entire day with prince harry. believe me nobody will get naked if i'm spending the entire day with them. i think i can assure the people of jersey of that. i've met the convene before. she knows she can trust her beloved grandson with the governor of the state of new jersey. >> the two of you will be on a t-shirt? >> no question. i think that would be one of the hosest selling t-shirts of the summer jersey shore t-shirts. me and prince harry. indeed. good day, i'm luke russert, live in washington, d.c. andrea is traveling with secretary kerry. day 2 for gay marriage. this time the justices will weigh whether same-sex marriage couples are entitled to federal benefits. nbc's justice correspondent pete williams is at the supreme court. going through the reports, it seems there's sort of an attack line against doma from a states' right perspective and gay rights

perspective from the justices. >> reporter: this is a very different day from yesterday, where the justices seemed to not be willing to engage in the issue, liking for ways to diminish the size of the propyl case. very different here. the justices do seem to be willing to get to the heart of the matter here on the question of whether doma is constitutional on two bases, one is whether the federal government has the right to do this, given the fact that congress and the federal golf hats traditionally deferred to the states on the issue of who is married and who is not. secondly whether it's unconstitutional discrimination. all of the court's liberals spoke out strongly against the law. ruth ginsburg said federal benefits are so pervasive in a married couple's life, without this recognition, you have quoted from the house report when doma was passed, quoted from passages that actually

produced an audible gasp in the courtroom when she quoted some of the language expressing moral disapproval for same-sex couples stephen brier said would it make sense for congress to say we're not going to recognize marriages of somebody who doesn't have the right level of residency, or somebody who isn't the right age. in other words he said there's clearly something different about mag the difference here and the federal government refusing to recognize marriage. that leaves the key vote to be justice kennedy. he seemed to be very concerned about a couple aspects of this. about you fact that it's not narrowly focused, not just based on specifically federal interests like taxes. he says it covers 1100 different benefits and programs in the federal government, and he says the government really isn't being neutral here, it's putting its thumb on a scale, it's even saying that couples in states that do allow same-sex marriage,

they can't get federal benefits, either, so he seemed to think that it goes beyond the federal government's power. any way you count it, i think you get to at least five votes willing to say that doma is unconstitutional. i have to say the court did spend almost an hour talking about whether they have the authority to hear this case, whether the parties are properly here, and put very simply, luke, the issue is this -- normally if you lose a case in the lower court, you can appeal, but if you win, you can't. the federal government won in the appeals court here. they agree it's unconstitutional. that's what the appeals court said, so there's some question here about whether they have the right to be here, but for technical reasons, i think the court is going to say they do and probably will get to the heart of this case. if i had to predict today, based simply on the oral argument, i would say they're going to strike doma down. >> pete, real quickly, i understand from justice roberts, there are some questions to why the house gop was actually the people taking up the case, not the justice department. can you speak to that a bit? >> reporter: well, look, there

have been a number of conser conservatives who said it's not proper for the justice department to decline to defend a federal law, because that's normally the justice department's job. what the government is saying here is that there's a big exception to that rule, and that's if the president decides that a law is unconstitutional. then they say the tradition has always been that the justice department won't defend the law. that's why the house republicans decided to pick up the charge. >> we thank you so much for joining us. we appreciate it. he heart of the case today is whether same-sex couples married in states that recognized their unions are entitled to the same federal ben futures that opposite-sex couples received. after the hearing, edie windsor, the plaintiff in the case, explained why she believes americans are more accepting now of same-sex marriage. >> people saw that we didn't have horns. people learned that, we were their kids and their cousins, and their friends, all of whom

were coming out for the first time, and i think it just grew to where we were human beings like everybody else. i really think that's what made the change, okay? you guys, i'm talking to you freely, you know. i would have been hiding in a closet ten years ago. >> martha coakley is massachusetts's attorney general. she was inside the court this morning. she joins us now, and i'd like to ask you, attorney general coakley, what was the vibe in the room in terms 6 the idea of states' rights. yew state was one of the first to allow same-sex marriage. did you sort of pick that up from some of the more conservative justices? >> yes. we were the first state to allow it. we were the first attorney general's office to challenge doma, and i think you heard in the questions today, and the arguments, of course, this is about the plaintiff from new york, but it was about much more than that. it was about the 1100

