battlegrounds. >> governor, you signed the brief along with 130

republicans, asking the supreme court to strike down the defense of marriage act. as chris brings up the old guard, we've got reince priebus defending the platform, saying there should be room for a difference of opinions on this. is the tide truly turning within the party if that's what the leadership feels, that they are distinctly opposed to it, how does that seem big tent? >> frankly, the party's always been in a different place. if you look at the rank and file, it's been the leadership out of step, i believe. what reince priebus talked about, it's really changing how you deliver the message, not the message. the whole point is you've got to change the message. being smarter about where you pick your places to fight your battles and what languages you use and who you send out to do it is not going to resonate with the american people. they're smarter than that. what worries me, though, is that i see some democrats over reading the republican problems saying, okay, we can go way to the left. and they're going to push so

hard on the other extreme that, again, we're going to see the american people doing what they've been doing but even in greater numbers, which is saying a pox on both your houses. i'm going to become a registered independent because i don't think what other party is doing. that's very dangerous for a democracy. we need an engaged two-party system where we can come together, look at things through the policy prism, not the political prism, and start solving problems for the american people. >> jonathan, yesterday, you wrote the argument of the triumph for the supreme court marriage equality makes me uncomfortable. >> i'm trying to keep expectations in check. when i read the coverage, i thought it seemed like people had already decided the supreme court was going to rule in favor of marriage equality, and that's not a 100% guarantee. >> jonathan capehart, thank you, sir. my thanks to former new jersey governor christie todd whitman. also, chris, it was an epic

power panel today. no understanding of why they would be calling my house. >> the national rifle association robocalling the grieving community of newtown. i'm going to speak with democratic candidate richard blumenthal about what some call a new low by the nra. and we continue to follow history being made today inside the hallowed halls of the supreme court. first, today's producer's pick comes from my executive producer. it's about a 17-year-old british kid who's now a mul multimillionaire. nick sold his popular reading up to yahoo for close to $30 million. learn more about this teen tech prodigy by heading to my facebook page. business entrepreneurs of the week. four years ago the founders of the company tongal reimagined

how commercials could be made. instead of hiring expensive ad agencies, companies could crowd source ideas and get input from creatives all over the world. today companies like ford, mcdonald's, and nasa are all using tongal. ♪ [ acoustic guitar: upbeat ] [ dog ] we found it together. on a walk, walk, walk. love to walk. yeah, we found that wonderful thing. and you smiled. and threw it. and i decided i would never, ever leave it anywhere. because that wonderful, bouncy, roll-around thing... had made you play. and that... had made you smile. [ announcer ] beneful. play. it's good for you.

about the walmart low price guarantee, backed by ad match. their ad price is ten for ten dollars, walmart's everyday low price is lower than their sale price. that's awesome! green bean casserole is a big easter dish in my house. really? yes, and right there... cream of mushroom soup. oh, here you go. that's what you put in it. yeah. there's your price, walmart will match that right at the register. nice! i did not know they did that. you looked through all those ads, walmart matched the prices. wow! that's the walmart low price guarantee backed by ad match! save time and money. bring in ads from your local stores and see for yourself. unfounded and unfair. that's how amanda knox's lawyer

is describing today's shocking decision from italy's highest political court, which is remanding the college student to be retried for the stabbing death of her former roommate. knox's attorney says not so fast. >> this must be viewed within the context of the italian system, and when it's sent back for this revision, her appearance is not legally required. so there's no issue as to that. it simply will proceed. it will be strenuously defended, and we fully expect she will be exonerated. her appearance is simply not required. >> this is catching a lot of people off-guard. nbc's claudio is live in rome. what's the decision in italy to retry this case, relitigate this? >> reporter: thomas, the decision came as a surprise for sure. both the public and the media were expecting the supreme court, the high court to upheld the acquittal that came for

amanda knox and rafael solecito. instead, another dramatic turn in a trial that gripped the country. what's going to happen next? the judge has 90 days to publish the motivation for his decision. after that, both the defense and the prosecutors will have time, about 45 days, to put forward their arguments so that we don't expect the retrial to start before the end of the year or possibly from the start of next year. now, amanda knox, as you said at the beginning, reacted with disappointment. she said the decision was painful. let me just read you a part of the statement that she issued with the family. "no matter what happens, my family and i will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confidence in the truth and with our heads held high in the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity." a disappointment among the knox family, but they haven't lost that fighting spirit. thomas? >> claudio lavanga reporting for us. claudio, thank you. a new round of threats by