restrictions on the rights of same-sex couples, we've had that history now for almost ten years in massachusetts. i think the focus and questions for many of the judges was around the impact on the lives of people, whether they are veterans, whether they are looking for social security. the tenor, i think, was very interested in getting to what the impact is, not just on one plaintiff in this case, which of course is important, but what the impact is on same-sex couples, it can larry in massachusetts where we allow it already. >> one interesting aspect is section 3 of doma, which periods squarely to the federal benefits and whether there's a federal argument here. i'm interested on your take, for example, let's say this is struck down. immediately what we would see is massachusetts, okay, that state would allow same-sex marriage, we could see federal benefits for those couples, but not necessarily required that a massachusetts seismic seismic marriage by honored in a state like mississippi.

how do you see this moving forward? our question was a limited question, if a state like massachusetts allows for that marriage, can the federal government impose a different definition? that federalism question, can the federal government really do this, was argued much more extensively in our briefs and arguments, i think it was a real question that was encouraging. i too think based upon though we don't like to read the tea leaves, i think there was a very good chance that there are enough votes to strike down doma, which will allow in massachusetts and hopefully across the country, states to recognize this is a question of basic fairness for people and

the speed with which this is changes, even justice roberts noticed the seed change, i think everyone recognizes this as important issue. we've seen in massachusetts there's no down side to it. we hope doma will be struck down, and we have more hope that the country has seen in this country, whether the supreme court sees it or not, that this is an issue of basic fairness. lastly, i'll just ask you, from a political perspective, do you see it now as a benchmark of democratic party politics, that one has to be in favor of same-sex marriage? it seems that new senators are moving over every minute. >> i would hope so, both for democrats and republicans, that this issue is not about politics so much as it is about what we believe in this country about basic fairness, about not discriminating.

it's so clear from our experience in massachusetts, and frankly from those who are more conservative, and looking at the fundamental basis in marriage, in a ways that two people commit to each other, they commit to their the building block on which we believe we get stable communities. how ironic now that everybody is recognizing that this is good for everybody, for same-sex marriages, for the communities, for the children in those marriages, and i think the public is going to see that probably sooner than the supreme court, but we're going to stay looking for that decision in june. >> attorney general from massachusetts, martha coakley, thanks so much for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you, luke. in today's "daily fix" it's all about the politics of culture. joining me now is chris cillizza, msnbc contributor and managing editor of postpolitics.com. chris, it seems amazing that everything old is new again. we're right back with the intensity of the culture war, will be like we saw in the '90s.

it seems to me on this issue, to piggyback what i was talking about, kay hagen moving in this direction, john tester moving in this direction, we are now officially seeing this evolution of the democratic party where same-sex marriage is becoming a centerpiece. >> yeah, look, i think action luke, you're exactly right. barack obama's move from civil unions in 2008, to supporting same-sex marriage by 2012, i think pressed what we're seeing now. it's now sort of 9 default or the rapidly becoming the default position testify democratic elected officials in most places in this country to be for same-sex marriage. look, it is a fact of politics and politicians that they tend to wait until public opinion is overwhelm dpli in favor or opposed to a certain thing before saying, okay, inl for or against a certain thing. what you've seen is critical mass, i think, over the last, you know, 48 to 72 hours, where the john testers of the world

from montana, a conservative state, reelected in 2012, kay hagen you mentioned, north carolina democratic senator up for reelection in 2014 in a swing state. they now feel as though it's incumbent on them to get on board with supporting same-sex marriage. so it's remarkable the speed at which this has moved. >> another issue we saw play out during the 2012 campaign, chris, is this new restrictions on abortion moving in a lot of states. we have a map right up here. you've seen since 2011, nine states have moved in that direction, but specifically this law in north dakota, which recently was just passed, the governor said this, though the likelihood of this measure survivors a court challenge remains in question, this is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by the state legislature to discover the boundaries of roe v. wade, a politician saying

we're trying to get it -- this could have huge ramifications politically if the supreme court agrees to hear this case over the next year, two years possibly, just in so many different races. >> sure, no question. i would say, you know, you look at those states -- i was looking at the map just now, those states are eight or nine of the most conservative states in terms of their voting patterns. i don't think it's any huge surprise those are the places we are seems movement to restrict abortion rights. at the same time i think it's fascinating where you have same-sex marriage, the position -- the sort of de facto position is clearly moving from center right, which is civil unions, to center left, which same-sex marriage. at the same time, in a lot of these states, abortion is moving at least in theory in the other direction. now, that's not nationally, obviously in california or new york, or illinois, you -- it

tells a different story, but it feels like they're moving in opposite directions, at least legislatively and legally at the moment. >> who would have thought in the spring of 2013, we would be talking about a more liberal america on same-sex marriage and immigration, and a more conservative one on contraception and abortion. >> very quickly, luke, the whole prop 8 fight, remember started in california, one of the two other three most liberal states in the country. so it just shows you how quickly, you know -- >> only in america, my friend. >> remarkable. >> chris cillizza, "the washington post," thanks so much. we appreciate it. >> sure. next, a postcard from paris, andrea mitchell on john kerry's last stop. she didn't forget about us. and general petraeus starts his comeback tour. this is "andrea mitchell reports," only on msnbc. zap technology.

departure. hertz gold plus rewards also offers ereturn-- our fastest way to return your car. just note your mileage and zap ! you're outta there ! we'll e-mail your receipt in a flash, too. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

constipated? yeah. mm. some laxatives like dulcolax can cause cramps. but phillips' caplets don't. they have magnesium. for effective relief of occasional constipation. thanks. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life.

andrea brings us this report from paris. >> hi, luke, secretary kerry wraps up this marathon trip, five kins in ten days, plus the palestinian territories, and here we are in paris. in paris, they are talking about a lot of the same issues he was addressing throughout the trip. there's real optimism from this trip that the secretary and before that president obama in the middle east have really been able to make some progress, getting israel and turkey back together, the possibility of a restart of middle east peace talks between israel and the palestinians. then, of course, second tear

kerry was in afghanistan, and he has real hope they have gotten past the friction with president karzai there, and got some public promises, and probably better promises in private, that karzai is committed to free election as he leaves in power. there was less progress in iraq, the big question there is prime minister malaki's refusal to stop helping iran rearm syria. syria, of course, is the biggest challenge. the threat discussed here in paris, i'm told, with french officials, the threat of chemical weapons, and the french and british and other allies wanting the u.s. to join them, all of them to start openingly arming the rebels. there's a lot of challenges still ahead, but i have to say that secretary kerr i concludes this trip with a lot of optimism and hope about the promise of

progress, and realistic assessments of the trouble, the problems, the challenges that lie ahead. back to you, luke. see you in washington tomorrow. and andrea's traveling home safely. next defending doma with tony perkins from the family research council. plus heightened rhetoric from north korea, threat in this u.s. military bases. our report from the pentagon ahead, do not go anyway. check us out. victor! i got your campbell's chunky soup.

mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. you know the giants don't have a mascot right mom? [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. who checks all the weekly ads to get the best sale prices. let me ask you, do you think you can get the same great prices here with walmart's low price guarantee? let's try! let's go. i've got a full house to impress. well, you better ham it up! look at this price! [ laughs ] that's awesome! what's for easter desert? oh, sugar cookies! my son's helping this year. look at that! hey! there's my brand. that's your ad. walmart will match that price at the register. really? yeah! you don't even have to have the ad with you. what?! i'm serious. nice! that's the walmart low price guarantee backed by ad match! bring your last grocery receipt to walmart, compare the prices. you'll see for yourself! thatyou know it evenow price guarafter all these years.ch!

but your erectile dysfunction - you know,that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