north korea. it is threatening to attack american military bases on hawaii, guam, and on the mainland, and has placed its rocket and long range artillery units on highest alerts. today's threats are the latest in a series since the u.s. and south korea began joint military drills earlier this month. take a look at this incredible video showing police officers near cleveland, ohio, rescuing a driver whose truck caught on fire. thankfully, the driver was dragged to safety. what's truly remarkable is how the footage was captured. one of the police officers had a camera strapped to his vest. unless you are this guy, and that is 44-year-old pedro quezada, you can put your powerball dreams to rest. quezada, described as a hard working immigrant who lives in passaic, new jersey, is the projected winner for saturday's powerball jackpot worth $380 million. he says he intends to help his family. tiger woods is back on top. he reclaimed his number one ranking among the world's best golfers yesterday at the arnold palmer invitational.

yesterday marking the end fs his 29-month stretch as he struggled to reclaim the number one ranking. ♪ [ laughs ] whoo. ♪ oh. nice! great! [ laughs ] a shot like that calls for a postgame celebration. [ male announcer ] share what you love with who you love. kellogg's frosted flakes. they're gr-r-eat! no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight. ♪ ♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ]

♪

do deny spousal and familial benefits to millions of gay and lesbian americans is to undermine the principle of equal protection of the law and the basic family unit that many straight americans take for granted. as americans, we know that love knows no color. it knows no religion. we know that love most especially knows no gender. >> so that was the sound moments ago from outside the u.s. supreme court. we're looking at live images right now of a pro-equality rally that's taking and continuing on on the court steps. the arguments over proposition 8 are expected to wrap up any moment. we have unconfirmed reports that they have just wrapped up. as soon as they do, we hope to

get a live report from our justice correspondent pete williams, who's been inside that courtroom. basically, across the wires we've been learning it was mainly chief justice john roberts talking to ted olson, who was trying to have proposition 8, in working with david boies, struck down, saying the meaning of marriage in same-sex couples, chief justice roberts was asking, are they trying to redefine the word marriage? pete williams is inside the courtroom. he joins us now. let's talk about what came up, and how heavily was the 1967 case, loving versus virginia, referenced? >> reporter: let me begin at the beginning. i obviously haven't heard any of what you said before. i just got out of the argument. let me give you what i think the bottom line is. number one, it's quite obvious the u.s. supreme court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling about gay rights. no member of the court seemed to be very interested in that. secondly, the supreme court, both liberals and conservatives,

seems to be worried about writing a decision that will apply to any state outside california. now, the proponents for the four gay couples that brought this case are really urging the supreme court to say that marriage is such a fundamental right that no state can constitutionally deny same-sex couples the right to marry. there seems to be very little eagerness for any members of the court to embrace that broad of a ruling. so then you go to the fallback, which is argued by the obama administration. they're basically saying any state like california that gives all of the rights of marriage -- the right to adopt, the rights, all the benefits -- except for the word marriage. their argument is that any state that does that is unconstitutionally discriminating by just holding back the word marriage, that there's no principled reason for it if you're going to say that same-sex couples can do everything else that traditional couples can do.

very few members of the court seem to be willing to embrace that either. they seem to be bothered by the idea that, if they did that, they're in essence punishing the states that are willing to grant all of those rights and giving the other states that don't grant any rights to same-sex couples a free ride. so that leaves the only other option, which is to either uphold prop 8 or to limit this ruling somehow, applying only to california. that's where i think the reaction is. i think several members of the court seem to be struggling to find a way to limit this case only to california, and one way to do that might be simply to say that the proposition 8 proponents had no legal power to bring this in the first place. i think frankly, for the advocates of same-sex marriage, my guess is that's the best they can hope for. one other thing i would say here, thomas, is the justice we watched very closely was anthony kennedy. he seemed to say, on the one

hand, that he's somewhat sympathetic to the arguments made by the two gay couples here. he said that he's bothered by the effect of prop 8 on the children, the 37,000 children of same-sex couples in california whose parents cannot call themselves married. he made that point early on in the argument, but then he also said that he's worried about a decision that would apply to the entire country, and he also said he thought the basis on which the lower courts rejected prop 8 was too narrow. you put that all together, thomas, and that's why i say i don't think the supreme court is prepared -- and, again, i have to just pause here for a second and give the caveat that this is right off the top of the notebook. the justices have a long way to go before they write their decision. it's always very risky to make an assessment based solely on oral argument. having said that, i think the most that the same-sex couples'

advocates can hope for is a decision that basically finds some way to strike prop 8 down without having any effect beyond california. >> pete, as you talk about justice kennedy asking the questions of imminent legal injury facing those thousands of children that you referenced that are growing up in same-sex households for their parents, they say that they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. this is according to reports that are in front of me right now. however, also, kennedy said this would be taking the supreme court into uncharted waters. but olson responded the court did just that when it threw out bans. >> reporter: let's be clear what justice kennedy means by uncharted waters. he means taking it beyond california. applying the ruling of same-sex marriage to other states n contexts that are very different from california. that's why i say i think that the justices are very nervous about it, any kind of decision that would apply beyond the

state. >> didn't the justices do that in the unanimous decision with loving versus virginia, where they were able to impose that beyond the state of virginia to federalize it? >> reporter: right. and that gets to the other point here. several of the justices said that they were concerned about, in essence, rushing things. this is the argument -- this is one of the main arguments made by the proponents of prop 8. they basically call proposition 8 hitting the pause button and allowing the political process to play out. justice samuel alito said today that he's concerned about recognizing a right to same-sex marriage that he described as newer than the internet and cell phones, and he described that the political process should be allowed to take its time. some of the liberal justices did mention, as you did, that the court made a decision about interracial marriage relatively quickly, but the conservatives said, no, actually that played out over many years.

so that, i think frankly, that argument cut both ways. >> was loving versus virginia relied on heavily in the arguments today, referencing it? >> reporter: no. >> when we talk about the kennedy bringing up the uncharted waters territory, that reference there, do you think that that provides potential cover as we look at states' rights issues over the equality of gay rights in general? >> reporter: that gets into tomorrow's case when you're talking about states' rights. frankly, states rights was not an issue today. >> pete williams outside the united states supreme court there. thanks for getting out so quickly. i appreciate it. coming up in a few moments, i'll have a chance to speak with athlete ally brendan ayanbadejo of the baltimore ravens, super bowl champions. also talking about the changing of hearts and minds in the country in churches and in football stadiums across the country, professional sports in general. we'll talk about that with them here in a sec. our other big story today is

talking about lawmakers in connecticut considering gun control measures, including banning assault weapons, and high capacity ammunition magazines. it's growing with some outrage after the nra released new robocalls to residents of the newtown, connecticut community about the measures. take a listen to yourself of these calls. >> despite an outcry of public opposition, anti-gun legislators are aggressively pursuing numerous proposal that's designed to disarm and punish law abiding gun owners and sportsmen. >> joining me is richard blumenthal, democrat from connecticut, calling on the nra to cease and desist with these calls. you and your colleague chris murphy, also a senator from connecticut, saying, with the robocalls, the nra has stooped to a new low in how best to benefit our families and communities. making the calls opens a wound that these families are still trying hard to heal. what surprised you the most about knowing these robocalls

were going on and hearing them for yourself? >> i was absolutely astonished, as well as outraged, that the nra is calling families in newtown, connecticut, impacted by this horrific crash. and reopening wounds and feelings of grief and hurt that remain very real for these families. it had to be calculated they had the technology to avoid calling certain areas, and even if they had that technology, they chose to go ahead and do it. so i think the nra not only should cease and desist the phone calls, but also it owes newtown an aapology, and i thin that everyone is entitled to an opinion, everyone is entitled to political action, but to make the calls really is beyond the pale. >> as we have this new poll showing a drop around the nation in supporting stronger gun laws,

it's a ten-point drop since december. they've been labeling it the newtown effect. what do you make in the drop for public sentiment, and do you think the appetite is starting to wane for quick action based on what happened in newtown, for better gun control in this country? >> the majority of americans have favored and continue to favor measure to protect children and all citizens against gun violence. i think that majority is still there. it's been largely a silent ma rt jort, and the challenge ahead in these next couple of weeks is to make sure the silent majority becomes more vocal. i would not put a lot of stock in poll numbers one way or the other because i think the americans want something done. that's what i've heard again and again and again in newtown and connecticut across the country, please do something about gun violence. stopping illegal trafficking, for example, in stolen weapons that have caused more than 2,500 deaths since newtown, strengthening school safety

measures, and imposing a requirement that there be background checks, criminal background checks, so that people who are convicted felons or fugitives or drug addicts or the seriously mentally ill or domestic abusers, i think those kinds of measures have attracted a real consensus. and the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines is very much alive, certainly in the states, but no state can do it alone. >> thank you very much, senator. we want to jump back to the supreme court because we want to show you the plaintiffs now filing out after the oral arguments have wrapped up there in the case being heard today, hollingsworth versus perry, inside the supreme court. you can see all the plaintiffs there. you can see ted olson, david boies there on the right-hand side of your screen, and they're about to make comments concerning what took place today inside the court. the schedule for tomorrow, the supreme court is going to be taking up the case against doma, the defense of marriage act. let's go ahead and listen in to the reaction of what took place.