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 ] ♪ as the justices hear argument, supporters on both sides are rallies outside the court. cluz in those call for repeal are some conservatives showing that change in public opinion on this issue. >> as a conservative, i will tell you that doma reeks of big government. it treads on individual rights, it treads on the rights of families, but we won't stop

until every single gay and lesbian in america has the right to marry the person they love without big government getting in the way. joining me now, tony perkins, president of the family research council, one of the biggest opponents of same-sex marriage. mr. perkins welcome to the show. >> good afternoon, luke. >> it seems that the court is in position to possibly strike down doma. or some based on the states' rights arguments. i have a question for you. do you agree -- what is your problem with them knocking down the states' rights argument? >> well, there's really two components of doma, the federal defense of marriage act. one for federal purposes, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but it 30 states have now done into their state constitutions, and eight through their statutes. so it also protects the states

to be self-determining as it pertains to marriage. it's not all about the federal government. >> so do you have a problem, then with the state of massachusetts being allowed to have its views on same-sex marriage as well as the state of mississippi. but -- and the states where it's allowed the federal benefits to kick in. to opposite-section couples to occur as well? >> the question is, what we have in place, what would be the preference? i think when you look at marriage as a whole, natural marriage, the union of a man and a woman is the preference. when you look at the amount of social science research that we have amassed over the last several decades, it's clear that kits do best with a mom and dad. even with yesterday's argument with prop eight. justice alito made the point this is newer than the internet and cell phones. we need to move slowly on this.

the evidence does not suggest that children do beth with just two parents or three parents. the evidence says a mom and a dad. from a public policy standpoint, our preference is that children have a mom and a dat. now, to where we are today and this debate, that states have the right to do what they have done, 30 states have placed marriage, the natural definition, the federal government should remember that. >> yes, but there are studies also, especially from the american academy of pediatrics which suggests that having a two-person home, even if its a same-sex couple is actually beneficial for children, so there are questions about your facts on that question. i would like to ask you, though -- >> well, but that's -- >> let me finish. >> it's interesting they failed to acknowledge one of the most widespread deep surveys on that that mar regneres did out of texas, they completely ignored that. >> on the surveying there was questions about funding, as well

as the questioning methods, and we can have that debate at another time. what do you fear the most about a couple bringing -- a same-sex couple being together for over 60 years as we saw in the windsor case. what do you fear about them getting the same federal benefits for their marriage as an opposite-sex couple would? >> i don't fear anything. the question is, as you said this interview up -- >> why are you opposed? >> as you set up this package interview, people ought to be able to marry who they love. if love becomes a definition of what the boundaries of marriage are, how do we define that going forward? what if someone wants to immigrate to this country from a country that allows multiple spouses. right now they can't immigrate with the spouses, but if the parameter are simply love, how do we prohibit them from coming into this country? if it's all about just love, as it's being used, where do we set

the lines? >> so you equate homosexuality with polygamy. >> no, that's not the argument. the argument is being made by those wants to redefine marriage saying it's all based on love. isn't that the argument they're using? >> all right. >> if that's the case, where you do you draw the boundaries? that's all i'm asking. >> tony perkins of the family research counsel 8, we appreciate you sharing your views. thank you. >> all right. i guess -- david petraeus makes his -- hiring our heroes, a unique job fair. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] i've seen incredible things.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore. former cia director david petraeus is back in the spotlight. the retired four-star general making his first public comments since disclosing.