again, these oral arguments leading up over 90 minutes, a ruling by the supreme court not expected until late june. >> those of you in court today showed why i like it better when this guy is on my side as opposed to against. we had a very thoughtful hearing. we appreciate the court's attention to this issue. we appreciate the preparation of all the justices. there were a number of thoughtful and tough questions on both sides. it's now in the hands of the supreme court. it's been a long journey here for the last 3 1/2 years, and i think we're all greatly encouraged that we are within a few months of a final decision on this terribly important case. i think the most remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to

defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. all that was said in there was that this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as 0 mowsed to the federal government, but it is a federal constitution that we have, and it is a federal constitution that guarantees fundamental rights to every citizen in every state. so when we are now down simply to the question of how do you establish marriage quality, i think you can see how far we've come in the last few years. >> you're going to hear in a moment from chris and sandy and jeff and paul, who have been at the beginning of this case right up to now. they are the people about whom this case is -- for whom this case is about. they and others like them in california and throughout the united states. their right to be treated with respect and dignity and equality

under the law in california and throughout the united states. i think one of the most important thing that happened today was the fact that the american people were listening to the argument, and as david was saying, the other side, no one really offered a defense to the awful discrimination that took place when gay and lesbian citizens are not denied the right given to everyone else to have their family relationship recognized and respected equally. now everybody, starting later this afternoon, people are going to be able to listen to these arguments and decide for themselves. we are confident where the american people are going with this. we don't know for sure what the united states supreme court is going to do, but we're very, very gratified that they listened, they heard, they ask hard questions, and there's no denying where the right is. we hope the supreme court will come out in that way when they make this decision in june.

>> based on the questions -- if you face the cameras, based on the questions, do you feel confident the court is ready to make a sweeping ruling in this case? >> based upon the questions that the justices asked, i have no idea. the court has several ways to decide this case from a very broad, sweeping conclusion with respect to the rights of our citizens in this country to a narrower ruling that would be limited basically to california. the court never gives you an idea how they're going to decide it. they didn't today. they obviously read the briefs. they care about the issues, and then we'll see what the court decides. we'll answer some -- david and i will answer some more questions, but i want everyone to hear from the individuals for whom this case is about. the real people, sandy and chris and jeff and paul, who have been just everyone's hero right from the beginning of this case. and we're just in love with them, and we're so humbled by

the fact we get to speak for them in the united states supreme court. >> i'm chris perry, plaintiff in the case you just heard in the supreme court. in this country, as children, we learn that there is a founding principle that all men and women are created equal. and we want this equality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately, with the passage of proposition 8, we learned there are a group of people in california who are not being treated equally, and that was recognized by a federal court and the ninth circuit court. we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated, and equality is restored to the state of california. >> hi. i'm sandy, and i, like all

americans, i believe in the k equality. i also believe in our judicial system, and i have great faith in it. more than anything, i believe in love. proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people. it hurts gays and lesbians in california, and it hurts the children we're raising, and it does so for no good reason. it is our hope that we can move forward and remove this harm from society so that gays and lesbians in california can go back to their lives living equally alongside their neighbors with the same rights and protections as everyone else. thank you all very much. >> hi. my name is paul katami, and for me, from the beginning, this case has been about securing the right to marry the person that i love and also having the equal access to the most important relationship that i know in life, and that's marriage. so i simply look forward to the day where i can be married to the person i love and start a family like chris and sandy

have. it's as simple as that. it's our constitutional right, and i cannot wait to start my family with jeff. >> hello. i'm jeff cerilzarrillo. we're so pleased to present our case to the united states supreme court today. it's been the dull minutaticulm long journey, and we're so thankful for ted olson and david boies. we're really looking forward to the court's decision. thank you. >> now sandy and i would like to introduce you to our sons, two of our sons, spencer and elliott perry. >> hello. my name is spencer perry. this is my twin brother elliott perry. we're two of chris and sandy's very, very proud sons. on behalf of myself and my twin brother, i just want to say how incredibly proud we are of our