>> i know that i can never fully assuage the pain that i inflicted though those closest to me. i can, however, try to move forward in a manner that is consistent to the values with which -- to which i subscribe before slipping my moorings. jim miklaszewski joins me. mick, this is the comeback extraordinaire? >> that's certainly the way it appears, at least the first step. privately he has been working with a number of military-related agencies, and on issues, working with vets and the disabled wounded warriors and the like, but this is the first time he spoke publicly since that scandal broke last december. and quite frankly, the fact is that, you know, for somebody who had a stellar 3746 year military

crier and short stint at the cia, his fall was grace was one of the most stunning in washington history. now he's going to try to regain his career and his reputation, too. on a more important topic, north korea, i understand some continued threats from north korea about possible attacks on south korean military bases, even some in the united states. they even cut off another one of those hot lines they have to south korea? >> that's right. over the years, north korea under kim jong-un and before him, his father kim jong-il have made threats like this before, but there's growing concern among some, because of the unpredictability of this new leader, the son of kim jong-il, they consider him to be extremely dangerous, and they're taking a very close look at this. they're so concerned that just last week the u.s. and the south korean government signed a new

military agreement that in the event of any kind of attack by north korea, that the two allies, the u.s. and south korea could work together in a possible counter attack. so people are taking this very seriously. they see no imminent threat. they see no indications from the south koreans that they are actually preparing to stage any attacks, but nevertheless everybody is taking this threat seriously and they're on a high aall right of watch, at least. jim mickle shells can i from the pentagon, we appreciate it. thank you so much. >> okay, luke. there was a jobs for our heroes job fair today, an effort to help veterans and spouses find jobs. as meeting the goal of hiring 1,000 veterans, the parent key of msnbc is pledging to hire -- nbc's richard liu joins joins us where the job fair just wrapped

up. richard, a lot of need things going on today. i remember some app.s specifically to help veterans get jobs. it's all about placing them in a job which best suits the skills they learned in the military career. >> reporter: yeah, luke, the objective is to try to reach 500,000 jobs. so far the program has been successful at 100,000. the challenge is this cultural whiplash. the medal of honor recipient dakota meyer describes it for us. >> we were successful in the military, built our whole life. we get out in the civilian life and now we can't even get a job? provide for our family? >> reporter: now, what the medal of honor recipient was describing is the difficulty of translating skills from the military to civilian life. what they have is several tools in their digital strategy. this is one of them. this is a resume engine.

you into i have beenly type in what your job is, unit supply specialist, and it pumps out this description in civilian language, not military language, if you will. the other tool is called fast track, another part of the way most think when they come back, let me go back to the place i know, where is my family from? but most jobs as you know are not necessarily where you grew up, so they've laid out this map where describes where all the jobs are, and then -- this is portland, oregon, which has over 1300 jobs, and they list them over here. there's also other parts, digital books, they're basically road maps about how to get hired. it gives you the steps you need to know as you come back. this is "everyone serves" this digital e-book, luke, looks at the ways that families knee to reintegrate back into u.s. society and work culture overall. a great day here.

585 religigistrants, it's been good day here. >> can't way to get those 1,000 veterans hired by 2015. a great goal by our company. join us some el he went on to cofound thaining for joining us on the show. >> thanks, luke. >> i was reading an interesting article by david petraeus about what veterans can expect to find in their next line of work. there are some interesting aneck dose, saying i have guys and gals who had folks up to 12, 200 folks serving under them, yet they come back to the united states and they pursue these jobs that are very solo, maybe a security guard or delivery person, into you they don't have the right sore of encouragement to use the organizational skills they have. what can we do to try to bring that out of the returning veterans and say, you know what?

you were a commander of men and women in very difficult circumstances, that's certainly applicable to jobs here at home. >> for officers it's different. when you have a lot of young officers, platoon leaders, company commanders, there's a lot of headhunters that come after you. in the '90s when the economy was good, it was gutting the officers corps, but 918 to 24-year-old bracket, is more of the enlisted kits, they're very exposed, maybe they went to war for one year and come home and the job is not there, organized labor has been big. the united association does things like veterans in plumbing and the building trades have helmets to hardhats, but a lot of them they solely relied on, police officers, are under attack right now. for the officers they're in a different play than the enlisted kids of the that's like things like the g.i. bill were so important. >> let's talk about the enlisted

kids. you join up, fight for your country at age 17, 18, 19, you do a few tours. what awaits you here? when my conversations i have with young veterans, i'm always amazed that there isn't -- there aren't adequate programs to the levels needed. that's a big problem, how to process thinks folks through the system and get them in the best place they can be. >> there is no real system, you know, our military spends a lot of money recruiting people, but there's something called acap when you leave the army. they brief you on what's out there for you, but there is no employment agency when you leave the military. you know, when you talk about unemployment issues, you have to talk about jobs training. that's why the g.i. bill was so important, but there are 22 members of the senate that voted against the 20th century g.i. bill, so you need to give them the skills to be acquired. not everyone is meant to go to college, so for guard members and reservists, they're not just

in for four years and leave. they go to war, come home for three years, and then go to war again. what are the industries conducive to this? a lot of those were public sector industries, which are continually under attack. it's going to get worse, luke. when we cut the size of the army here, you'll have more people going out into the public works space. lastly, what can average people do watching this program who have a soft spot for the military and the sacrifice made, very much patriotic, saying what can we do at a basic level to give assistance here? >> well, i love the program that you guys are running, just watching the lead-in where it talks about jobs in the area. i think it's important for the public to understand there's 25% 30% of 18 to 25-year-old veterans are unemployed. so understanding the issue, knowing where there's hiring benefits, the federal government

will give you benefit points based on your service. if you're wounded you get like a ten-point bonus towards your ability to be hired. so i think it's understanding in your community where the jobs are and what the benefits are. most jobs are found because you know someone who works at the plant or you know someone who works in the company and nose the veterans and linking people up and what they can bring to the table, which is dedication, hard work, and looking out for your neighbors. >> try to continue that camarader camaraderie. jon soltz, thank you so much. >> thanks. insiding from the court as the justices take up the defense of marriage act. [ female announcer ] he could be your soulmate. but first you've got to get him to say, "hello." new crest 3d white arctic fresh toothpaste. use it with these 3d white products, and whiten your teeth in just 2 days. new crest 3d white toothpaste. life opens up when you do.

new crest 3d white toothpaste. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. doma appears to be on shaky ground after rigorous questions by the justices this morning. joining mess it "time" magazine's washington correspondent, and "the washington post's"ered torrie page write jonathan capehart,

also a msnbc contributor. gentlemen, welcome. -- justice kennedy -- saying that the way in which doma periods to all individuals who are involved in same-sex marriages and preventing them from getting benefits has swung them around like a blunt instrument. there's a combination of almost states' rights and gay rights from anthony kennedy. >> it was interesting. he as one point, in answering the question of stand iing he sd there's 1100 laws at the federal level affected by the definition, and that makes the

federal government, he said, deeply intertwined. that's a theme over time kennedy has returned to the effect of government, and it was clearly very much in the forefront of his mind today. >> and jonathan, on the political fallout, one thing we've all taken note of, the republicans that have brought this forward to the supreme court, specifically john boehner, eric cantor and mccarthy have not wanted to touch it publicly. quote slush a law's constitutionality is determined courts, not by the department of justice. as long as the obama administration refuses to exercise its responsibility, we will. that's from mr. steele right there. this idea that we're not going after this on a gay rights issue, this is only a constitutionality issue, which is we don't like the fact that the doj is not enforcing this and the president is trying to circumstance come vent the

legislative branch. >> it's a process argument, which is an incredible change, an incredible shift in this sure. remember in the 2004 election. bans were -- this presidential year, the past election. gale and lesbian issues didn't even come up. so the idea that, you know, the other republican leadership, the only statement they can come up with is that the federal government -- the obama administration should be defending this law, doing so with a process argument, rather than tries to talks about this from some sort of moral or policy vantage point is rather significant. >> lastly -- yeah, jump? >> i just wanted to jump in on that. there was a ton of back and forth in the court between the justices and the lawyers about the role of the executive branch

and congress, but ultimately in the background, you picked up little comments by the justices that they knew at the bottom this was about a woman who had been in a relationship with another woman for 40 years, and who at the end of the day when that partner died, was going to be out $300,000 because of the federal definition of marriage, because she was being hit with the estate tax. there were a number of moments where the justices returns to that fact to sort of show for all the argument about separation of powers and other issues, they understood there was a human story in this particular case. >> jonathan, in terms of the human story, that is the one thing we're seeing is influencing folks politically on the democratic side. kay hagen, john tester, these are red-state democrats, making the move on same-sex marriage, which i don't think anyone would have predicted even a years ago.