parents. we love them. we love our family, and we look forward to the day when we will be treated equally just like our neighbor's families. thank you so much. >> you're listening there to ted olson and david boies, who are the attorneys who were arguing in front of the supreme court today, the plaintiffs there who are trying to have the ban, the proposition 8 ban in california struck down. speaking. chris and sandy showing up with their two twin sons there, talking about what it means to them as a family. paul and jeff talking about what it means to them for their family. and just reminding everybody that california for a brief period of time allowed marriage equality before taking that right away. now the big question before the court is deciding whether or not there is harm inflicted on the state of california by lifting that ban. as we heard from the lawyers, boies and olson, you heard there

from ted, who's speaking now, that based on the questions that were asked inside the court from the justices, he had no idea whether a sweeping ruling was going to be coming, whether this was going to be something broad for the country or just something very narrow to the state of california. that's the hrc president right there, chad griffin, who's addressing the crowd now as well. i want to talk to two supporters outside the court today, baltimore ravens linebacker and civil rights activist brendan ayanbadejo, along with fellow athletes. along with brendan is former bishop lgbt rights activist, reverend eugene robinson, who spoke on the mall and pushing leaders to support the issue of marriage equality. >> gentlemen, i just want to show everybody, because you both had the opportunity to speak earlier outside the supreme court steps, and i just want to play that for everybody.

>> luckily, i'm a child of the '70s. i'm a testament to progress. i'm a testament that things are changing. in the end, someone is always going to win the game. >> if you've got kids, tell them you were here for them today, then get up tomorrow thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of history and committed to the journey forward, however long it takes, and wherever it may lead. >> brendan, you're a child of the '70s. you come from a multiracial family, a child that was able to come into the world because of loving versus virginia. >> do you think that that same argument. should be. >> the government is trying to dictate who we can love and whom we can marry when actually it's a fundamental right for the constitution.

understand. >>ed a god is showing up in our relationships and our families and more and more americans, indeed a majority across all faith traditions are supportive of the right to marry. >> the opposition, though, remains, maintains that it is not the time for marriage

equality. brendan, i know you had a chance this weekend to go on "face the nation." tony perkins of the family research council appeared this issue to your recent super bowl win. i just want to play what he said. >> 30 states, eight additional states have the definition of natural marriage into their statutes. so we're far from being at a point where america has embraced same-sex marriage. if you look at it you know, brendan, they won the super bowl by three points. we're at 30 to i think two states where the people have actually voted on marriage. that's a pretty widespread. >> brendan, i want to ask you, you never got a chance to respond to that. do you think that this really needs to be a states rights issue? do you think that the majority should be voting on minority civil rights? >> no, not at all. it shouldn't be voted on by even the people this is actually something that's guaranteed under the constitution. but look at the last two states that did take it to vote. those two states passed the

marriage equality and if you look at the polls out, the majority of americans are voting for marriage equality. not only do we have the majority of the people and states are voting for it we believe it's not an opinion, equal rights are not up to someone's opinion or a vote. this is a right guaranteed under the constitution. >> bishop in the "washington post" you write that the if today's court cared of being on the right side of history, they would consider that a couple married in massachusetts must be married in montana and mississippi. but this isn't that kind of court i'm afraid. do you think based on the questions asked inside the courtroom, do you think in regards to prop 8, that the court might not come back with wide-sweeping, very narrow, if at all? >> regardless of what the court does, how sweeping or not, it will be a step forward. i'm absolutely confident of that. and what tony perkins doesn't want to remind you of, is that all of the momentum is on the side of justice, and equality.

and we are moving forward, and more and more americans see marriage equality as inevitable. and so this momentum is not going to slow down. no matter what the ruling is. it will be a step in the right direction and we will keep taking every step we need until marriage equality is a reality in this nation. >> the reverend gene robinson and the baltimore ravens champ brendan. i'm see you back tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern. the supreme court is taking up the defense of marriage act. joining me tomorrow, former rnc chairman, ken mehlman, new york city council member and mayoral candidate, christine quinn and charlie morgan, son of the late lgtblo activist, joy morgan. and lobster tacos. come in now and sea food differently.

now, buy one lobsterfest entree and get one 1/2 off with a coupon at redlobster.com. now, buy one lobsterfest entree and get one 1/2 off [ dog ] we found it together.upbeat ] on a walk, walk, walk. love to walk. yeah, we found that wonderful thing. and you smiled. and threw it. and i decided i would never, ever leave it anywhere. because that wonderful, bouncy, roll-around thing... had made you play. and that... had made you smile. [ announcer ] beneful. play. it's good for you.

restrictions."