>> that just goes to show you how political potent or nonpotent taking a stance on same-sex marriage is, at least on the democratic side of the aisle. right now so far the only sitting republican center to come out in favor of marriage equality is senator rob portman of ohio, and there don't seem to be a lot of other reps -- elected republicans in the senate, anyway, willing to follow his later. >> it will be interesting to take a tally of that. lastly to you, how you saw these proceedings play out today, what is your best guess for a decision in june? you think this would be a combination of gale rights and states' rights that brings down doma? >> well, it's kind of a rule of them for those covering the supreme court not to try to draw judgments, because they often go in a very different direction as we've seen. i would say that kennedy's

clearly an important vote on this, i think, and the author of the case that kind of opened the door for marriage rights, the lawrence case, and if one had to make a judgment about where he stood today, one would seem to -- one would conclude he was leaning towards knocking down doma. >> mass i mo, my grandmother, italian grandmother, will probably say something mad at me for butchering your name. i apologize for that. >> no problem. >> jonathan, thanks so much for being on the show today. what political story will make headlines in the next 24 hours? that is next on "andrea mitchell reports." don't go away. did you know more coffee drinkers

prefer the taste of gevalia house blend over the taste of starbucks house blend? not that we like tooting our own horn but... ♪ toot toot. [ male announcer ] find gevalia in the coffee aisle

hi, kill anyone today? >> day ain't over yet. i'm losing you. we're going behind a butte.

>> i've got a special treat. going it make fresh coffee. someone is spooking the cattle. city folk. >> ah, the classic film "city slickers." soon to be replicated on the border today. a new gang is headed there, that's the gang of chuck schumer, michael bennett, as well as jeff flick and john mccain. chris, chuck schumer, checking out border security in arizona. that's so much to go on there. but more importantly, they are moving towards this april 8th deadline of bipartisan agreement on o immigration reform. >> let me first compliment the andrea mitchell report show and you for getting "city slickers" into the show. i'm always hesitant to predict a

b bigbie bipartisan victory because they haven't had many. with the senate campaign going out there, it suggests there is the real possibility here of that comprehensive deal and i would add there's a new republican motive. em top leaders feel they have to get this immigration reform behind them so they can appeal to other hispanics and other cultural issues where they feel they have better footing. >> and the president will use his pulpit, and telemundo will have that also. julie -- sorry, tomorrow at 3:00 p.m., the first female head of the secret service in its over hundred-year history. quite significant especially after the scandal in colombia. >> look, i think it's a great message being sent by the president, making history here. and i would add, let me make a quick plug for a colleague of mine, scott wilson, one of our

great white house reporters broke that yesterday. >> scott wilson. and a shout-out for getting the "city slickers" tape. thanks for being on the show. we appreciate it. that's it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." i'm luke russer. the great andrea mitchell returns tomorrow. among her guest, cecille richards. the great tamron hall is next on "news nation." you have many hats. i saw you this morning. you're here at 2:00 p.m. rock star tamron hall. >> apparently luke is my agent now. i'll call you later. breaking news. audio coming in at any minute from today's supreme court arguments over the defensive marriage act, doma. some say doma may be in trouble.

also, congressman john lewis who passionately fought against doma in 1996 -- >> i will not turn my back on another american. i will not my fellow human being. >> he will join us live for the "news nation" conversation on the supreme court. plus, the fight over the reward money tied to the chris dorner case. a million dollars at stake. but mrs. now a battle over who led police to the man who killed four l.a. officers. it is all coming up next on "news nation." we've all had those moments.

when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership.

would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. "news nation" is breaking news right now. supreme court is releasing audio from today's arguments on the federal defensive marriage act, or doma. the issue before the high court is the law's constitutionality and whether